The Broken Spoon of American Hegemony

The decline of American military and economic power has rendered traditional methods of asserting global dominance ineffective, leaving the U.S. with dwindling options to deter its adversaries.

by Adam Ellwanger for American Greatness

In some sense, Tim Walz’s career in the National Guard is a metaphor for the recent history of American military power writ large. He spent 24 years preparing for battle…and then retired when the call came. But not only did he shy away from the conflict, he spent the next twenty years beating his chest about his experience in battle—experience that he never had and no longer had the competence to pursue.

Since the end of World War II, America’s status as the global hegemon was defined by one rule: the United States could assert its geopolitical will largely without resorting to direct military operations, relying instead upon rhetorical and economic force to maintain the world order that we created. Some readers will recoil at this claim. No military conflicts? What about Korea? Vietnam? Iraq?

With the twentieth century now deep in the rearview mirror, it’s clear that those conflicts were exceptions to the rule. That none of those nations posed a compelling military threat to the United States is telling. With the possible exception of the brief Gulf War, the other wars were proxy battles against much larger nations and ideologies that, left unchecked, might have posed a future threat to American global sovereignty. In short, the preemptive wars from the 1950s through the 1990s were isolated interruptions of the relative peace that America guaranteed across much of the globe.

It was evident that something had changed by 9/11 (or because of it) when the now-too-familiar phrase “forever wars” entered our vocabulary. In other words, the state of continuous military activity that we see today began in the twenty-first century. First, Afghanistan, then Iraq (again). As those conflicts raged on, Obama prosecuted scattershot interventions across the Middle East and South Asia: Libya, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, and more. When the smoke of the War on Terror finally cleared, we moved on to proxy wars against Russia and Iran by vastly expanding our support for the armies of Ukraine and Israel. What changed? How did active American military engagement move from the pre-9/11 exception to today’s uncontestable rule?

Tucker Carlson’s recent interview with former Blackwater CEO Erik Princehints at the answer. Their conversation noted a number of recent attacks on American sovereignty, planned and executed by geopolitical rivals. Specifically, Prince noted China’s sophisticated efforts to flood the United States with fentanyl, smuggled in over our undefended southern border with the assistance of the Mexican cartels. Another example that Prince cited was what he claims are confirmed sonic/microwave attacks against U.S. personnel at foreign and domestic consulates and embassies. These attacks seem to leave severe neurological damage on the individuals they target, causing a constellation of symptoms increasingly referred to as Havana Syndrome.

A baffled Carlson asks why our government has allowed these aggressions to pass with impunity. Prince reminds him that the Biden administration has steadfastly rejected that China’s direct role in the fentanyl crisis is intentionaland that the federal government has yet to acknowledge Havana Syndrome is the result of deliberate attacks. Carlson repeats his question: Why the inaction?

Because, Prince answers, any meaningful response would involve the forceful imposition of consequences, and…well…Prince doesn’t really finish his statement. But his implication seems to be that the United States is no longer able to impose the forms of rhetorical and economic force that were the primary means of enforcing American hegemony in the later 20^th century. China, after all, is not a nation that America would risk a military conflict with over the fentanyl crisis. And the United States no longer has the military or the economy to be able to impose rhetorical or financial penalties. A similar situation exists in relation to Russia, whom Prince sees as the likely culprit for the attacks that apparently cause Havana Syndrome.

Astute readers will immediately grasp the implications of this situation for American foreign policy. But perhaps a personal anecdote will further clarify them. On rare occasions when my brother or I had done something particularly bad as children, my mom would spank us with a small wooden spoon. Nothing serious, it just stung for a few minutes, but I was afraid of that spoon, and a simple warning was enough to make me change my behavior to avoid it.

One day, at about 11 years old, I did something (I don’t remember what) that prompted my mother to get out the spoon. It had been a while since I had seen it last, and I had grown since then. As she approached, I casually grabbed it from her hand, easily broke it in half, handed it back to her, and left the house for a few hours. When I returned, I don’t remember either of us talking about it. There wasn’t much to talk about: while the natural power imbalance between a mother and her son would endure for a few more years, it had shifted in a fundamental way that took old deterrents and punitive measures off the table. You can’t repair a broken wooden spoon.

Prince’s implication seems to be that America’s spoon is broken. The forever wars that began in the 21^st century were no coincidence. They began when American power had diminished to such a point that softer means of asserting our geopolitical will were newly impractical in some parts of the globe. China, Russia, and Iran aren’t intimidated by the mere threat of the spoon anymore.

