Monday, November 14, 2016

What's Wrong With The World eats crow, manages to sneer the whole time

To the surprise of no one, of course.

Sage McLaughlin, which I assume is not a real name (and I refuse to believe otherwise), apparently drew the short straw among staff, so it fell to him to do the crow-munching. Not content with being completely wrong about the outcome of the primaries,  the election, or the control of the house and senate, Sage decided to chart bold new territory and be completely wrong about his analysis of WHY he was wrong.

"Hindsight is 20/20?" Sage snorted. "Screw that. Let's aim for 20/80!"
There was something else, though, something that stood a chance of making the 2016 campaign into a black swan event, though I had dismissed it with scorn from the very start: the craving for attention on the part of Trump’s voters (and, decisively, his potential voters). That craving found indirect reflection in the unbalanced, narcissistic personality of the Republican candidate. Moreover, their acute sense of victimhood made them amenable to any appeal that seemed to be directed at them. It was an appeal that Team Clinton consciously decided it had no need to make, bound as they were by their stubborn conviction that the Obama coalition could be mobilized without Obama’s name on the ballot (something for which none of the last five election cycles has provided any evidence).
What part of the electorate would this be? Who did Clinton ignore, to her detriment? Between her "this is how Hillary is like your abuela" and hot sauce comments, she hit every victim class we're used to hearing about. Well, everyone we'd normally call a victim class, anyway. 

He takes a while to come right out and say who he means - these people who need attention, these people who feel ignored, these *snort* would be victims. But it shouldn't be hard to figure out the object of his contempt in advance.

White people. UGH.

No, not all white people of course. Just, you know - the lower classes. Those who are not college educated and who wouldn't appreciate the bon mots of Sage and company, in part because a bon mot sounds like a shitty, expensive, French candy. Largely non-college-educated white people, the kind who live in communities that the people at What's Wrong With the World think have a moral obligation to die a la Kevin D. Williamson. People who, if they would be so kind, should just die already because their nasty sense of entitlement provokes them to do things like protest illegal (and massive legal) immigration. To think they imagine their wages shouldn't be intentionally deflated, or their communities overrun with people from another culture or the like.

Bastards! And yet, I find myself sympathizing with them.

Of course, I also sympathize with the blacks and hispanics - those who have actually been here legally, who have assimilated - and who also are quite screwed by these influxes, yet whose self-appointed leadership have been able to pacify the dregs with distractions. What can I say - I think American laws should, first and foremost, help Americans and American communities.

WWWtW thinks differently, which leads to a bit of a lesson. While Sage complains with a sneer about how a certain class of the electorate was too whiny - 'white niggers' he may as well call them - the real reason that's a problem is because Sage and company feel awfully ignored over there. Why, they are conservatives. They teach! Their friends write for the glossiest right-wing toilet paper around, National Review. How dare the plebes pick a candidate to represent them to the detriment of those who pray at the most important altar of all - the altar of free market economics and neo-con overseas projects!

And so, Sage - and Lydia, and Tony, and Paul, and all the rest - continue to sneer and forecast doom and gloom for we Trump supporters. Sure, they've fouled up every prediction so far, but - as Malcolm has noted in the comments - they're ready for what's coming. Every failure will be blamed on Trump. Every victory, called an accident, with praise heaped on Trump's accidental cabinet picks. Forget for a moment that Trump has already done one hell of a lot more than previous Loser-in-chief George W. Bush ever accomplished (aside from his SCOTUS picks, the best of which was forced on him by a furious base, aka, the predecessors to Team Trump.) Forget that he slayed the Clinton machine, helped save the GOP's position in the house and senate, and a whole lot more. No, Trump will screw up someday, and they'll finally be there to say 'I told you so'.

No doubt, I say to the folks at WWWtW. You will, no doubt, someday be able to say 'I told you so'.

...But we get to say it first.



Anonymous said...

I love that the first comment is Tony praising Sage's humility. Look at Sage, contritely admitting that he was wrong! You see, he underestimated the amount of attention-whores living among the white folks. His mistake. He promises not to make it again.

