I collected a few posts of mine going back to November, some pretty good, some, with hindsight, overstated ("Trump dictatorship"), others intentionally provocative ("swaggering, right-wing alpha males"). I selected posts that indicate the bird's eye view, and omitted those that had to do with Trump's history and reliability; I also ordered them into a vaguely narrative form. There are a couple quotes from the man himself interspersed, and one from Stephen Miller, a policy advisor to Trump. You'll have to bear with the lack of context.
It starts to go beyond a case for Trump and into a political world-view - not to sound too pretentious. An underlying tenet, which I should state because others may not agree, is that we owe a debt of gratitude and therefore a definite though not absolute loyalty to the lands that fathered us - even if those lands are mixed up with revolutionary principles and morally degenerate. This is why we should not be indifferent to the demise of the USA, or Canada, or France. I'm convinced this is the Catholic view to take - and it makes it an easier pill to swallow if we remember that many of these are formerly Catholic lands and still bear indelible reminders of a Catholic heritage and even, in an attenuated way, elements of Catholic civilization.
Trump's campaign, and the support he has garnered in the Republican base, have made me question whether both parties are equally irredeemable. It appears that the last few decades of neoconservative republicanism merely veneered over the fundamentally white, Christian, protectionist, and isolationist features of the GOP, which though ultimately falling short of Catholic ideals, do seem worthy of support and cultivation in today's context.
That is the question. Are immigration and globalization and Islam, and just generally bulldozing all PC scruples, etc., of such immediate concern that they can override a weak pro-life platform? Or in other words, do Americans have to work those out first - stop the bleeding, as it were - before turning to the more fundamental moral illnesses? I tend to think yes, but I'm not 100% sure and the situation looks hopeless from most every angle. I don't think that Americans need to ignore their nation's legitimate secular problems (which do have a moral dimension, in the final analysis) and just be single issue voters going to the most pro-life candidate no matter his other faults. I could be wrong.
Trump has yet to inveigh against either abortion or sodomy in a way that inspires great confidence. We know that he opposes them in a nebulous way. The attraction is his strongman pursuit of right-wing populist platforms. Who can doubt that, if necessary, he would deploy sweeping executive orders to see through key campaign promises?
Eight years of anyone else and there may be no right-wing base left to agitate. The human hope, perhaps slim, of revoking the sodomy and abortion decisions in time to prevent the final dissolution of the American people, appears to lie in a Trump dictatorship.
Priority, like causation, can have a vertical and a horizontal sense. If my final priority is to have enough savings to buy a house, the present priority may be to go to bed on time tonight so that I can work hard tomorrow. Similarly, ending abortion is a higher priority than preserving national sovereignty, but the latter has temporal priority.
We already knew that Trump deviates from the truth on some important issues. But the idea has never been that he's worthy of being president, it's that the others, being globalists, are even less worthy.
I put it to you that many Trump supporters have different underlying beliefs than you about the political context we're in. Edward Snowden summed up that belief set fairly well when he characterized the election as "a choice between Trump and Goldman Sachs." Basically, the nominal choices (Cruz, or Trump, or Rubio, or Kasich, Democrat or Republican) are not the real choice, and the real choice is not even between "Trump and Goldman Sachs" but between sovereignty, of which Trump is presently the avatar, and nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr. And what Snowden missed was the third geopolitical player of note: Islam, which has struck a temporary alliance with the globalists against the sovereigntists. What he should have written was "a choice between Trump, Goldman Sachs, and the Caliphate."
What's happening in Europe can lead to its collapse. It's dramatic what (Merkel) has allowed to happen, this flood ... If we don't deal with the situation competently and firmly, then yes, it's the end of Europe.
We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.
The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.
Drumpf and the American people are unworthy, but better than Goldman Sachs and the Caliphate. Those are the political possibilities at present for the West. Nationalism, international socialism, and Islam - nothing else. Significant portions of formerly Christian Europe will be unsafe soon, possibly in a year or two. North America is circling the same drain. Drumpf is now a symbol, European nationalists are shouting his name in defiance of the plotters and schemers in Brussels.