Without coercive means of soft power based on rhetoric, diplomacy, and economics, the United States is left with only one option: the immediate and direct application of the spoon. But even that doesn’t seem to strike fear into the hearts of America’s enemies the way it did in the twentieth century. After all, we chased Afghanistan and Iraq around the house for 20 years trying to lay spoons on their behinds. In both cases, the spoons were broken. And if little tykes like them can fend us off, China and Russia are probably confident about their chances. America has been sending Ukraine a nearly unlimited supply of spoons since the Russian invasion. The result? Three years of the American media repeating the line that Russia was only weeks away from a humiliating defeat, while Ukrainian casualties mount.

In short, American rhetoric and sanctions aren’t backed by enough real power to deter Russia from using neurological weapons against our citizens abroad. American threats and economic penalties aren’t enough to stop China from sending Mexico the materials to produce enough fentanyl to kill every single American citizen many times over. Deprived of forms of soft power that a true global hegemon can apply at will, the United States is left with only one meaningful way to punish and deter these assaults: direct military action.

But if the United States possessed the military power to attain a decisive victory against China or Russia (or Afghanistan or Iraq, for that matter), then the softer means of imposing our geopolitical will would still be effective. The fact that (by and large) we haven’t attempted to use them indicates that the nation’s enemies are no longer convinced that they would lose to the United States in a hot war. America’s leaders probably aren’t convinced either. And this exposes the hardest truth of all: our own uncertainty finally rules out direct military operations, which was the sole remaining means of enforcing our will abroad. We can’t risk it: If we attempt to give our greatest foes a small, retaliatory spanking and they break our spoon… well, any remaining claim to global hegemony would be negated. And the end of that illusion would bring consequences that must be avoided at all costs.

In short, American power is clearly in decline. The degree to which it has declined remains a matter of debate. But if America was still the undisputed global hegemon, our enemies wouldn’t risk attacking us with fentanyl or microwaves. They would know that our government would punish such transgressions visibly and decisively. But we find ourselves at a point where the attacks happen, and the punishments don’t. That’s a sure sign that the forms of soft power that undergird the American order are no longer viable—and that our government knows it. At this point, the best we can do is to protect what remains of the dwindling perception of our global sovereignty.

Whether our status as hegemon can be reclaimed or reasserted is uncertain. Only one thing is for sure: four years of Kamala Harris would likely accelerate the crumbling of the global order that America created after winning the last World War.

X22, On the Fringe, and more- August 27

 

Law & Dis-Order: How The Soros Machine Directs and Controls Prosecutors Across America to Implement His Leftist Agenda

 Controversial leftist billionaire George Soros and his son Alex have worked tirelessly to undermine law and order in America. 

The Media Research Center has obtained thousands of never-before-seen internal communications from dozens of Soros prosecutors in response to public records requests. These documents reveal how the Soros machine effectively employs an army of radicalized government lawyers to tear apart the justice system. The result is a crumbling legal system where laws are openly defied by the very people who are paid to enforce them. 

• MRC Uncovered 7,785 Pages of Internal Communications from Dozens of Soros-Backed Prosecutors: The 7,785 pages of internal documents show a shocking level of control by the Soros-funded groups over the prosecutors. The Soros machine sets their policies and priorities, staffs their offices with hand-picked leftists, dictates media narratives, lobbies government officials and perverts the American justice system.
• Soros Invested at Least $117 Million to Install, Direct and Control 126 Radicalized Prosecutors: The Soros empire spent at least $40 million to elect its prosecutors. It then invested an additional $77,663,316 to 20 leftist nonprofits to coordinate and control the prosecutors, bringing the total Soros spending to at least $117,663,316.
• The Soroses Are America’s Top Cops: At least 30 percent of the U.S. population currently lives under the boot of the Soros prosecutors who were pressured to sign pledges vowing to adhere to various Soros priorities. The Soros machine orchestrated 33 of these “joint statements” and pledges, which were signed by 123 of the 126 Soros prosecutors.
• The Soros Machine Sets Policies and Priorities, Including Colluding to Break the Law: Soros-funded groups set the political agenda for the prosecutors, incentivizing them to target police and the left’s political opponents while pushing them not to enforce certain laws, constituting an unlawful “prosecutorial veto” of duly established laws.
• The Soros Machine Held at Least 51 Meetings with Prosecutors: Soros-funded groups like Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP), the Vera Institute, the Prosecutors Alliance of California and the Anti-Defamation League organized at least 51 meetings (sometimes making them “mandatory”) to coordinate the Soros prosecutors. 

