Skip to content

Jordan Peterson on postmodernism and cultural Marxism


Roh, Roh!

Oh, cry me a river Jamie Weinstein

So Mr. Michelle Fields, nee Jamie (how ironic ) Weinstein, cuckservative “wife” to social justice warrior Michelle Fields of #grabgate fame has to write an article about Trump’s moral failings destroying conservatism.  As though Jamie Weinstein can be objective about Trump, you see.  So, according to Jamie, a non-conservative like Trump is destroying “conservatism”.  The irony of moral failings:  Michelle #grabgate Fields who lied about being “tossed to the ground” by Corey Lewandowski is Jamie’s wife.  You just can’t make this stuff up.

The bolshevik left usually depends on George Soros to hire lap dogs to do the globalist left’s bidding, but they get the cuck lap dog Weinstein for free (I guess he might be on Soros’s payroll as well).  Like  a good subservient cuck, he upholds the left’s narrative that Trump is causing “conservatives” to be conflated with white nationalism and nazism.  In fact, there is little difference these days between folk like Weinstein, Kristol, Goldberg (coincidentally all Jews by the way), and the antifa left…..thus you get narratives originated by the left, parroted by Weinstein.

I have multiple problems with Weinstein’s thesis.  The first, is it is the left who identifies anyone who disagrees with them as a Nazi.   (The left has a strange fixation with Nazi’s…usually a sign of projection).   It’s because Trump actually stands in their way and gets under their skin is really why the left labels Trump a Nazi.  And because Trump correctly rejects their premise that the white nationalists in Charlottesville were the sole cause of events….poor little Weinstein assumes Trump must support white nationalism.  The argument is pure BS.

About the only thing I agree with Weinstein is that Trump isn’t particularly conservative, simply because Trump has never really been particularly political….he’s been a businessman.  The last I observed the American voter has a really bad opinion of politicians in Washington, and they voted Trump to the office of POTUS, a non-political outsider who isn’t beholding to the special interests which have given us the mess we are in. The left and #neverTrump neocon right just don’t get it.   Trump was voted to drain swamp creatures like Michelle Fields, and to undo the disastrous policies of the Obama administration.  And he has thus far has for the most part fulfilled that promise.  Where he has fallen short, is due to a feckless republican party supposedly supporting him.

Their day (Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, and McCain if he makes it) is coming.

The next problem I have with Weinstein’s thesis is that according to him, “alt-right” is a euphemism for white nationalism.   Is this so? Where is this intellectual body of literature and study been made to support this.   Where is the alt-right organizational headquarters….its brain trust.   I am not aware of one study that establishes the alt-right as an organized part of the republican right, or that the alt-right has any significant organizational impact on the policies of republicans.

Trump again was correct by pressing the reporter to define what the alt-right is, to which she deferred (my memory is foggy on this) to John McCuck McCain….who with all his intellectual might labelled the alt-right as “so-called”.  What a joke.  This is purely a bogeyman of the left and Weinstein, and McCain, being the good little cucks they are were brainwashed by the left’s narrative.   White nationalists make up an irrelevant part of “right” depending on how you define “white nationalist”.  (I personally wouldn’t identify any caucasian who wants to see America great again, a white nationalist).  David Duke, last he ran was rejected by the republican party.

So Trump isn’t a “conservative”.  And based by the neocon “conservative” purists, few are.   The pure conservatives are only to be found in the bowels of National Review, Washington DC, and talk radio.  And these people are now despised, universally.  They will never win an election with their narrow tent.

Since George Bush, being a “conservative” has lost its luster:  the label “conservative” has been co-opted and damaged by the neocons…….which ironically has at its own core of (white) nationalism also known as “American Exceptionalism”.  They advocate interventionist policies all over the world….policing 3rd world cesspools, and bullying tin pot dictators.  But for some explicable reason, this neocon right rejects trump.  I guess Trump isn’t hawkish enough, or isn’t on their payroll, or something.  maybe because he hasn’t invaded North Korea and Syria at the same time they don’t like him.

Weinstein probably has other problems….the ability to think and draw conclusions for himself that is independent of the National Review.

Nevertheless, Trump’s “make America great again” seems to want to appease these folks….which is dangerous.  I am hoping Trump is smarter in foreign policy than I .    It appears Trump’s actions taken thus far have been far more successful than I would have expected, and far more effective than his predecessor, Hussein Obama who was a dangerous destabilizing force for no good in the Middle East.

Trump is learning what a cesspool Washington is.  I have witnessed how he has become a little more shrewd in his dealings with the press.  What his supporters love about him is when he fights back….rather than roll over much like Weinstein has adopting the left’s premise and narrative about the alt-right.

So my advice to Mrs cuck Jamie[sic]Weinstein….be careful where you tread.  You, like your unemployed wifie… are walking on razor’s edge …and your career as a pundit could follow your wife’s right down into the toilet.  Being an obvious  beta-male, married to a social justice warrier like Michelle Fields, I give their marriage under 5 years.  But that is another story for another day.



Healthcare: It’s really quite simple Republicans

To be the party of limited government, pass one sheet of legislation that proposes repealing every jot and tittle of the affordable care act, Medicaid, Medicare etc.

You are basically done there.

If one has to make concessions to the democrats, pass a HSA mandate where from birth, you open a HSA account that employers and government can contribute to that is yours to keep, that is yours to use as you see fit, and that is yours to will to progeny or charity as you see fit.  Employers would also fund HSAs of  employee’s children.  The government would fund a small safety net portion, to cover basic necessities like the costs of annual checkups.   The government would mandate that the minimum employer contribution be 2% of your pay.  So if you earn $10 an hour, or $20000/year, your account be funded by the employer $400 for each employee and $400 for each family member.  This will also cover most checkups.  When you are young, you typically don’t need to see a physician on an annual basis.  My kids haven’t seen a doctor in years.