DRUMPF is the only patriotic candidate, the only one who aims to retake and retain US sovereign power from internationalist Jєωs ransacking the middle class (that's you and your children) and inundating the country with Muslims and other violent 3rd world riffraff, as they're doing in Europe. Drumpf is not a saviour but his platforms are the last-ditch resistance to the demographic and economic demise of the West. His election is critical as it will energize the remaining patriotic forces in formerly Christian lands.
:soapbox:
I think a lot of people see him that way [as a so-called chaos candidate] but I think they're wrong. He's a law and order type.
I would also point out a few of his better endorsements, such as Pat Buchanan, Senator Sessions, Joe Arpaio, and Jean-Marie Le Pen. These are seasoned, serious judgments in his favour, which it is reasonable to take into consideration.
He's a doer who has done a lot in his time. He's forceful and gets what he wants, or close to it. It's the same thing that suggests he'll get the wall built and repeal Obamacare and so on. He does things. That's a big part of his appeal vis-a-vis the other candidates.
:detective:
Whether you believe this or not, American sovereignty is a bulwark against the NWO.
I'll do your reductio ad Hitlerum better than it deserves and pen a short rebuttal. If you based yourself on political reality and not on whatever ready-made comparisons appeal to your torpid imagination you'd realize that Hitlerian nationalism of the 1940s is, for better or worse, not possible in the 21st century USA. The cultural, ethnic, and legal contexts are far too different. The burgeoning American nationalism will reflect a far more heterogeneous base of cultures, races, and states eager to defend their own spheres of influence; it will not be racial, neopagan, or totalitarian, but a confederate effort to protect America's sovereignty and reclaim its morale. The precondition for all future Catholic political action in the US is heading off the global governance agenda while yet possible, and no presidential candidate intends to do that except for Drumpf.
The all or nothing style of thinking is sophomoric.
The Church, or what appears to be the Church, has been an advocate of the NWO since the sixties. That's why we're here on CI, after all. The supposed pope even said building a wall against illegal immigrants is "not Christian." In the end the Church will provide the solution to this, but for the moment we must look to other defenses.
The NWO is an internationalist agenda that by definition seeks to dissolve national sovereignty. Obviously then the USA, being a powerful nation-state, is structurally a bulwark against the NWO, if in no other sense. It has played a paradoxical role, being in one way an engine of the NWO, at the elite level, and in another a retardant, in the so-called silent majority.
Double-edged sword is a good way to put it. It should go without saying that the globalist end-state does not involve strong, sovereign nation-states; at a certain point these get in the way, and are phased out via pauperization, immigration, engineered civil turmoil, and enmeshment in transnational agreements and institutions, such as the TPP. At that point it is not anymore the national mind or the national will being debauched, but the national body being devoured.
:boxer:
Official statistics say that 10% of France's overall population is Muslim, and 25% of its adolescent population. I'm told by a French expatriate that the real numbers are significantly higher. The migrant influx is adding and will continue to add many tens of thousands of the worst sort annually, over and above the current growth numbers. They are taking over, it's clear. Let's bear in mind that France has a large nuclear arsenal which the new Muslim overlords would inherit.
It seems inevitable that other Western powers, perhaps a Trump-led coalition, will be forced to militarily intervene within the next decade. If not state-led, and if we are not too hard-pressed in our own countries, we may need independent security forces to support natural allies like Poland, Hungary, and Belgium.
Understand, everyone listening today: There is a point of no return. It is not far away. It is right in front of you. And if you cross it, there is no going back.
https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-saturday-stephen-miller-february-26-2016
It's simple. The project of globalism must be curtailed. Kebab and mystery meat must be deported. Cuckservatism must be eradicated. Or soon we won't have countries anymore. Trump is OK for now. The next generation of swaggering, right-wing alpha males will yield superior political options.
Topic: Graham on Trump (Read 842 times)