Truly, a lesson in humility we can all learn from.

That white people gif is amazing.

Crude said...

As an aside, it's funny as all hell to see Lydia ominously invoking Bannon's name. Bannon, that spectre of the alt-right! Lydia's on record as believing that, in a perfect world, anyone on Team LGBT (even closeted!) would be entirely unemployable - a position that puts even -my- blunt assholery to shame. She also, bless her heart (and I mean it on this one) is the resident foreteller of doom due to muslim immigration.

The only thing that keeps Lydia out of alt-right circles is that they're as friendly to feminism as they are to the NAACP, and Lydia's sympathies there are greater than you think. To sharpen that point: when it comes to publicly stated views, Trump is now more pro-life than Lydia is.

Crude said...

Yeah, that's what passes for humility there. Trump can even be more humble seeming than them. Think about that.

Mike said...

Left unsaid is that several of us actually called the election to them. In fact, my coworkers were stunned at my almost shitlord level smirk when I said "told you so" as the Trumpslide was reported on TV. I wasn't even surprised that he took 54% of the white female vote. Why? Those women were, to paraphrase Chris Rock saying "he ain't talking about me." And truthfully, he wasn't. You don't hear about Trump grabbing random employees' wives at Christmas parties.

Greg said...

What I see is a deep pride regarding Trump--they see themselves as too moral, too wise, too principled, too urbane--to allow their party and their movement be taken over by someone crass, blunt, and practical.

Thus the Talmudic reasoning about how Trump is going to ruin "conservatism" in America all the while ignoring that conservative PEOPLE (in which I include everyday decent Americans) themselves are marked for destruction in Soros-run present-day America. They forgot the true purpose of any conservative ideology is to protect the sovereignty and freedoms (which are intertwined states of being) of the American people, not an ideology itself. Low taxes and lax regulation aren't goods in and of themselves. The American people are.

What made this posturing worse was the fact the Democrats ran perhaps the single worst person in American electoral politics as their candidate. Clinton wanted to increase Muslim immigration five-fold. She would have further hampered law-and-order by siding with BLM terrorists above the cops. She would have pushed anti-Christian non-discrimination laws even further. Her federal court nominees would have been disastrous. But even this wasn't enough for the Never-Trumpers to at least bite their tongue about the Republican nominee; no they were against him till the bitter end.

Motivations play a key role here as others have touched on. A Clinton presidency would have been bad for coal miners and construction workers and ranchers near the border, but Lydia and crew would still have "conservatism" to pen defenses for.

B. Prokop said...

I see three big reasons why Clinton lost this election.

1. For reasons I cannot fathom, she thought it was a good idea to replicate the Mondale Playbook in running her campaign. Remember how Mondale thought he could beat Reagan (whom I voted for that year) by gathering up all the "right" endorsements, appearing alongside all the "right" celebrities, and outspending his opponent in all the "right" markets? Remember just how successful that turned out? Why Clinton decided to re-run the 1984 presidential campaign will be a subject for historians to chew over for generations to come.

2. Abortion. I haven't seen anyone bringing this up in any of the many election post-mortems I've read, but I think it may have been the decisive reason why she lost. A significant percentage of Catholic voters who otherwise would have cheerfully voted for her simply couldn't get past her uncompromising stand on the issue. Clinton was not just pro-choice, she was unabashedly pro-abortion. Her plan to repeal the Hyde Amendment was a bridge too far for what I believe was a critical mass of voters. Clinton telegraphed an unwillingness to compromise on this issue, or even to listen to anyone who disagreed with her on it. (And feel free to throw many people's aversion to the Obergfell decision into this mix.)

3. Arrogance. I remember Romney (actually, it was his wife) saying on one TV interview, "It's our turn." Those three words (and the attitude that accompanied them) sank his campaign. One got the feeling all along that Clinton had the same attitude, and enough voters wanted to respond with "No, it's not."

