What Would “Winning” Look Like?

 



Long before my firsthand, financially challenging experience arm-wrestling with SJWs, I’d been shoulder-checking leftoid beta-male faggotry on my blog since the summer of 2001.



And before that, I’d been hearing about “the death of political correctness” ever since the day it came home from the hospital. Because I was at the baby shower.



Back then, in the late 1980s, SJWs were mostly British, and were
referred to disparagingly as “the loony left”—hideous, humorless
weirdos—even by leftists I worked and lived with.



The contagion spread to America, but no worries, because the satirical film PCU came out and people were like, “Look! We’re mocking them! They’re toast!”



That was twenty years ago.





Around that time, Nick DiPaolo won some Best Young Comic award and
was repeatedly assured he was going to be the Next Big Thing because he
was so politically incorrect and “people are dying for someone to take
that on.” Now, I LOVE DiPaolo with all my heart (and MasterCard), but, well, I hear he’s playing Hilarities in Trenton this weekend. Sometimes his liberal superstar pals Amy Schumer and Louis C.K. toss him guest spots on their award-winning TV shows.



I could go on: Tough Crowd, anyone? Howard Stern? “South Park conservatives”?



We have been “winning” since the beginning, and yet we keep losing.



And what would “winning” look like?



Take my home province: Our lesbian premier has mandated a new sex-ed curriculum that was co-written by a convicted pedophile and teaches kids, among other things, that there are six genders, not two. Brown and yellow parents protested
again and again. The white premier dismissed them as “bigots.” So did
the all-powerful teachers’ union and the other civil servants who got
the lesbian premier elected, and will do so next time around.



So: How does having 100,000 Twitter followers, and plenty of fun, fix something like this?



Can we really overthrow society’s self-selecting, multigenerational
“progressive” elite—the one that runs the government, education,
entertainment, and even the military—or should we focus on constructing a semi-underground counterculture, encompassing everything from homeschooling to self-defense?



And if so, does that turn us into the “safe spacers” we rightly loathe?



I’m also concerned about the emphasis on “cool.”



I’m as susceptible to its allure as anyone, but at bottom, “cool” is
not a Christian, or even a classical, virtue, and it’s led many astray.
Remember: Alger Hiss was the “cool” one, not Whittaker Chambers. Ditto
Gloria Steinem vs. Phyllis Schlafly.



Yes, I know: I’m old and even when I was young, I was never sexy and
hip. Frankly, I’m allergic to fun. Gavin and Milo’s intermittent
sex-and-drugs talk gave me hives.



But I’m also not a joiner, so this isn’t about me wanting to be one of the “cool” kids.



What I am is a contrarian, even among the contrarians.



So I’m compelled to ask again:



What would “winning” look like? Not just “leading the race,” but after “crossing the finish line”?



What Would “Winning” Look Like? (Besides Having “Great Hair”?) - Taki's Magazine

7 Compelling Stories Hollywood Won't Touch

Ask anyone connected to Hollywood and they'll tell you the same thing.

Tell a great story.


Simple. Straightforward.


That’s certainly true … to an extent. Certain stories are far more appealing to Hollywood

screenwriters than others.


Sometimes we get competing projects on the same theme. Remember the “dueling asteroid” films from the 1990s? Or how studios raced to make Janis Joplin biopics … until no actual movie materialized?


There are other reasons why some stories don’t grab screenwriters’
imaginations. Their content is, shall we say, inconvenient to their
ideology.


Consider the following seven subjects. Each packs a storytelling
wallop. Drama. Tension. Scandal. Intrigue. Pain. Loss. Yet here’s
betting we won’t see a feature on these true stories any time soon.


They don’t fit the liberal narrative. Not one bit.



7 Compelling Stories Hollywood Won't Touch - Hollywood in Toto

Four Reasons Trump Won, think Jesse Ventura

“There are any number of explanations for what Trump is bringing out in the electorate. But the most compelling explanation also, curiously, gets the shortest shrift: He’s a celebrity candidate, and celebrity candidates break election models. Jesse Ventura in Minnesota, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California: these people bring out folks who don’t normally vote. In a low-turnout election, or a badly divided field, that’s enough to turn things in their favor. Celebrity candidate voters aren’t normal voters. Normal voters care more about policy than normal non-voters, care more about party identification, care more about ideology. Simply trying to transfer analysis of normal voters over onto the new people that celebrity candidates bring out to the polls doesn’t work very well, because you’re searching madly for clues to things that aren’t really there. This is why such candidates often surprise political scientists by winning.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-05-04/the-four-horsemen-of-the-republican-apocalypse

Rush: I’ve got a hunch that Trump is headed for a landslide over Hillary

  here’s a pair of headlines via the Federalist’s David Harsanyi. One from 2008:





The other from 2012:





Which brings us to today. Third time’s the charm:

Let me give you one little thing: My instinctive feeling
right now is that Trump is gonna win, beat Hillary badly, that it could
be landslide proportions…


If you follow the news, it’s clear Bernie Sanders is winning (it
seems like) every primary the past month. And accompanying every Bernie
Sanders victory story is the fact that he won nothing, that Hillary
gets the delegates. So there’s just as many — or proportionally just as
many — agitated Democrats. You add up people supporting Bernie Sanders
to people supporting Donald Trump, and the people that supported Ted
Cruz.


