Democracy in Kekistan

Was Tocqueville an Altright Internet Troll? “Conservative” social climbers abuse his teaching as part of neurotic postmodern identity-invention project.


I can say from my own experience around tweed-jacket conservative pundit types, that there’s almost no other writer they enjoy bringing up more than Tocqueville. They consider him the father or step-godfather of their movement….

In regard to the central matter of this election — the problem of mass migration and demographic change — and in regard to the slur of “nativism” used against Trump’s supporters, what does Tocqueville have to say in Democracy in America? In a passage carefully avoided by conservative intellectuals who otherwise pretend to adulate him, Tocqueville says that “the customs of the Americans of the United States are…the peculiar cause which renders that people the only one of the American nations that is able to support a democratic government.” And so in his own words and most emphatically, Tocqueville reminds the reader of the importance and supremacy of custom or culture — by necessity inherited and slow-changing — over mere written laws or institutions, let alone ideological “principles.”

America is, after all, a culture and a people, a country, and not merely an idea. Tocqueville frankly identifies the United States with the Anglo-Americans and in a few important passages explicitly compares their customs to those of South America and in particular to Mexico

He’s got some very interesting points about both Tocqueville’s “white supremacy” and the problem with our conservative pundit class.


Immigration Might Not Be the Answer

To all those people crying about how the only way to show Christian love for refugees is to open our borders and let them flow in unimpeded, maybe you should stop judging those who disagree  and take a look at the facts? Take a look at how little even the most liberal immigration policy affects the world’s poor and suffering.

Refusing to look at the facts does not make one compassionate, and neglecting to weigh the risks does not make one brave. If you think truly demonstrating love for our neighbor requires ignoring the truth, then you forget that not only is God LOVE, but He is also the TRUTH. The best way to help those in need is to accurately assess the situation and use your reason to find the most effective way to help the most people. Rushing in blindly because it makes you feel like you’re doing good, isn’t helpful; it’s stupid.

You know the scene in movies and books, where some well-meaning fool rushes into danger to save others and is immediately killed, thus saving no one and only wasting his own life? He’s not the hero of the story is he? The hero is the guy who pauses and assesses the situation, even if that means bad things keep happening while he gets his bearings and he seems cold and uncaring for a time, but then goes on to save the world. Sometimes the hero even ends up sacrificing his life to achieve this end, but not in a stupid, meaningless, and ineffective way.

Actually, this is beginning to sound a bit like God. Why didn’t He rush in to fix everything right after Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden? Or at least soon afterwards?  But the He didn’t. He left his people wandering for years, sometimes in slavery, in sin, in darkness. He waited until just the right moment to sweep in and save His people by sacrificing Himself for their sake. Maybe everyone quoting the Bible to support their political views on immigration should take a closer look.

“Immigration can never be an effective or significant way to deal with the suffering people of the world. They have to be helped where they live… Let’s help them there”

Prolife Democrats – An Endangered Species

This article  about Nat Hentoff is very interesting.

The Left’s Failure: Why Nat Hentoff Lost His Friends

(Nat Hentoff) loudly and constantly defended the most radical possible version of civil rights, becoming famous—or notorious, depending on your point of view—for defending the rights of neo-Nazis to march in a heavily Jewish town.

Then, in the 1980s, he perceived for the first time that the unborn child had the right to live.

(Hentoff) quotes Mary Meehan, writing in The Progressive. She had had the same experience. “The traditional mark of the left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor,” Meehan noted. “The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even in more need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient. The basic instinct of the left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves.”

Why was (the Left), why is it still, so committed to the thorough outworking of the sexual revolution?

I would have thought the commitment to protecting the weak and the poor would be the fundamental one by which all other commitments would be judged. The conclusion should have been obvious: We protect the helpless; the unborn child is helpless; therefore we protect the unborn.

If the sexual revolution requires the killing of defenseless children, then by its own principles the left should have rejected the sexual revolution. That it required abortion should have been in itself a sign that the revolution was fundamentally wrong about man and the world.

Had those on the left subjected it to a leftist analysis they would have reached the obvious conclusion that abortion was an expression of the capitalist system they rejected. (As G. K. Chesterton had argued about the sexual revolution of his day.)

They should have demanded not that women have the right to abortion, but that they have the right to bear their children and raise them without fear of poverty. That would have been the principled leftist commitment. But instead, the left chose abortion.

All we can expect from the left today is rhetoric, it’s all about feelings. There is no analysis.