Donald Trump, Fascist?

Donald Trump is a fascist!” is the accusation that has been on many a spittle flecked lip ever since Herr Trump has risen to electoral prominence by advocating such radical courses of national action as enforcing national borders against waves of illegal immigrants seeking to sack the nation via dole dependency and wage compression, selectivity in terms of those who are allowed access to the country, and governing in a manner informed by principles of logic and reason while allowing facts to speak for themselves. Certainly, Trump appears to flirt with reaction: the patriarch of a large family who has run an unapologetically jingoistic presidential campaign, who asserts the nation’s right to sovereignty and to continued existence on its own terms rather than on the terms of the cuckmunity community of nations. All of this is quite laudable. Unlike the other candidates who stand for suicide by open borders, capitulation, and corporatism, Trump stands for nationalism, vigor, and bellicosity – if and when necessary.

Naturally, to the thoroughly cucked any display of will, fortitude, or pride will seem fascist, preferring as they do to lead a life of abdication, weakness, and shame. The world “fascist” has been neutered & rendered meaningless phrase; it is now an empty slur used to discredit rather than define. Nevertheless, one cannot help but think that a truly fascist Trump, a Trump who fully embraced both the political and spiritual aspects of fascism, who upheld tradition, blood, soil, and continuity would be a wonder to behold. It would be truly galvanizing.

Firstly, there is no longer anything to be gained politically from centrism or moderation. These days, all of the action is at the poles. This explains the popularity of Sanders on the Left and Trump on the Right. To some extent, both parties realize that to remain relevant they must appeal to “extremist” factions within their respective bases, or at the very least, ride the reactionary wave to victory. Secondly, the demoralized populace longs for candidates who embody higher and more noble ideals, so long have they been mired in cravenness and baseness. The people seek to be led by an individual who is more than just a statesman, as it has become abundantly clear that mere statecraft is insufficient to halt and reverse the decline. It is quite fair to say that the people seek a leader in possession of an elevated type of spirit who will drive the nation to achieve something more transcendent.

Liberalism’s failures are becoming apparent even to the least sophisticated who intuit that something is amiss with the world but nonetheless lack the critical tools to diagnose the malady or the words to articulate how it has destroyed the world. People seek genuine values and are instead plied with ersatz ones. This yearning has contributed in large part to Trump’s appeal, and it is something that he ought to embrace more fully. He should become more Right & truly relate to the people in a spiritual way. The average American finds himself in a world that has toppled the noble and the upright only to replace those values with the anti values of pusillanimity and spiritual poverty, to hideous result. Not fully comprehending this, he seeks political and economic solutions. Of course, this extends beyond the merely political. But the current zeitgeist – this thirst for political change – I believe masks a deeper desire for a more profound sort of change. The leader who understands this and engages with this can channel the restless collective energy and redirect it towards more useful endeavors and higher aims.

The people are tired of being given license while the elites strip them of freedom. They are discombobulated by the civilization’s gradual slide into entropy and seek order. The radical individualism advanced by the various merchants of liberalism have resulted in a deracinated people who believe that it is their duty to systematically spay and neuter themselves and in the “bravery” of self mutilation. All which are symptoms of a debased spiritual condition. For Trump to openly take a stand against degeneracy and moral inversion and rootlessness, to call for a cultural reformation that would edify the nation in addition to his political platform would be a fashinating fascinating development.


Fisher v. Texas Redux

Fisher v. University of Texas is in the news again. The case is before the Supreme Court again after having been vacated and remanded to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration over two and a half years ago. The case is the latest in a series of decisions dating back over 35 years grappling with the (dubious) constitutionality of affirmative action-or as it is now euphemistically termed “race conscious admissions”-in public institutions of higher education. Since the Bakke decision in 1978, the Court has consistently held classroom diversity to be a “compelling state interest” and thus on par with such other compelling interests as national security and the protection of the fundamental rights of the citizenry.

