Head of the Statue of Liberty unpacked, 1885, credit Wikipedia
Baked into the System
Ilana Mercer unmasks voter fraud
Back in 2016, when broadcaster Lars Larson attempted to find out whether one Arcan Cetin was a citizen of the US, ICE (the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) told him, “Sorry, our obligation is to protect this migrant’s privacy.” “Who,” you ask, “is Mr. Cetin”? Cetin is a contributor to the phenomenon I term “murder-by-Muslim-immigrant.” He murdered five innocents, north of Seattle. Arcan Cetin voted, reports Mr. Larson. But nobody at ICE was willing to tell a good citizen like our broadcaster if Cetin voted legally or not.
As it turned out, a sigh of relief was in order. The stellar Mr. Cetin, who, like most Muslim immigrants, voted Democrat, violated the Sixth Commandment five times, but, thank God, did not appear to have violated the commandment against voter fraud. Rumor has it that the murderer had been awarded citizenship, although it’s impossible to ascertain.
You can rest assured. Voter fraud is as rampant in the US as any banana republic—and not only because Americans are barred from checking whether a murderer is a fellow-citizen. But, rather, because the progressive, globalist left has fought down-and-dirty to bar any proof of citizenship at the time of voting. Yes, the law requires, in my state, as in most of these United States, that you be a citizen, as well as a resident of the state in which you’re voting. But you don’t have to provide proof of citizenship, when voting. To vote in Washington State, as in most states, all that’s needed is a driver’s license or a current State ID card. Essentially, the American voting system, thanks to the triumph of left-liberalism, is based on an honor system. Continue reading
Transcending Woke Capitalism
Transcending Woke Capitalism
by Mark Wegierski
There is currently a debate underway about the shape and future of conservatism in both America and Canada. But what should a genuine conservatism actually consist of? Conservatism today is a bewildered philosophy, an unwieldy morass of amorphous and mutually incompatible ideas. Despite decades of internecine debate, the contemporary conservative movement in Western societies has failed, generally speaking, to provide a coherent and consistent account of itself. No viewpoint that, holus‑bolus, seeks to unite Barry Goldwater under the same banner as T. S. Eliot could be otherwise. No “vital equilibrium” could ever be that vital.
What can be described as the current malformation of conservatism has been caused, in part, by its weak and problematic position vis‑à‑vis the modern world. The advance of left‑wing thought and praxis in modern society has compressed all competing “right‑wing” ideologies together, forcing the “fusion” of nineteenth‑century liberalism with traditional conservatism, so that distinctions between the two have become increasingly blurred.
This union of what were once two strongly distinct political philosophies is not only regarded as a necessary tactical alliance (as it may well might be) but as a new theoretical and philosophical “synthesis”. Post‑war American conservatism in particular has been preoccupied with sometimes ingenious rationalizations of this new philosophical outlook. George Nash, for example, in his book The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America since 1945, divided post‑war American conservatism into three main groupings: “traditionalists”, “fusionists”, and “libertarians”. Purely on the level of theory, “fusionism”, as a “shot‑gun marriage” between two once‑opposed positions, can be seen as difficult to justify. One could also question to what extent the establishment of “fusionism” as a touchstone idea has helped or hindered the disparate groups of the American Right. Continue reading →
Share this:
Like this: