At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

Irrespectively of how he in fact will govern if he becomes president, it’s no longer possible to deny that Donald Trump is indeed the anti-Establishment candidate.

To get as far as he has, Trump has had to battle the Regime every step of the way.  Now that the election is less than a month off, it has dispatched its agents from all quarters to not just defeat Trump, but to crucify him.

The Clintons and their legions of surrogates from the Obamas to the Bushes, from the Republican leadership in the Congress to all of the major media are tirelessly doing anything and everything to destroy the one person who (they at least believe) poses the biggest threat to their Empire.

Yet, as of this writing, Trump is still standing and the outcome of this contest remains an open question.  He will continue standing, I predict, right through Election Day—whether he wins the race or loses it, for Trump has already won.

To repeat, Trump has won.

Most Americans have long admitted to having, if nothing else, an intuitive sense that both Washington D.C. and the media are corrupt.

Trump has confirmed in spades that they’ve been right to trust their gut.  His candidacy has revealed for all with eyes to see the existence of a massive, sprawling government-media complex created and preserved by an elite that advances its class-interest behind the veneer of such rhetorical fictions as “Democracy,” “the Will of the People,” “Equality,” and the like.

This ruling class of like-minded individuals is accustomed to directing the lives of the rest of us.  However, its exercise of control is just as subtle as it is relentless, facilitated by an abstract, ahistorical, universalistic ideology.  Its proponents describe the latter in terms of “values,” “ideals,” “principles.”  Though Democrats are wont to invoke it, the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism,” the creed that America is nothing else than a proposition or idea, also expresses this ideology.  Moreover, it makes the ideology that much more marketable by lulling the casual hearer into thinking that the affirmation of this borderless, globalist doctrine is equivalent to an assertion of patriotism.

Trump, whether he intended for this to happen or not, has in effect deconstructed this myth.  He’s revealed that while the Regime promotes its fiction in the name of the citizenry, millions and millions of Americans, those to whom Hillary derisively referred as “deplorables,” resolutely reject it.

There have been other whistleblowers on the Regime.  Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are two of the most prominent that immediately come to mine.  In fairness, even Bernie Sanders’ candidacy shed light on the corruption of Democrat Party politics.  But Trump is the first in our lifetime that has succeeded in actually exposing in all of its nakedness the manipulative, deceptive, and hypocritical nature of the whole Establishment.  Sanders is a leftist tool, and while Buchanan and Paul are both principled men—vastly more principled, in fact, than Trump—the cold hard truth of the matter is that they had neither the exposure nor the brashness to do in decades what Trump has managed to do within less than a year-and-a-half.

If the left and the neocon alt-left in Washington and the media think that a defeat at the polls for Trump is going to spell defeat for the movement that his candidacy brought to the fore, then they are even more delusional than we think.  Most Americans, regardless of party, distrust the media.  The tens of millions of Americans who found a voice in Trump despise it.  Whether Trump wins or loses on November 8, but especially if he loses, Trump’s impassioned base will hold the Regime’s court-appointed hacks accountable.  If he loses and Hillary Clinton proves to be the disastrous president that we know she will be, the contempt on the part of Trump supporters toward the faux journalists and commentators will only intensify.

An already polarized nation promises to grow still more divided and Hillary’s presidency promises to be a rocky one.  This the Deplorables will insure.

As for the GOP NeverTrumpists in Congress and their apologists in the so-called “conservative” (neoconservative) media, there’s perhaps no wing of the Regime for which the future is looking grimmer.  Election cycle after election cycle, the same con-men and women who have now turned their backs on their party’s presidential nominee—a man, mind you, who garnered more voter support than any Republican primary contestant in history—would spare no occasion to shame skeptical voters into supporting their candidates: Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

It’s now painfully clear that it is they who have no shame, for they’d prefer to give the election, and the country, over to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats rather than support the person who threatens to wreck their power structure.

So be it.

But the GOPers are sorely mistaken in thinking that it is their endorsement of Trump that will account for the reversal in their political fortunes.  It is, rather, their refusal to give Trump all of the backing that they would’ve provided to any other nominee that portends their downfall.