Recommendations: MRC has several recommendations for how media outlets and elected officials can better address how George and Alex Soros use their empire against America.

• The Media Must Do a Better Job Covering Crime and Its Origins: The Soros empire is massively involved in changing the legal system of the United States. Yet, most media outlets rarely cover Soros's “reform prosecutors” and the harm they have wrought.
• Reporters Should Do Some Genuine Journalism and Investigate the Soros Operation: George and Alex Soros are two of the most influential figures in American and global politics. Yet, the legacy media coverage of their operations is scant. 
• Congress Needs to Get Involved: Since the Biden-Harris administration will not take action, Congress must investigate how the Soros empire wields power over prosecutors. The Senate should also refuse to confirm any additional nominees to the DOJ or the Federal bench until legal action is taken against the Soros machine. 
• Governors and State Attorneys General Need to Get Involved: Governors and state attorneys general should remove law-breaking prosecutors. Where appropriate, AGs should also bring RICO-like charges against the Soros machine and its prosecutors. 
• Private attorneys and other individuals must get involved, too: Because the Soros prosecutors have violated numerous laws and ethics rules, complaints can and should be filed with the appropriate bar associations.

https://newsbusters.org/blogs/business/tim-kilcullen/2024/08/12/law-dis-order-how-soros-machine-directs-and-controls

The Moral High Ground: Who Owns It?

posted by Chet Hanson at American Thinker 

To be efficient and save time, I believe we can roll all the tactics and strategies of a given political campaign into one overarching objective: “Can we seize the moral high ground?”

Before we get into the meat of this offering, it is appropriate to admit that the information herein is one-sided.  You could say I am picking on the Democrats, because I am.  I have voted for both in the past, but I will no longer do that.

Readers who take a deep dive into the history of the GOP will undoubtedly find some nefarious activity.  It is just that Republican activity is not nearly as dark, devious, or destructive as is the historically bad behavior of the Democrat party.  The evidence is inarguable.  Let’s review the bill of particulars.

In 1830, the Congress passed, and an American president signed, “The Indian Removal Act.”  More than 50,000 Indians were forced to leave their homes east of the Mississippi and move west.  The Trail of Tears, perhaps the most egregious government-sanctioned action against America’s native population, forced 16,000 of them, under military threat, to travel on foot nearly one thousand miles in the middle of the winter to the West.  About 4,000 of these people died en route.

Who controlled Congress at the time?  Who was the president?  Well, what was then called the “Modern Democrat Party” controlled both houses of Congress, and the party’s standard-bearer, Andrew Jackson, was the president.  Until very recently, Democrats were celebrating “Jackson Days.”

Fast-forward thirty years to 1860.  At the time, there were four million slaves in this country, and Democrats “owned” virtually every one of them.  The Republican Party had coalesced in the previous decade as the anti-slavery party.  Its first president was Abraham Lincoln, the fellow whose “day” Republicans still proudly celebrate.  It was Lincoln who issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863.

In 1865, every Republican — 100 percent of them — ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, which banned slavery throughout the United States.  Fourteen Democrats voted for it as well.  Many of those were bribed with government jobs.  The Democrats have always had their price.

In 1868, 94 percent of Republicans ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave all who were born in America, or who were naturalized citizens, equal protection under the law.  The primary benefactors of this amendment were freed slaves.  Zero percent of the Democrats signed on.

In 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment gave the newly freed black Americans the right to vote.  Again, 100 percent of the Republicans and zero percent of Democrats voted to ratify.  Does a pattern seem to be emerging?

In response to these amendments, one political party began to implement what are known as Jim Crow laws throughout the South.  These laws were intended to deny black Americans full access to the American Dream.  Yes, of course, it was the Democrats once again who put their boots on the necks of their fellow citizens.

At roughly the same time, a vigilante group emerged to intimidate black Americans and, if need be, execute them.  Yes, of course, the Ku Klux Klan was a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Into the mid-twentieth century, many Democrat members of Congress got their political start in the KKK.  One of them, Sen. Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, the Senate minority leader, had been the Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter.  Upon his death in 2010, then-senator Joe Biden gave his eulogy.

