Saturday, September 10, 2016

What's Wrong With Phyllis Schlafly

Something to keep in mind, as we honor Phyllis Schlafly.

She went all in for Trump.

To put this in perspective: What's Wrong With the World honors a right-wing hero whose final act was to defy them.

I think I picked the right side in this particular intellectual battle.

11 comments:

The Practical Conservative said...

I read that post. I blog extensively about, essentially, the complete inability of WWWTW types to understand that no, the rearguard actions they're talking about were abject and monstrous failures BECAUSE they didn't learn a bloody thing from the astonishing intellect and truly badasterisk woman that Phyllis Schlafly was.

Andrea Dworkin, go figure, understood Schlafly better. She, interestingly, understood that her side had a shot only because there were no more Schlaflys in the pipeline of conservative women (or men). And the WWWTW post about Schlafly demonstrates that bitterly and succinctly.

B. Prokop said...

She also went all in for Goldwater.

(But I have to tread lightly here, since I actually voted for Barry Goldwater.)

Crude said...

She, interestingly, understood that her side had a shot only because there were no more Schlaflys in the pipeline of conservative women (or men).

What a grim analysis. True, of course.

Then again, I look at Lauren Southern and wonder what surprises may lay in store.

Mike said...

(Not trying to threadjack here)

I watched the recent thread on immigration there with amusement and a bit of head shaking because aside from GJ, there was literally no one there that really understood the nationalist perspective. For example, the characterization of the reasons for opposition to most interracial adoption was, to put it lightly, PC. On top of that, they couldn't even seem to get that a good chunk of the opposition to the immigration is pragmatic: many of these groups have lower average IQs and the nationalists are sick of importing people who can't hit the ground running as high achievers. There's an almost unlimited market for high achievers, but everyone else, not so much. The cluelessness was amazing.

It goes back to the "Visigoth vs Athenian" thing. Actual Athenians from the 5th century BC would be astonished that "preservers of civilization" are so wont to tolerate barbarism. Actual Greco-Roman defenders of civilization did not blanch at shedding the blood of barbarians that tried to make inroads into their city state. Instead of moderation, we now are treated to conservatives who blanch at the thought of not showing kindness to barbarians.

Crude said...

Christians and conservatives have been trained to deal with slurs and insults in the most craven way possible - see David French.

The most reasonable, first-step argument for nationalism is pretty simple: a nation has the right to consider its self-preservation and self-interests first and foremost. Maintaining its culture, standard, and caring for the actual citizens is supreme. Even before getting into the entirely valid talk of race and culture and IQ and capability, etc, this is close to the rock bottom basic reason - and a fair chunk of people can't stand it. Liberals in particular, since really, a good share of them hate the culture, standards, and actual citizens of whatever country they think is in dire need of a swarming anyway.

Mike said...

I brought up the fact that David Goldman, who is not exactly an Alt-Rightist, endorsed Trump on at least two grounds: he is refreshingly vehemently anti-PC and he may be a bastard, but he's "our bastard" in that so far the man has set his wrecking ball tendencies precisely at the sort of people who ordinarily attack the Right. Aside from Cruz, there was no other option in this election. We need an asshole-in-chief as far as the Left is concerned. We need someone who is more likely to feel schadenfreude as he skewers their sacred cows and makes them weep and cry out for help that never comes than a "uniter."

Crude said...

We need more assholes in general.

Andrew said...

Cruz was never an option. That's a thought that needs to be extinguished for good.

Crude said...

By assholes I didn't mean Cruz. Funny if that was a mistake though.

Andrew said...

No I was responding to Mike who seems to have yet to let go of Cruz having been a viable option.

See the Flight 93 Election essay. As the authors says, only 1 of the 17 Republican candidates had the chance/ability to do what needs to be done.

Crude said...

Cruz doesn't seem worth fighting over at this point anyway. I admit, I used to hold him in much higher esteem, but both he and Shapiro did things which forever mark them as 'shitheels'.