Do the NeverTrumpists seriously believe that Trump’s supporters will just return to business as usual in the event that Clinton becomes President? Do they think that the unprecedented number of voters who propelled Trump as far as he’s gone will forget their treachery, that they will ever again contribute a dime or a vote toward the Republican Party?

The GOP is destined to be in for a world of hurt.  So too, however, are those “conservative” (neoconservative) talk radio hosts, bloggers, writers, and Fox News chatterers who sought at every turn to safeguard the status quo, i.e. their own power.

The refusal to tell the truth when it needed to be told will be remembered by untold numbers of people. The D.C. and media Regimists think that if only Trump loses the election, they will be able to sleep comfortably again.  But as a colleague of mine put it today, Trump was but a spring shower.  There is a tsunami coming their way, a force of nature that will be all that much more catastrophic for the Regime’s interests if Trump loses, for it isn’t Trump, but the movement that he unleashed that will be the source of its greatest troubles.

#NeverTrump will give rise to #NeverGOP, or at least #NeverNeoconGOP.

The Trump phenomenon will continue—and grow.


On October 7, Wikileaks released more hacked DNC emails.  The latter confirm what many Republicans, independents, and Democrats have long known: Hillary Clinton, who billionaires back 20-to-one over Donald Trump, is the Bankster’s candidate, the candidate of Wall Street.

Between 2013 and 2015, Clinton raked in $20 million for speeches that she delivered to Goldman Sachs and other big banks.  Clinton admits that she needs the support of the banks to get elected to office.  She also acknowledges that she is a proponent of open borders and precisely the sort of “free trade” arrangements that many working-class Americans blame for the economic misfortunes that they’ve suffered.

The middle class, Clinton conceded, consists of people from whom she was “kind of far removed.”

While Big Media is scandalously apologetic on Clinton’s behalf, there’s at least a slight possibility that we would’ve been talking more about these revelations in the hours leading up to the second presidential debate had it not been for the leaked Trump audio from 2005.  Here, in an exchange with Billy Bush of Entertainment Access, Trump can be heard using crass language to describe the ease with which aspiring female celebrities permit celebrity men, like Trump, to have their way with them.

It took me a few days, but I finally realized why we’re all supposed to be outraged over this audio.

I suppose it has everything to do with this oppressive, naïve Christian morality of mine, but I expected that others would react in disgust as I did to hearing Trump nonchalantly boast about his adultery.  Trump, whose wife was two months pregnant with their son at the time, talked of his effort to “f**k” a woman who he (presumably) knew was married.  As it turns out, though, I was wide of the mark.

The unpardonable offense, that which sent Republican regimists running for the hills and the leftist press into dizzy spells, is Trump’s…language.

Trump used such verboten terms as the “f,” “b,” and “p”-words while having a private conversation with a reporter for a television show that regularly covers….Hollywood.

Granted, Trump sounded like a classless juvenile.  However, that his critics in both parties should swoon and howl over his choice of terms while saying little to nothing about his adultery reveals at least as much about them as Trump’s language tells us about him.  The anti-Trumpists are like the Pharisees who Jesus excoriated for straining out the gnat while letting in the camel.

Their hypocrisy runs still deeper.

First, it is precisely those on the social Democrat left, Trump’s most vocal enemies, who have been ridiculing and castigating the traditional sexual mores of the rest of us for decades.  From the perspective of the self-styled agents of the sexual revolution, anyone who displays the slightest resistance to their agenda is guilty of everything ranging from priggery, religious bigotry, sexism, homophobia—comprehensively, oppression.

Now, though, after spending the last half-of-a-century doing all that they have been able to do in coarsening the culture by hypersexualizing it, the New Libertines want for us to be repelled by Trump’s obscene language.

Second, the left’s greatest heroes, whether it is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr. or Bill Clinton, make Trump look like a choir boy by comparison.  FDR and JFK were compulsive womanizers and serial adulterers while they were president.  The same, of course, can be said of Bill Clinton.  What distinguishes the latter, however, is that Clinton had multiple rape charges leveled against him, and in one instance, he paid his accuser hundreds of thousands of dollars to settle out of court.