Inarguably, the most overtly racist president was Woodrow Wilson.  Elected in 1912 after promising blacks “equal treatment,” one of Wilson’s first acts was to mandate the segregation, by race, of the federal workforce.

This led to a substantial reduction of the black Civil Service workforce and a significant increase in the wage gap.  Wilson’s actions eroded gains made by blacks since Reconstruction.  The “systemic racism” that the Democrats frequently refer to was energized by Wilson and has yet to be fully resolved for a significant number of black Americans, especially those who live in Democrat-controlled cities.  Wilson also ran on the promise to keep us out of war, and then he took us into WWI.

Speaking of war, in 1942, Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the relocation and incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them American citizens.  In its 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States, Roosevelt’s hand-picked U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removals.

Some have tried to claim that there was a titanic shift in 1960, arguing that Democrats became the supporters of equal rights for black citizens and the Republicans their oppressors.  The facts say otherwise.  Some 80 percent of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but only 63 percent of Democrats did.

Through their control of the media and the educational establishment, Democrats have tried to seize the moral high ground these last sixty years, but that claim makes sense only to those who don’t know their history, which includes, unfortunately, most Democrats.

As American philosopher George Santayana famously reminded us, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Here’s how (Justin) Trudeau’s brother helped RFK become a kingmaker

 Kyle Kemper wants to do politics differently and has taken his unique approach to campaigning to help independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. south of the border.

Here’s how Trudeau’s brother helped RFK become a kingmaker

How Kemper is helping RFK

Canadians know Kemper best for being Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s half-brother but he’s making a name for himself in the United States as a lead activator on the RFK campaign. 

In an exclusive interview, The Counter Signal spoke to Kemper about his decision to help the presidential underdog make it to the White House and take on the political establishment in Washington D.C. 

“We’ve been to over 30 states in the last year meeting Americans where they are and trying to engage in discussion and discourse and create awareness that Bobby’s running,” said Kemper. 

Trump asked RFK to serve

In his speech, Kennedy admitted that Trump had asked him to serve in his administration. Kennedy was an outspoken critic of Covid-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates during the pandemic. The independent candidate has made health a key platform policy.

He has pledged to confront America’s chronic disease epidemic via preventative measures. Furthermore, he wants to target toxic chemicals, pollution, and ultra-processed foods.

Kennedy plans to overhaul the federal medical research budget, prioritizing chronic disease prevention, and will challenge the corrupting influence of Big Pharma and Wall Street in healthcare. Other staples of his policy include organic agriculture and a national fitness program. 

Kemper pilots the RFK Bus

Kemper pilots the Kennedy Across America Tour in what he calls the Kennedy Bus – emblazoned with the independent candidate’s face and branding. It’s a flashy way to draw attention to a candidate that Kemper thinks the mainstream media and establishment are purposefully ignoring. 

“I’m looking at platforms for creating more engaged discussion, looking at evolving the entire governance framework beyond this very shallow representative democracy situation that we have right now,” explained Kemper. 

According to Kemper, he was inspired by the Freedom Convoy to take on politics. Additionally, he also has an interest in the potential of cryptocurrency to promote individual liberty.

“I began working on and talking about this following the trucker situation,” said Kemper. “You get a million people to Ottawa and they won’t even give you a chance to have a discussion.” 

Kemper criticized Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland for having no financial background

Kemper said that the world needs a system where people like Freeland who has “absolutely no finance experience at all” can be in control of key issues. 

When asked about RFK’s endorsement of Trump, Kemper was supportive of the independent candidate. 

“Bobby has recognized that this Kamala, ‘strength and joy” is a very dangerous candidacy and the best thing he can do to serve humanity and protect children is help Trump in the battleground states and he’s done so by pulling himself off the ballot in all the intense battleground states so that it won’t be spoiled,” said Kemper. 

Moreover, Kemper went on to say that a win by the Democrats in the fall election would be “great” for Trudeau. 

“It be a huge win for corporate totalitarianism,” said Kemper. 

https://thecountersignal.com/heres-how-trudeaus-brother-helped-rfk-become-a-kingmaker/?utm_source=The+Counter+Signal&utm_campaign=a2f21de766-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_08_27_07_08_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-f18bcd0f94-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

The Harris Campaign Is Desperate To Get Out Of That Debate

posted by Derek Hunter at Townhall 

I don’t know if there will be a presidential debate or not, but I do know that the Kamala Harris campaign only wants one if it is on their terms. A person refuses to participate in anything unless it is on their terms if they have little to no faith in their abilities to win otherwise. Kamala Harris and her handlers recognize that she not a good debater, nor is she likable in any way while dealing with other human being. Add to that the lack of policy positions that won’t turn off pretty much everyone in the country and you begin to see why they really want out of the only presidential debate. 