You add up those voters — and if they all vote, too, Hillary Clinton
doesn’t have a prayer. I don’t care about the Electoral College. I
don’t care about anything else. Just like in terms of the people that
are fed up with Washington and the establishment, as we sit here today,
she is the lone candidate representing what obviously so many Americans,
Republicans and Democrats for their own reasons right now happen to
despise. She’s losing the vote in every state, and yet the Democrats
expect her to triumph. Where is her momentum?

Rush: I’ve got a hunch that Trump is headed for a landslide over Hillary « Hot Air

Ted Cruz: Why He Lost

“He’s got the whole establishment p**sed off at him, so
they didn’t rally to him as the alternative,” says former Virginia
representative Tom Davis, who has endorsed John Kasich. “They sat on the
sidelines with their hands in their pockets.” That’s because, according
to the GOP aide, supporting him “would establish a new model for how
ambitious young senators would behave in the Republican party that’s
totally intolerable for the establishment-senator types.”


At a press conference on Tuesday morning, his final day on the
campaign trail, Cruz let loose on Trump, calling him a “serial
philanderer” and a “pathological liar” and concluding, “Morality doesn’t
exist for him.” But the Republican establishment and the party’s voters
knew that, and they chose Trump over Cruz anyway.

Ted Cruz: Why He Lost | National Review

Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap

Donald Trump has set a big, fat trap for
Hillary Clinton, and so far she has stepped right into it. He turned his
attacks against women against her. She is, he argued, playing the
“woman card.” And Clinton anted up, offering her supporters the chance
to buy a “woman card.” From now until Nov. 8, Trump will surely continue
to insult women. If Clinton routinely responds to those attacks, Trump
will turn her into the “women’s candidate,” and she will lose. She is
already perilously close to being that candidate.

Let’s be honest. Polling shows that Trump has a problem with women, but it also shows
that Clinton has a problem with men. Thanks to Bernie Sanders’s pushing
and prodding over the course of the primary, Clinton’s vision has
expanded, but we all know its core: She is a battle-tested warrior for
women and children.

Consider her slogan, “Fighting for us.” For
many men, this slogan would have to be experienced as emasculating. A
woman fighting for them? Rightly or wrongly, the slogan rubs the wrong
way in relation to traditional notions of masculinity. Her slogan itself
reveals a limited conception of who she seeks to represent. This is a
potentially fatal flaw in Clinton’s campaign. The more that Clinton
takes Trump’s bait around the issue of his denigration of women, the
more powerfully this flaw in her own campaign will show itself.

Hillary Clinton is walking into Donald Trump’s trap - The Washington Post

Fooled Ya!

By Brian Sikma

“He’s self-funding his campaign,” they said.
“He isn’t beholden to special interests like other politicians,” they said.
If you voted for Trump and believed those statements, or are a Trump supporter and have uttered something like them, you have been played for a fool.
Breaking news Wednesday evening is that Donald J. Trump, billionaire and Republican presidential nominee-elect, will not be self-funding his general election campaign. “I’ll be putting up money, but won’t be completely self-funding,” Trump told the press before asserting he will be putting in place a “world-class finance organization.” No doubt Trump’s experience in bankruptcies and poorly financed casinos combined with his love of spendthrift political hacks who sell their soul to the highest bidder (see: Wiley, Rick or any other number of Trump campaign aides) will help with that “world-class” fundraising machine.
The Wall Street Journal reports:

“The new plan represents a shift for Mr. Trump, who has for months portrayed his Republican opponents as “puppets” for relying on super PACs and taking contributions from wealthy donors that he said came with strings attached.”

Yes, now that he has secured the nomination Trump can shed all those conservative sounding things (there weren’t many, believe me) he said during the primary so he can become the creature that he always was. Donald Trump has never been, and is not, a conservative. He has always been, and is now, about himself and his ego. His strategy for the GOP primary was to play Republican voters and anyone who voted in the GOP primary for him as a fool.
That strategy worked.
Meanwhile, the GOP elites that Trump’s candidacy was supposed to be a sort of crude gesture toward are, after good conservatives of principle in the party have embraced #NeverTrump, signaling that they will bow before Smaug and make peace at any price. “Life is a series of choices, and this choice looks like one between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, ” declared former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour to the Washington Post. “Anybody who proposes a third party is saying, ‘Let’s make sure Clinton wins.'”
Wrong. Life does include binary choices, but it is not entirely made up of binary choices. Sometimes principles play a role, but that’s not something Mr. Barbour would be familiar with.
For his part, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans in Washington, released a statement late Wednesday that read in part: “I have committed to supporting the nominee chosen by Republican voters, and Donald Trump, the presumptive nominee, is now on the verge of clinching that nomination.”
That Trump would reverse himself should be no surprise, that the same GOP elites who repeatedly sold out conservatives would bow before him should shock no one. Alas, some will feign surprise.