It was well within her power to overcome all of those flaws, but she chose not to (out of overconfidence? blindness to their existence? bad advice?). Had she done so, we'd now be discussing the plans of President Elect Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I didn't realize it was "traditionalist right" or "real conservative" to defend, spin and possibly (from the Democrat-talking-point style lovefest commentary) vote for Clinton. I refer to the long comment from Step2. It's profoundly inaccurate about both Trump and Clinton, but it sounds like it was copypasted from dailykos or the nyt.

Greg said...

Step2 is the resident liberal commenter so his spin is no surprise. But yes, the editors at WWWtW are much closer to his sentiments on the election than they are to ours.

Mike said...

One of the things I found surprising at the time was that W4 seemed to really not care that much about the national security and official corruption issues around Clinton as much as the vulgarity and pussy grabbing antics of Trump. Bad? Sure, but pussy grabbing all over the place is not on par with literal treason.

Crude said...

The fact that WWWtW - and other NeverTrumpers - went radio silent about Clinton while slamming Trump repeatedly, speaks volumes.

It is with grimness that I realize what that implies about their priorities and actual motivations.

Valtandor Nought said...

I was trying to figure out just now what NeverTrump (and the conservative establishment) reminded me of.

Finally it hit me. They're like the sort of "charity" that spends all its money on executive salaries and advertising, sorry, I mean "overhead" year after year, so that it can go back to supporters of the cause time after time and say, "Sorry, we couldn't achieve anything this last year! But if you're just a little more generous with your money, think of what we'll be able to do next year!"

Eventually even the most die-hard of honest supporters realise they're being played for fools.

Especially after the charity's spokespeople are seen reminding the public of "the importance to the community of a healthy non-profit sector that works closely with Government."

Reconquista Initiative said...

Hey Crude,

In my view, WWWtW is now like the blog version of National Review: namely, a largely irrelevant site that will nevertheless still hold on for some time. And, speaking of irrelevance, it is interesting to wonder how much of WWWtW's animosity towards the Trump-train has to do with the fact that he has largely made sites like theirs (as well as National Review) substantially more irrelevant than they were just a month ago.

And on a side-note, I am not sure if you remember the author of an old blog called '"I don't give a damn" apologetics', but if you do, and if you are at all interested, please note that I am now blogging at '', and this will be my final / permanent blog (although I am trying to keep my real name off the blog this time around, which is why I am not posting it here). Anyway, I just thought that you might be interested.

Take care.

Crude said...


Wait... wait.

I remember you. Tangled with Cowboy Hat, argued for deism as the superior default with Loftus' shitty 'signature argument'? You were an on and off commenter. Do I have you right?

I was wondering where you went. You were doing some interesting things.

As for WWWtW... I'd largely agree. In fact, I think early on I told them to watch out, because the sort of thinking they were thinking was being superceded. Fun fact? It kind of breaks my heart. I don't want to fight them, or anyone on the right, for the most part. I think Lydia has done great work, and certainly Tim McGrew has. I sympathize with them on a lot.

But with Trump, they were unrelenting. They had no understanding of why Trump was rising, why he was wanted, what he was providing - or maybe they understood but refused to acknowledge. I honestly, truly get the whiff of the worst aspects of conservatism off them, which I think they embraced in part as a defensive measure.

Trump's an odd figure. What's the phrase: "Not the hero we want, but the hero we deserve"? Something like that.

Either way, if you are who I think you are - welcome back, and let me know if you'd like a link. This blog's always semi-active at best, but I remember your arguments fondly.

Crude said...


I do remember that being said by someone. It was pointed out, millions and millions spent on these conservative 'think tanks' and what have they accomplished?

They've conserved exactly nothing. Oh, but they earned money while doing it.

It's ironic that the supposedly capitalist intelligentsia are horrified at the thought of a right-wing that demands results for their investments.

Reconquista Initiative said...

Good Day Crude,

You have me right on. I went off-line for some time to sort out my ideas and decide how I wanted to approach presenting them. I am back now, and on the website, I will be providing essay-length (1000-5000 word) posts on everything from cultural issues, to ID/Evolution, to new arguments against atheism, to arguments for God, etc. Additionally, for those who would prefer to listen to the essays, there will also be audio recordings of the essays posted on YouTube and linked to at the site. I have a decade worth of thoughts that I have decided to put down, so I should not be running out of material anytime soon.