MLK never ran for the presidency, but he is the closest thing to a secular saint that contemporary American culture has going for it.  Yet King bedded countless women while he was married to his wife.  His adultery was chronic.  In fact, according to the autobiography of his closest friend and confidante, Ralph Abernathy, on the night before he was murdered, King had relations with no fewer than two women.  When the one found out that King was with the other, a fight ensued and King struck her, knocking her across the room.

Since, though, it is potty-talk that has our puritans besides themselves, they’ll be inclined to view the sexual promiscuity and adultery on the part of their heroes as innocuous.  King’s remarks upon the sight of Jacqueline Kennedy kneeling with her children next to her husband’s casket may be a little harder for them to take.  FBI agents recorded King as saying to his friends: “Look at her, sucking him off one last time.”

It is worth noting that during an interview with the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Jackie said of King that he “is really a tricky person.”  She also asserted: “I just can’t see a picture of Martin Luther King without thinking, you know, that man’s terrible.”

Of course, none of this is intended to justify Trump’s comments or (much less) his actions. Rather, it is intended to illuminate the hypocrisy and phoniness of his detractors.

Third, it’s awfully difficult for people generally, and heterosexual men specifically, to know respectable society’s rules for gender-appropriate speech and conduct in 2016 America. The goal posts continually shift depending on ideological and political expediency. On the one hand, we’re told that gender is a “social construct,” that women are men are virtually interchangeable physically and mentally.  This explains (I suppose) why feminists have decried expressions of chivalry as proof of “sexism.”  On the other hand, we’re also assured that expressions, whether crude or otherwise, of sexual desire on the part of men for women are equally manifestations of “sexism.”

Can anyone seriously doubt that if Trump was gay and had been overheard speaking crudely about a man in whom he took an erotic interest that the very same folks acting outraged today would be castigating the judgmental for their “homophobia?”

This is a morally juvenile generation indeed.


Not long ago, National Review writer Jonah Goldberg discussed the “alt-right” with Hugh Hewitt on the latter’s talk radio show. They agreed that, at bottom, the movement upon which Hillary Clinton bestowed national recognition last month was “racist” and “supremacist.” As such, it deserved to be purged from the GOP and the conservative movement.

The notion that there is an alt-right is highly suspect, for there can be an alt-right only if there is a right. But, contrary to what Democrats and Republicans alike would have us think, there is no genuine right in contemporary American politics. So, there is no alternative on the right to it.

As I argued in a recent essay, there is, rather, an alt-left that has been passed off by the political Establishment and its media apologists as the right. And Hewitt and Goldberg are among those who belong to it.

Alt-leftists decry the so-called alt-right as being nothing more or less than a white supremacist, racist movement. Goldberg, for example, referred to Jared Taylor, a self-avowed representative of the alt-right, as “a leading racist,” and Hewitt characterized Peter Brimelow’s site as “supremacist.” For good measure, Goldberg added that the alt-right was “anti-Semitic.”

It is the modus operandi of the left to demonize their opponents to their right in these sorts of terms. That the Hewitts and Goldbergs of the world hesitate not for a moment to appropriate this tactic betrays their affinity for the left. Yet it is a disgusting tactic, the rhetorical equivalent of shooting off a gun in a crowded area, for charges of racism and the like, though sorely lacking any precise meaning, threaten to inflict a kind of social death upon those against whom they’re leveled. And “anti-racists” know it.

That this is so, that alt-leftists would not dare to pursue the implications of their reasoning, can be gotten easily enough from the following.

Russell Kirk

Of the author of the seminal The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Elliot, Bill Buckley—the founder of the very magazine that employs Jonah Goldberg and many other anti-Trumpist enemies of the alt-right—said that it “is inconceivable even to imagine, let alone hope for, a dominant conservative movement in America” without Kirk’s “labor.” Indeed. Kirk was probably as close to a contemporary American version of Edmund Burke, the conservative tradition’s “patron saint,” as any that has ever been. Yet Kirk resolutely eschewed the kind of rationalist, globalist abstractions—like Democracy and American Exceptionalism (America-As-An Idea)—in which neoconservatives like Goldberg routinely trade, and which they try to sell as “conservatism.”

