August 17, 2016
Ask and ye shall receive.
Ross Douthat, writing in his cuck blog over at the New York Times, published yet another prime example of why the modern GOPe and its pundits have become, and remain, utterly insufferable.
Think of a Donald Trump voter, the kind that various studies have identified as his archetypal backer: a white man without a college education living in a region experiencing economic distress.
What do you see? A new “forgotten man,” ignored by elites in both parties, suffering through socioeconomic dislocations, and turning to Trump because he seems willing to put the working class first? Or a resentful white bigot, lashing back against the transformation of America by rallying around a candidate who promises to make America safe for racism once again?
You’re allowed to answer “both, depending.” But where to lay the emphasis has divided liberals and conservatives against one another.
Conservatives who are generally happy with the Republican Party’s status quo, the mix of policies that Trump has ranged himself against, have stressed his voters’ baser proclivities and passions, dismissing them as bigots who are really the authors of their own unhappy fates.
Conservatives who favor a populist shift in how the G.O.P. approaches issues like taxes or transfer programs have stressed the ways in which Reaganite Republicanism has failed the working class, while urging a conservative politics of solidarity that borrows at least something from the wreck of Trumpism.
Likewise on the left: The more content you are with a liberalism in which social issues provide most of the Democratic Party’s energy, the more likely you’ll be to crack wise on Twitter — “a lot of economic anxiety here!” — every time Trump or one of his hangers-on or supporters makes a xenophobic foray.
Alternatively, the more you favor a left-wing politics that stresses economic forces above all else, the more you’ll cast Trump’s blue collar support as the bitter fruit of the Democratic Party’s turn to neoliberalism, and argue that social democracy rather than shaming and shunning is the cure for right-wing populism.
My sympathies are with the second group in both debates — as a partisan of a more solidaristic conservatism, and as an outsider who prefers the old left’s class politics to the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today.
First, keep in mind who cuckbutt is appealing to. Liberal and socialist readers and the anti-White establishment.
These are people who think the Jew York Times is still, and always has been, a respectable source of journalistic talent. His opinion piece hits on a major leftist talking point right off the bat; people who support Trump and his policies simply suffer from a lack of (((education))). He’s also appealing to a more broad categorization of Trump and true conservative policies which focus on the economic experiences and outlooks of those people whom Trump counts among his supporters.
Appealing to the now-venerated Franklin D. Roosevelt policies of the New Deal (by inferring his reference to ‘new forgotten man’) Douthat invokes a perspective he thinks will resonate with his readership and make his empty rhetoric and analysis palatable to the communist traitors reading the New York Times. The central claim Doutwat invokes is of Trump supporters’ duality composition as perceived by their critics on the Left and Right. Presumptuously, and laughably, he also gives their critics permission to see both perspectives as holding merit.
By highlighting Trump supporters’ critics on the GOPe ‘conservative’ right who favor the status quo (i.e. Jewish neocons and cuckservatives) he claims their criticisms of Trump’s supporters derive from an observation of ‘his voters’ baser proclivities and passions.‘ Meaning, people not satisfied with their own racial dispossession and the theft of their country and their children’s future are somehow reverting to a more savage and barbarous human nature – as if worry and fear for one’s own legacy and the welfare of their children is misplaced.
It must be nice to have your rent paid for by White working class racists.
I have to ask – what the hell kind of ‘solidaristic conservatism’ is Doutwat subscribing to where he ‘prefers the old left’s class politics to the pseudo-cosmopolitanism of elite liberalism today’? The question is rhetorical, obviously. What Doutwat is really saying is he dislikes modern cultural Marxism and prefers classical, class based, Marxism because cultural Marxism has this nasty tendency to wake up the goyim to their own externally and internally orchestrated demise.
More importantly, Doutwat is trying to maintain the traditional dichotomy between the Left-Right divide by insisting economic and social issues are distinct when in fact they’re quite the opposite and intrinsically linked to one another. Social political warfare waged by the Left against White Americans informs and affects economic issues and vice versa.
But it’s also important for partisans of socioeconomic solidarity, whether right wing or left wing, to recognize that racial and economic grievances can’t always be separated, and that a politics of ethnic competition is an unfortunately common state of political affairs.
This quote is probably one of the most important pieces of his entire article. It presents the (intentional) failure of the GOP to recognize the dynamics of the last sixty years of Jewish-shaped political warfare and the landscape with which it has been played out on. A ‘politics of ethnic competition’ is the only state of political affairs.
Consider the trajectory of liberalism. In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal deliberately excluded blacks from certain benefits and job programs. This was discrimination, but it was also patronage: It was a time when “affirmative action was white,” to borrow from the historian Ira Katznelson, lifting white workers at the expense of African-Americans.
If it wasn’t apparent before that Doutwat is trying to frame his article in a manner acceptable to his socialist readership the above reference to FDR puts it on plain display. Essentially, he’s asking permission to be listened to and taken seriously by his readers by appealing to one of their own icons of progress and liberalism.
The more important observation here is that FDR’s catering to Whites in the 1930’s was somehow objectionable by referencing the policies, and indeed the overall project, of the New Deal as being discriminatory and a form of ‘patronage’. Further, the idea that the New Deal was somehow affirmative action for Whites is laughable and incoherent. Affirmative action is intended to disregard race in hiring practices which is something FDR and his New Deal were explicitly doing the opposite. Of course, this was intentional because Roosevelt knew by discriminating against Blacks (an extreme minority in the country) in favor of the dominant citizen demographic of the US he was effectively creating a positive feedback loop whereby New Deal policies would intentionally cause Blacks to be passed over in favor of Whites (no issue there) and then cause Blacks to enroll in New Deal programs.
The rest of the article is Doutwat attempting to deny Whites their specific brand of identity politics while ignoring the fact that the entire US political machine exists solely to enfranchise non-White minority groups along racial identity lines in an effort to dispossess Whites. Liberalism is anti-White and that’s what Doutwat can’t say and wouldn’t say were he able to. This is also why Trump is the White candidate and why cucks like Doutwat have been relegated to the cuck shed.
The ethnic patronage of FDR’s new deal is no different from the ethnic patronage of the modern democratic party with the exception that the former was explicitly White (but only out of necessity) while the latter is entirely motivated and powered by non-White patronage.
The only way White identity politics will be overcome is when every last White American on the contiguous United States lies dead or prostrated before the unholy Jewish machine of globalism and mono-racial enslavement to Jewish interests.