It's a rarity for a candidate to lose support the more even people who agree with them see of them, yet that’s what Kamala Harris is. In 2019, she was the left’s favorite concept – a black woman who was also an Asian woman (when it suited her needs) and just a woman in general. Like Kamala after a date with Willie Brown, Democrats were ready to wash the bad taste left in their mouths by Hillary Clinton’s loss by nominating and, this time, electing a woman to the presidency. 

It was the perfect plan…almost.

After a rush of big fundraising numbers under the banner of the “historic” nature of the candidacy, the public started to listen to Kamala Harris and, well, passed. More like recoiled in horror, but I’ll just say passed because it has broader implications. 

With a few months of meeting with the public under her belt, the debates came along and everyone got an unfiltered look at Kamala, at which point they got up and went home. 

Kamala Harris was one of those rare candidates that even people who agree with her like less the more the see of her. It’s not that they question their insane left-wing ideals, they simply don’t like them when they’re coming out of her mouth.

The way Harris spoke in the Democratic primary debates in 2019 (she didn’t make it to 2020, dropping out in December) came off with the attitude of someone arrogant impatiently trying to explain to a child how to tie their shoes…for the third time. You can tell she never had kids and see that was probably for the best.

But to everyone else it is insufferable. While Hillary Clinton came off like a condescending kindergarten teacher, Harris came off as the kindergarten teacher who would toss your craft project in the trash if you didn’t get it right by the second time. Add to that the attitude of an arrogant French teacher correcting your pronunciation of “bon jour” a thousand times in a row as you repeat it back to them exactly as they’re saying it, and you can see why Democrats might want to hide her from voters.

She has all the appeal of face wort. 

After the Harris campaign insisted on keeping the same debate schedule – just one – as the Biden campaign, they’re not trying to change the rules for it. The Biden campaign insisted on the microphones being muted when it was the other candidate’s turn to speak. That meant Joe had more time to speak, which was his undoing. 

The Harris campaign learned from that mistake. They want the candidates to have their mics open the whole time, hoping Donald Trump will interrupt her. The Harris camp knows the more an audience hears from her the less they like her, but they also know that the day following a debate the only thing that matters is that whatever moment voters remember – Reagan’s joke about his age, George Bush checking his watch, Candy Crowley incorrectly correcting Mitt Romney, Trump saying neither he nor Biden have any idea what the hell Joe was trying to say – be in your candidate’s favor. 

All Kamala has is the victim card to play. With open mics, expect Kamala to do what she was known for in the Senate, nasally insisting, “I’m speaking.” It’s such a cliché for her that people sell t-shirt with those words and her face on it.  

Not only would Trump interrupting her give her the ability to use her catchphrase, it would give her surrogates in the media a chance to accuse Trump of “attempting to silence a woman of color,” or something else equally insulting to the intelligence to anyone with intelligence. 

Victimization is all Democrats have. Well, not all. They could actually introduce their agenda and try to sell it to the American people. Just kidding. There’s a reason Democrats don’t talk about what they want to do beyond making things better.

Racist idiot Joy Reid knows this, which is why she tried insisting that Donald Trump’s economy was actually Barack Obama’s economy, even though she and her fellow sub-shoe size IQ army had insisted that Trump’s tax cuts and economic package would destroy the economy in 2017, they now want credit for the results because their ideas failed. They really should be thankful breathing is a reflex, because if it required any brain power whatsoever they would suffocate on the street.

Democrats know they have a candidate that is only good on teleprompter. While Barack Obama was all “ums” and “uhs” when not reading, he at least could eventually get to a point. Hillary Clinton was insufferable to listen to, but she would make a point too. Kamala Harris can’t. Watch her talk about anything unrelated to herself, back when she did interviews, and see if you hear a point.

Her campaign needs her out, but it can’t look like she’s ducking a debate. Anything short of calling the whole thing off requires the debate to be on terms most favorable to her – ones that gives her the chance to play both the “strong women” while others assign her victim status. These people are evil, not stupid. 

