Wednesday, 10 February 2016

SELECTING FOR STRENGTH vs. SELECTING FOR WEAKNESS


 "Trumpublican" Darwinism vs. Identitarianism of the Inferior


The result from New Hampshire is in, and there are stories for both sides of the political divide. The "Trump Train" or the "Bernie Blitz" – take your pick. Channel 4 News, a UK station with an inevitable Leftist bias, is pushing hard on the Bernie narrative. They featured this comment, as if it summed up some sort of watershed moment in American politics:
"The people of New Hampshire have sent a profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and by the way to the media establishment."
"Nice story, bro," but what they are perhaps missing is just how vile and unlikable Hillary has always been as a candidate, and the surprising fact that she was ever chosen. The proverbial pile of dog poop could probably have beaten her.

In other words, Bernie Sander’s victory is actually meaningless beyond the very small fact of reminding us that you can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

Any reasonably likable Democrat politician who hadn't been cut down at the knees by the party establishment would have thumped a shambling fantasist like Sanders, and proved once again how powerful the political and economic establishments really were. Oppose him with Hillary, however, and suddenly those same political and economic establishments are trembling before the "towering genius" of a disheveled old Jewish man, who probably has to be reminded to put on his pants before leaving the house in the morning. What a miracle!

Over on the Republican side, thanks to Trump, the race has been taken away from the party establishment and opened up, so that what we are seeing is a rough approximation of a Darwinian struggle, leading to the selection of the fittest – Trump, naturally!

Of course, this is not the way the US political establishment likes to do business, and there may still be a few dirty tricks in the works to derail this healthy process, but for the time being we are seeing something special in American politics.

Inferior politician produced
by uncompetitive party system. 
The Dems by contrast have sought to prevent anything as "fascistic" as actual competition between candidates in their selection process. As that party has moved increasingly towards the "identitarianism of the inferior" – resentful minorities and unbalanced gender groups – it has rejected any principle of true competitiveness, because such competitiveness inevitably favours straight White males. Instead, it prefers a socialistic system of doling out the presidential candidacy to members of the various "sacred" groups – Blacks, Hispanics, unhappy women, etc. – with a mere shadow play of a contest.

The last time, Obama was given the candidacy on a plate, and that worked out okay for the Democrats, as he brushed up well as a candidate, and also fitted the global zeitgeist of a backlash against the Neocons. But this time, pushing "the cat lady's favourite" über alles and ignoring the competitive principle has led to a serious crisis for the Democratic Party. They are now effectively stuck with two losers in Clinton and Sanders.

Because Hillary has been the appointed candidate for the last few years, several things have happened. More likable and electable candidates, like Joe Biden, have been pushed to the sidelines, especially if they are White males – which basically means anybody in the Democratic Party with talent. Next, even though Hillary is obviously a hard Leftist by nature, an attempt has been made to cynically reposition her nearer the centre, meaning that any natural Democrat centrists have been overshadowed and pushed down.

This move, however, has opened up a bit of ground on the Left, where Bernie Sanders has been allowed to stage something of an insurrection, partly because a primary contest with no other candidate would have made this process of mollycoddling and selecting inferiority too apparent. But the sheer atrociousness of the "designated candidate" means that even this token contest has sparked into life, with Bernie outstripping the minor role originally intended for him. But mildly amusing as this is, it is a far different contest from the much more genuine Darwinian struggle that has opened up in the Republican field.

Hillary vs Bernie is essentially a contest between two weak, overprotected, and mollycoddled creatures. Hillary is an unelectable harpy, shuffled to the top of the Dem pack through the connections gained by her husband, and regardless of her many demerits, which the party establishment turns a blind eye to simply because she is a woman. Meanwhile Sanders is utilizing tactically abandoned ground on the far left of the Democratic Party – as well as the relative immunity granted by his Jewishness against the de facto ban on White men in that party – to create a Utopian pipe dream of a campaign that would prove extremely weak in a Presidential election.

Looks good next to Hillary;
looks bad anywhere else.
In the buzz the media tries to create out of this, it must be remembered that any victory that either Hillary or Bernie wins is against another weakling; whilst any victory that the various Republican candidates have is against a field involved in a much more rigorous struggle. The ultimate result of that fight, therefore, is worth a lot more than the winner of Bernie vs. Hillary.

Assuming a third candidate, like Biden, is not ultimately parachuted in to clear up the mess in the Democratic candidacy, whichever of these two electoral weaklings ultimately crawls out of the safety incubator of the Democratic primaries will be ill-equipped to fight the winner of the Republican Party’s much more Darwinian struggle – proving in the most profound way the inferiority of the Liberal Left's most fundamental principles.


 

No comments:

Post a Comment