The government would cover their contribution cost with a small fixed FICA-like tax to cover this safety net.   Providers who wish to provide healthcare and want to be paid out of an HSA, need to apply for verification of legitimacy.  (I admit even this is dangerous, but we need a check and balance for crony abuse)

Then health care decisions  are between the patient and the provider with no say from the government, at all (other than provider application verification).  In this, you get 100% coverage as the progressives desire, and personal freedom the republican party supposedly stands for, and health will now be the responsibility of the patient.

No one would fall through the cracks for basic services, and as health savings accounts grew (because most of your costs occur later in life), they could cover late-life medical costs.   Those HSAs willed to charity, they could be used to cover those hardship cases that have the potential to fall into cracks.

How to deal with current retirees? Open accounts and fund immediately with a 10-year government bail-out funded by current medicare and medicaid funding.  After a generation, this kind of one-time senior bailout will not be needed.  Costs would drop dramatically as the cost of medical care would drop by a factor of at least 2.

The only one to lose their lunch on this deal are insurance companies.

Finally end government monopolistic protections for pharmaceuticals so they cannot foist their high costs of drugs on the American public, and eliminate the FDA.

Journal “Cogent Social Sciences” gets punked.

College education has become a joke. The older I get, the more I realize what a sad state universities have become. The fact that 44 billion people go into debt for a college degree to the tune of 1.4 trillion is just one symptom of the idiocracy we are plunging inexorably toward.

I will shed not one tear as this implodes, and universities are closed down…in fact, I’ll buy the popcorn and rejoice in the spectacle.  But the fact that most of this debt is being anchored around the necks of young people who do not understand what they are buying, how they are paying for it, what debt is, or what a return on investment is, and is being facilitated by our government is criminal.

First there was this video

And now, the journal “Cogent Social Sciences” gets punked:

Oh, how the irony.

One line in this paper says it all….this funny stuff:

“Nowhere are the consequences of hypermasculine machismo braggadocio isomorphic identification with the conceptual penis more problematic than concerning the issue of climate change.”

Link to actual pdf of the article of what passes muster in a peer reviewed journal on “cogent social sciences”.   LOL.

So next time some academic tries to flaunt his/her credentials, and has PhD after his name… can laugh mockingly and ask if they have published in “Cogent Social Sciences”.


Hey Trump! George Bush Called….he wants his foreign policy back

 Ann Coulter has more on this.

Sooner or later regardless of what any president-elect promises….., its inevitable they’ll morph into a neocon.  In Trump’s case, it didn’t take him long at all.

So Trump tweets about what a waste Syria is, and how its not in our nation’s interest to engage Syria, and then goes forth committing an act of war with 59 tomahawk cruise missiles against said country, drops the mother of all bombs on Afghanistan, and is about engage in nuclear Chess with a madman in North Korea.

I still suspect we are better off with Trump winning, but he is quickly morphing into the thing his constituency despises……a neocon warmonger.  Just who does he think he is trying to impress?  …..  Bill Kristol?  Robert Kagan? ….George Will?

The late 80’s alt-right

Before there was Milo, or Mike Cernovich, there was Pete Schaub.  It appears Pete Schaub was too early, however.  I was attending the University of Washington at the time the Pete Shaub controversy occurred.  In it, we find the precursor to today’s modern snowflakes.

As an eyewitness to many of the events which transpired at that time, I can say Pete Shaub was the perfect alt-right threat to the special snowflakes in that era.  He was blond, muscular, good-looking, articulate, and funny as hell.  He epitomized the ideal Aryan race….and I mean that only as a stereotype, an image.  I don’t claim to speak for Pete Schaub nor know what his politics were.  I don’t know if he thouht himself as right wing or left wing.

Basically Shaub was kicked out of a women’s studies course for questioning the BS statistics that inverted truth on its head, and glorified lesbianism.  He may have been more antagonistic than that; I cannot say, but anytime I was around him, Pete got the better of the feminists.

I was not taking this  women’s studies class at that time, so I cannot vouch for his behavior in the class.  But, I can say, that appearances on Town Meeting (with Ken Schram, and Gloria Allred), Pete had the many women in the audience turning against Gloria Allred.  And on campus, during the many protests, Pete got the better of the feminists shouting through blow horns.

So Shaub went to the dean of the arts and sciences department about being kicked out of the women studies class, and the associate dean, James Nason, trying to appease both sides, told Pete he would give him credit so long as he dropped the course, which Pete agreed.

So here is the thing.  I would suggest that was a reasonable tactic by the associate dean of arts and sciences, but the only problem is we are dealing with special snowflakes.  But I am entertained by the take of the NY Times:

“Some class members asserted that Mr. Schaub’s repeated questions, and what became his antagonistic view of the class, made them afraid to express their own views.”

Poor special snowflakes.

The NY Times confesses:

“But other class members, including some women who identified themselves feminists, said Mr. Schaub was never disruptive and that his only offense was to challenge the views of the two instructors, Donna Langston and DanaMichele. ‘It’s Too Conservative'”

So, I guess Dana-Michele Brown resigned from the University of Washington, and we haven’t heard from her since….I guess Pete Schaub got the best of her, too.   From my perspective at the time, the only one trying to intimidate others were the feminist.  It certainly wasn’t Pete Shaub.

God Bless him.  I wonder where he is now.