Trump just needs to stick to his guns – they chose to insist the Biden debate go forward as it was set, only with her instead of him. Make them choke on that. No rules changes, nothing else. The mic off rule was what Democrats insisted on, by refusing to renegotiate the terms of the debate, Trump will force Kamala Harris to perform in circumstances least favorable to her on terms most beneficial to him. Either that or Harris cancels the whole thing. No matter which way it goes, it’s to the benefit of Trump. After that, all he has to do is win it.

Make America Normal Again

In Democrats’ desperation to stave off the demands of Trump voters, they have destroyed our institutions and melted the framework of behavioral norms upon which our society was constructed.

posted by Vagrant of Rhodes at The Federalist

Former President Donald Trump recently sat down for an interview with Theo Von, a comedian who hosts the “This Past Weekend” podcast, among other ventures. Von is well known for his Louisiana charm, his deadpan, almost unintentional humor, and his meandering conversational style, which leads to a sometimes funny/sometimes deep dichotomy popular among younger listeners. But beneath the humor and zigzagging conversation is an earnestness that can’t be faked, making Trump a natural guest for such a show. 

When Trump first rose to political prominence during the lead-up to the 2016 election, the prevailing narrative was that he was an outlandish firebrand, a performance artist playing a role on television who was only in the race for his own benefit. But with each new interview and debate, his authenticity proved those assumptions wrong and drew voters to him in droves. His victory over the narrative machine cemented him as a true American hero, a man who’d had enough of parasitic politics and was willing to risk everything he had to save his country.  

Nearly a decade later, with our social fabric torn to shreds by the left’s perpetual cultural revolution, Trump has become a grandfatherly figure of stability and nostalgia for many, embodying the hope of millions who just wish we could go back to a simpler time when America made sense. Trump’s resolute demeanor in the wake of the assassination attempt at his rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, just over a month ago has only made this genuine appeal of his even stronger. 

Von’s podcast isn’t the only high-profile conversation Trump has recently had. He also sat for a lengthy two-hour conversation with Elon Musk on X. Trump has continually proved to listeners of these conversations that, despite the lavishness of his unique life, he is still just a citizen who is sick of seeing his fellow Americans trod upon by the Regime and its liberal supporters. His goal has always been simple: to protect the interests of the forgotten men and women of this country and to save them from the depraved death cult of leftism. In this simple way, he embodies the spirit of the founders more than any other leader in recent memory. Or, in his own words: “I just want to stop the world from killing itself!”

But this Regime is simply too proud to admit any wrongdoing. They refuse to allow anyone else the chance to turn back their bioleninist revolution. In their desperate haste to stave off the demands of the voters they despise, represented by Trump, they have destroyed our institutions and melted the framework of behavioral norms upon which our society was so carefully constructed. They’ve burned it all in their lust for power, the consequences of which we are seeing play out in a rapid behavioral spiral descending into chaos, stagnation, hopelessness, depravity, and cruelty. 

It would take thousands of pages to recount the numerous ways in which the left has destroyed any semblance of normalcy in our culture. But the conclusion is that this long process of degradation has led to a potent strain of nihilism and degeneracy in our culture, where the traditional view of individual rights has been subverted beyond recognition into a perversion of what it means to be “normal.” Things we all considered normal 10 years ago, such as having a family or going to church, are suddenly reviled as “extreme” or “weird.” Time Magazine even wrote that flying the American flag was a “threat.” In fact, calling normal things and normal people “weird” seems to be the only argument the Harris campaign cares to make for why people should vote for her. 

This attitude was highlighted by leftists’ reaction to the Von/Trump interview, which was predictably skewed by the media. Trump and Von had a very interesting conversation about Trump’s brother Fred and his problems with alcohol (which ultimately led to his untimely death). This sparked a deeper conversation about the dangers of substance abuse and health in the country. Trump has steadfastly refused to partake in drugs or alcohol throughout his life as a result of this formative experience with his brother, counseling all of his children and anyone else who will listen to avoid substances to keep their minds clear and their bodies healthy. 

Von also spoke earnestly about his struggles in recovery, with Trump serving almost as a mentor in the conversation, attentively listening and asking questions, providing snippets of advice throughout the discussion in his affable style. In speaking about the sensitive subject of his brother, Trump said, “The reason it’s good talking about it is it might help other people. If it helps one other person, it’s worth the conversation.” 