Kirk, rather, being a conservative, affirmed the concreteness and particularity of tradition.   More exactly, he prized the culturally-specific traditions of the West, of what has historically been a European, i.e. a predominantly white Christian, civilization.

Was Kirk a racist and supremacist?

Once while remarking upon the fixation on Israel exhibited by some alt-leftists, Kirk claimed that there are “some neoconservatives” who seemed to think that Tel Aviv was the capitol of the United States.

Was Kirk an anti-Semite?

Buckley not only didn’t purge Kirk from the conservative movement; he had originally begged him to write for National Review. Kirk accepted.

If Kirk is a racist, supremacist, and anti-Semite, then does this mean that, by implication, so too is Buckley, and so too was National Review?

And if the latter is true, then does this imply that those who write for the publication to this day, folks like, say, Goldberg, are also guilty by association?

William Buckley

Speaking of Buckley and NR, though many today would care to forget this, the truth is that much ink was spilled at conservatism’s flagship journal defending Jim Crow. In 1957, Buckley wrote that since Southern whites, at this juncture in history, constituted “the advanced race,” they were “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, where they do not prevail numerically [.]” In “Why the South Must Prevail,” Buckley argued for the “cultural superiority of white over Negro [.]”

In the 1960’s, Buckley and his magazine advocated on behalf of apartheid in South Africa, colonialism, and the genetically-based intellectual inferiority of blacks.

Since Goldberg, Hewitt, and every other anti-Trumpist who are so quick to brand those to their right with the “R”-word remain especially cozy with National Review, it’s not unfair to ask them:

Is not National Review a supremacist publication? Shouldn’t it and those who are affiliated with it be driven from the GOP and the conservative movement?

Norman Podhoretz

Back in 1963, the now deceased editor of the alt-left journal Commentary authored an article, “My Negro Problem and Ours,” in which he admits to the “hatred I still feel for Negroes,” what he describes as “the hardest of all the old feelings to face or admit [.]” Podhoretz talks as well about “the insane rage that can stir in me at the thought of Negro anti-Semitism” and “the disgusting prurience that can stir in me at the sight of a mixed couple [.]” His “hatred” also manifests itself in “the violence that can stir in me whenever I encounter that special brand of touchiness to which many Negroes are prone.”

Is Norman Podhoretz a racist? Is Commentary a supremacist publication?

Should the public be alerted that that the New York Post employs the son—John Podhoretz—of a white racist supremacist?

Specific individuals aside, the case can be made all too easily that by the measure that the alt-left judges Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and any number of other commentators who have never hurt a hair on the head of any non-white person, the alt-left stands condemned many-fold. Indeed, if, as many alt-leftists frequently argue, the policies of leftist Democrats convict them of “racism” because of the damage that these policies have visited upon black communities, then alt-leftists are homicidally racist because of the incalculable damages that their policies have visited upon peoples of color in places like Iraq.

Moreover, the alt-left’s doctrine of American Exceptionalism, the belief that America is the greatest country on Earth with the authority to advance its form of government everywhere, betrays its own form of supremacy: Alt-leftists are American supremacists, or Democratist supremacists.

Though he is no conservative or rightist, perhaps Donald Trump—with whom Hillary, the left, and the alt-left try to link the alt-right—can be credited with purging the Republican Party of its alt-left extremists.



Whether there really is a sinister “alt-right,” as Hillary Clinton has insisted, is questionable.

What is not questionable, though, is that there is an alt-left. This election cycle has made this clear.

And the home of the alt-left is the Republican Party.

The alt-left is, in some ways, domestically, a more moderate form of left-wing progressivism. In other ways, however, in foreign policy, with its military adventurism, it is actually a more robust species of this ideology.

Of course, those on the alt-left don’t ever self-identify in these terms. On the contrary, they describe themselves as “conservative.” Nevertheless, these “conservatives” are nothing of the kind. They are neoconservatives.

And this is but another way of saying that they are adherents of the alt-left.

More than one argument will bear this out.