Consider that. Diversity is considered to be as important an interest as protecting the nation from the machinations of foreign marauders intending to do it and its people ill.


There are two aspects of this case that I find particularly interesting, specifically the public vilification of the plaintiff as a bad plaintiff who wouldn’t have qualified for admission at UT anyway based on her SAT performance and her high school GPA, and the vitriol unleashed against Justice Scalia for some hatefacts observations he made during oral arguments. The criticism launched against Fisher has been nothing less than a magnificent display of doublethink. Fisher’s detractors have criticized her for bringing the case, arguing that she wouldn’t have qualified for admission to an elite school like UT anyway given her underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance. These are the very same critics who approve of affirmative action, which is nothing more than programmatic justification for the admission of URM candidates who wouldn’t have otherwise qualified for admission to elite schools- due to their generally underwhelming SAT scores and high school performance.

Of course, her critics fail to grasp her argument. The argument was never that she was a stellar test taker and a superstar high school student who should have been granted admission as a matter of course. Her argument is simply that based on her test scores, had she been black or Latino, she would have more than likely been granted admission to UT as affirmative action initiatives make it permissible to accept URM candidates with less impressive academic profiles than would be acceptable for white (and marginally Asian) candidates. Her argument is that it is unconstitutional, indeed, unjust for the government to employ different standards for different groups of ostensibly equal citizens, especially when the application of these differing standards serves to disadvantage one group of citizens relative to other groups.

Naturally, this demonstrates the indisputable veracity of the “liberals think that only whites have agency” meme that has been swirling around the alternetz for awhile now. Fisher is ridiculed for being “too dumb” to have secured admission to A Good School. Presumably, her critics would have told her that she should have been better: she should have studied harder to improve her scores so as to ensure admission to the choicest of schools. The onus is completely upon her as a white person to succeed & her failure to do so is met with scorn and derision. When it comes to URMs however, they are viewed as being utterly incapable of performing to standards and of ever bringing themselves up to standards; it’s ridiculous to even suggest that they should try. So it stands to reason that the standards must be brought down to suit them.

Scalia, Scourge of the Left had this to say on the issue:

There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don’t come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they’re being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.”
“I’m just not impressed by the fact the University of Texas may have fewer [blacks]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.”



He’s been blasted for these comments, but he’s absolutely correct. Excellent point poorly made, I’d say. But the data bear out his poorly articulated observations. The attrition rates for black public college attendees is astronomical for black students, and the remainder struggle to finish a four-year course of study. . .in six years.  Considering that for 2007-2008, the school year during which Fisher sat for her SATs the black mean stood at 1280/2400 as compared to the overall mean of 1511/2400, this should come as no surprise. Compare both means to the UT mean of 1901/2400, and the nature of the problem becomes even clearer.

URM students who are admitted to elite public colleges are by and large unable to compete with the rest of the student body and would be better off attending schools where the academic aptitudes of the student body are more in line with their own. Instead, they are pushed into and through colleges where they either fail out or flounder even after selecting economically useless social justice courses of subjective study guaranteed to saddle them with mountains of debt, chips on their shoulders, and no useful skills.

Of course, none of this means anything. The Court has recently become populated by affirmative action nominees willing to contort the Constitution any which to justify their prefab conclusion that the Equal Protection clause exists in order to ensure that some Americans are more equally protected than others.  The underachievers of today must ensure that the pathways to power remain available to the underachievers of tomorrow so that they too may succeed in spite of their mediocrity. As a result of Kagan’s recusal, the outcome will likely be a 4-4 decision – a worthless outcome, as it will create no binding precedent.

So why write about it? Simply because this case is a reminder. As we’ve always maintained here, diversity is not a value. It is an anti-value. It obliterates values. It is antithetical to values and principles, and it forces everything to genuflect before it. It perpetuates a culture of falsehood, failure, and lowered expectations that will ultimately level and destroy everything of worth within a civilization.