Trump’s abstinence and his desire to warn others about the dangers of substance abuse should be an admirable trait, not something to be reviled or jeered at. Von certainly respected it in the interview, but our society’s perception of normal has been so corrupted by the left that many people are incapable of even conceptualizing healthy human behavior. In this case, Trump’s grandfatherly wisdom is anathema to the left and their dysgenic interpretation of the world. 

We saw a similarly strange reaction to the assassination attempt in July. Many lefties were happy to spread conspiracy theories that it had been “staged.” They didn’t believe it because they couldn’t recognize his courageous response in the moment. Trump’s defiance in the face of death simply didn’t make sense to leftists. For this inverted society, many aren’t even able to conceptualize something as fundamental as a leader’s courage anymore. “Why would he stand and raise his fist? I would never do that. Must be fake!” Their minds are too small to understand basic human traits that merely a generation ago were universally admired.  

These are the same people who would watch “The Lord of the Rings” or read about Greek tragedies and go, “Those characters must be gay!” They can’t conceptualize healthy friendships or mutual respect and admiration between fighters. These concepts have been part of our civilizational credo for generations because they provided a basic set of behavioral expectations that we could all agree on, whether or not we agreed to the semantics of government, politics, interests, or lifestyles.

The founders recognized this, choosing to build the government upon those deeper values to ensure greater stability. As John Adams famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” 

It would be nice to ignore the prattling of the insane leftists, but now the inmates run the asylum: Judges regularly release murderers onto the streets, groomers run school districts, and communists wear stars upon their uniforms. At some point, we lost our nerve and started “playing nice” to the ghouls at the fringes. Now a significant proportion of society doesn’t even know what our values are anymore. As left-wing reactions to the Von/Trump interview reveal, we don’t even have an effective way to communicate these concepts to them. Our words float past them uselessly. They occupy a fictional world in their own minds, built upon an obsessive self-worship that leaves no room for growth, introspection, challenge, or reflection. 

The subversion of norms has led to a shift of the Overton window regarding “normality” itself, hence why the left sees genuine conversation or abstinence from drugs as “weird.” Perhaps they don’t have any healthy examples of things like this in their own lives, so the concepts have become foreign to them. But it’s clear that leftists no longer have any interest whatsoever in trying to bridge their lack of knowledge or experience with others. They’ve lost their innate human inquisitiveness, trained out by addictive social-status posturing.  

Their desire to signal loyalty to the Regime outweighs any need to maintain healthy relationships in their lives, especially when they are told that having healthy relationships is “weird” in the first place. For example, an orphan might wonder what it’s like to have grown up in a healthy household with two parents, but leftists instead will argue that having two parents is a bad thing and then attempt to force the rest of society to conform to their warped view via threats. Eventually, this inverted structure becomes incapable of holding itself together. The abnormal, once relegated to the fringes, use their newfound power to chase normality out of all systems and institutions, actively seeking to eradicate any reminders of their aberrational existence. 

This long process of decay has led us to the horizon of the leftist singularity: the spiteful erasure of normal people and normal life through an incessantly combative and aggressively genocidal campaign of demographic replacement, grooming, religious erasure, social regulation, media propaganda, etc. Eventually, the normal people are all coerced by social bayonets to adopt the new, inverted social order, like a forced conversion by a conquering army. Those norms of behavior, which comprise the eternal bonds that once held the structure together, are not only weakened but transformed into explosives. Trust collapses and society begins to fray. 

The solution isn’t to try to convince the left of obvious truths, like the fact that it’s normal for Trump, who lost his brother to the scourge of alcoholism, to believe that avoiding drugs is a good practice for a healthy life. We know they won’t interpret that as “normal” because they are no longer capable of doing so. In the case of J.D. Vance, even a simple wish to be buried in the land of your forefathers is never going to seem normal to them. The left’s resentment of normality spirals into a nihilistic coping mechanism, where nothing matters to them except eliminating anything that reminds them of the traditions they’ve come to revile. This is now their only goal: the politics of spite. 

The solution instead is to overwhelm the poison of leftism and banish its purveyors from societal power. We can’t convince Narcissus to look away from his own reflection, but we can build a new social structure beyond the grasp of the narcissistic freaks who have decimated our culture.

Ultimately, that’s what Trump is about. Refusal to accept the gravity of this battle has led many to imbibe false narratives about a man who wishes only to save his people and salvage the founders’ dream. Joining his crusade requires a thorough understanding of all those old eternal human behavioral truths that so many Democrats (and many Republicans desperate for their approval) have lost touch with. Make America Great Again also means Making America Normal Again. 