Anyway, you were always gracious with me with your online time, and I have always appreciated your ideas, so I thought that I would let you know that I was back. And if you would be kind enough to link to me at your convenience, that would be greatly appreciated.

Now, concerning WWWtW, I agree with you in the sense that it is, in a way, sad to see such a publication undermined. On the other hand, it is also refreshing and a sign of needed change that they are dying. The fact is that they are the type of people who we need if we lived in a morally conservative / traditionalist culture where we simply disagreed at the margins of certain political issues; but in a culture where every institution of power (academia, media, government bureaucracy, etc.) is against us, their approach is now, I would say, next to useless. And I would also contend that the last 20-30 years, at least concerning social issues, bears out the fact that they have been less than useful in many of these areas. In essence, they are the kind of people that you want in your corner when you are having a gentlemanly boxing match with numerous rules, but they are next to useless in a back-alley fight-to-the-death street-fight.

Finally, concerning Trump, I would say that, in the situation that we find ourselves in, an individual like him was the only type of person who could have succeeded both politically and culturally as he did (and I mean succeeded in the sense of establishing a beach-head, not outright and full success). I mean, just take the media. Most normal Republicans would have courted them due to the need for coverage. Trump, however, circumvented them with Twitter (Twitter, for goodness sakes), and then attacked them in order to destroy their credibility, and also tricked them enough times that they had to cover Trump anyway. Does anyone think that Jeb or Romney could have done that? I don't think so. Only someone like Trump, I contend, could have succeeded in today's landscape. But now he will open the way for others to use his same tactics so that the right can hopefully have some success for the next generation.

Crude said...

Ah, glad I got you right. I thought your departure was both sudden and unfortunate - good to see you're back in the fray. I'll put a link up later today.

Re: WWWtW, not to mention National Review, I agree. I think there is 'an acceptable way of doing things' among conservatives, and that acceptable way tends to emphasize good behavior and kind words. Largely out of self-interest too - rail against the press and maybe they won't hire you to write for their outfits. If you're a bigger fish, maybe they won't let you be on their shows. And even if you're a smaller fish, the bigger fish may not want to have anything to do with you for fear that you'll impact THEIR chances at this or that.

Even those who don't act out of self-interest seem to at least be naturally meek. Actually, I could go on and on about this particular topic - I'll put it aside for now, save to say I agree.

And I agree with you entirely about Trump. He was a uniquely positioned individual - he had the right attitude, with the right connections, at the right time, and even against the right opponent. And he was exactly what was needed. Which makes his arrival that much more amazing. And what he will do now that he's succeeded? I agree there as well. Really, what he's accomplished is nothing short of amazing. He likely killed the would-be Clinton dynasty. Quite possibly the extant Bush dynasty as well, which (let's face it) needed to be destroyed. He's provided a blueprint for others, and he managed to do it all against a tremendously biased and hostile press, an insanely hostile political opposition, and even a party that was largely hostile to him.

He's promoted the normalization of fighting back, viciously, against one's opponents. An idea the left has embraced for ages - now it's time for the right to (finally!) embrace it too.

Mike said...

It's probably fitting that Vox Day's latest blog post about Ben Shapiro also features Shapiro announcing that a large part of his hatred of the Alt-Right stems from his perception that we want to defend Christendom from those that would destroy it. Even if W4 doesn't agree that that is the Alt-Right's goal, it should be amusing to see them defend someone from trolling who explicitly says that he is hostile to defending what remains of traditional Christian society in the West. At this rate, they'll be defending him simply on good manners grounds and nothing else within no time.

Anonymous said...

I love that Lydia has so much leisure she can argue endlessly on facebook about "all manner of topics under the sun", but she can't use that leisure to support overwhelmed Christian mothers of young children. This is really typical, women who are Boomer/Silent/Older Gen X, all kinds of free time to not do traditional female support but lots of free time to be prigs, on both sides of the ideological divide.