First, from at least the time of Edmund Burke, “the patron saint” of modern conservatism, conservatives had distinguished themselves from radicals not just by way of the sorts of policies for which they advocate, but as well by the philosophical principles underlying those policies. Whether they were the proponents of the French Revolution, Marxism, Social Justice, or any other token of progressivism, leftists, being utopian, have tended to indulge in universal and absolute metaphysical and moral abstractions—like Reason, the Rights of Man, and Democracy—that conservatives have resolutely disavowed.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have opted for tradition, local, culturally-specific, time-honed tradition, as their starting point for political and moral reflection.

Now, as should be obvious to anyone who has been paying attention to American politics for more than a few minutes, to say nothing of decades, those in the alt-left—neoconservatives—share in common with their leftist radical counterparts from other times and places their embrace of these rationalist fictions.

The alt-left endorses “human rights,” and insofar as the latter are supposed to be “self-evident” propositions around which a whole society can be organized, it also endorses the Reason of the philosophes who advocated on behalf of the French Revolution.

Yet the alt-left also prizes Democracy as the prototype of the ideal universal civilization.

These concepts the alt-left weaves together in a uniquely American expression, what it champions as “American Exceptionalism,” the creed or doctrine that America is humanity’s “last, best hope” and that it is the only country in all of human history to have been erected upon an idea.

Classical conservatism, in glaring contrast, has no creeds, for it is not an ideology but, rather, an antidote or response to ideology.

Second, some of those on the alt-left, including and especially some of its most notable representatives, unabashedly concede that they had spent their formative years on the left. More tellingly, they admit that they never abandoned it!

Irving Kristol, the late father of renowned Anti-Trumpist Bill Kristol, is perhaps the most revealing example of this. He accepted the distinction of being “the godfather” of neoconservatism while insisting that the latter had nothing to do with traditional conservatism or any other rightist movement.

Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives embrace “the welfare state,” i.e. “social security, unemployment insurance, some form of national health insurance, some kind of family assistance plan, etc.”, and it will not hesitate “to interfere with the market for overriding social purposes [.]”

Kristol underscores the point that neoconservatives don’t want to “destroy the welfare state, but…rather reconstruct it along more economical and humane lines.”

Neoconservatives are enthusiastic proponents of American Exceptionalism. Kristol insists that the United States is “a creedal nation” with a “‘civilizing mission’” to promote “American values” throughout the world. Given its status as a “great power” and its “ideological” nature, America, Kristol informs us, does indeed have a responsibility, “in those places and at those times where conditions permit” it “to flourish,” to “‘make the world safe for democracy.”

Nathan Glazer is another neoconservative who goes so far as to suggest that neocons are essentially socialists. “It’s very hard for us [neocons and socialists] to define what it is that divides us, in any centrally principled way.”

The original neoconservatives were leftists for whom the rest of the left in the 1960’s and ‘70’s drifted too far leftward. This, though, most certainly doesn’t mean that the neocons moved rightward. They did not. The alt-left clung to both the abstract rationalistic philosophical underpinnings of its globalist, progressivist vision and the kinds of domestic and foreign policy prescriptions typical of that vision. As Glazer says, while in some instances there may be disagreement over “the details or the scope of health insurance plans,” “the level of taxation that should be imposed upon corporations,” or “how much should be going into social security,” there doesn’t appear to be any “principles that separate us.”

Those white-hot frustrations of grass-roots conservative and Republican voters who have turned to Trump in record numbers have been building for years. They stem from the fact that while these voters believed that they were throwing their support behind a conservative or right-leaning party, they were in reality supporting the alt-left, a movement that differs, when it differs, from the hard social Democrat left only in degree, never in kind.

That there is an alt-left that millions have been led to confuse with conservatism also explains how and why it is that there is a NeverTrump movement, a movement comprised exclusively of those who for decades tirelessly advanced the GOP and “the conservative movement.” The alt-left recognizes that it shares more in common with Hillary Clinton and her party than it shares with Trump: mass Third World immigration, globalist trade policies, the promotion of multinational corporations, and militaristic crusades for exporting Democracy to the four corners of the Earth have proven to be things on which the alt-left and the mainstream left have never stopped agreeing upon.

More on the alt-left will be said in the near future. The point of this article was to establish that there is indeed an alt-left that is far more powerful and influential than any alleged alt-right.

Previous Posts