The founders recognized when the norms of their day, such as trust and fairness, evaporated from the British Parliament and the court of King George III. They didn’t abandon them nor submit to this forced inversion of their social norms. Instead, they used those eternal behavioral truths as touchstones to build something new without the British Empire’s interference.

We must adopt their courage and honor their legacy by throwing off the albatross of leftist degeneracy, creating something new to ensure the survival of that ancestral gift. We must not yield or submit, but defy and build. Trump ignites this ancestral spirit in all of us. In his own words closing his conversation with Musk on X, “This is so much more important than me or my life. We’re going to save this country.” 

America Should Get Rid of Most of Its Laws

posted by Jeff Charles at RedState 

We have far too many laws in this country, and we would be far better off if we did away with most of them. Unfortunately, there are few politicians who desire to undertake such an endeavor.

Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch discussed this problem at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum in Simi Valley, California. During the conversation, Gorsuch brought up his new book “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law,” in which he lays out the case for fewer laws.

The justice explained that many professors “say that there are now so many federal laws on the books, crimes, that every American over the age of 18 commits one felony a day” and pointed out that between 1970 and today, “we’ve seen maybe a doubling in the number of federal crimes on the books.”

He’s right. In an op-ed for The Atlantic, Gorsuch and his co-author Janie Nitze detailed how the number of federal laws has ballooned.

Our country has always been a nation of laws, but something has changed dramatically in recent decades. Contrary to the narrative that Congress is racked by an inability to pass bills, the number of laws in our country has simply exploded. Less than 100 years ago, all of the federal government’s statutes fit into a single volume. By 2018, the U.S. Code encompassed 54 volumes and approximately 60,000 pages. Over the past decade, Congress has adopted an average of 344 new pieces of legislation each session. That amounts to 2 million to 3 million words of new federal law each year. Even the length of bills has grown—from an average of about two pages in the 1950s to 18 today.

“The argument is that we need those things to keep us safe, to regulate pollution and drugs and all kinds of things,” Gorsuch said. “So where did we cross the line from valuable society protecting regulation and laws to something that has blossomed into a situation where we can’t even know that we’ve crossed the line?”

“On the one hand, we need laws to keep us free and safe. On the other hand, if you have too many laws, you impair those same freedoms…because who can deal with the world with so much law? James Madison said it’s going to be money and connections and as a judge, now for 18 years, I just came to see case after case in which ordinary Americans just trying to live their lives, not hurt anybody, raise their families, were just getting whacked. Case in which ordinary Americans just trying to live their lives, not hurt anybody, raise their families, were just getting whacked by laws unexpectedly.”

Justice Gorsuch is talking exactly about what happened our friend Dexter Taylor pic.twitter.com/eTOhai0jDL

— Joe Lnu (@joe_Lnu) August 26, 2024

Gorsuch is not wrong. America has far too many laws. What makes this even more disturbing is that he was only talking about federal laws. We have plenty more at the state and local levels that are likely unnecessary overreaches.

Dexter Taylor became a victim of New York’s obsession with unnecessary and unconstitutional laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. He is now in prison, serving a ten-year sentence just for building his own guns. If you’re unfamiliar, you can read about his story here and here.

There is also the case of North Carolina resident Susan Hogarth, who could be facing jail time for – wait for it – taking a selfie at the ballot box after voting.

The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and self-governance. Today, we find ourselves ever so much further from these ideals. With countless laws seeming to govern almost every aspect of life, Americans are increasingly restricted by a web of arbitrary legal constraints.

The impact of excessive laws has a debilitating effect on innovation and entrepreneurship. Small businesses often struggle to navigate the complex regulatory environment. Federal regulations alone cost the U.S. economy over $1.9 trillion each year, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

An overabundance of laws not only expands the power of the state, but it also cultivates an environment rife with corruption. Civil asset forfeiture is a prime example of this. These laws in several states have enabled law enforcement to steal property from citizens without ever charging them with a crime.

More laws grant the government a type of unchecked power to threaten civil liberties and natural rights. It creates a system in which justice is arbitrary and dependent on the whims of those in power. Slashing these laws would limit the potential for abuse and corruption.

The bottom line is that when more laws are passed, the state becomes even more of a behemoth used to pursue tyrannical ends. If we want a less corrupt and unjust government, we must strip it of its power by doing away with or nullifying laws that empower it.