Scott Adams "gets" the heart of Clinton supporters and, in general, The Left.

Scott Adams, illustrator of the beloved newspaper cartoon Dilbert, is a Trump supporter. He has observed anti-Trumps on The Left and he has drawn these conclusions about them.

"I’ve been trying to figure out what common trait binds Clinton supporters together. As far as I can tell, the most unifying characteristic is a willingness to bully in all its forms.

If you have a Trump sign in your lawn, they will steal it.

If you have a Trump bumper sticker, they will deface your car.

if you speak of Trump at work you could get fired.

On social media, almost every message I get from a Clinton supporter is a bullying type of message. They insult. They try to shame. They label. And obviously they threaten my livelihood.

. . . .

Team Clinton has succeeded in perpetuating one of the greatest evils I have seen in my lifetime. Her side has branded Trump supporters (40%+ of voters) as Nazis, sexists, homophobes, racists, and a few other fighting words. Their argument is built on confirmation bias and persuasion."

The Left hates bullies, with all the anti-bulling campaigns, with the obsession of "diversity & inclusion," with the accusations of almost every -ism known to man (they'll make more -isms up), yet in ironic fashion they have become bullies. They create their own indignation out of a vacuum because, well, I don't know why. It might be out of boredom or the human need to be part of something that makes their heart swell up with feels.

The Left loathes bullies, but when they get an inkling of power they become bullies. They will excuse their own behavior, saying such things are justified because "they're tired of all the [insert -ism(s)]."

You ask them for particular events in their life that caused them to be bitter and they'll instead give some cliche slavery, Native American genocide by the government, Vietnam and Iraq, some talk about empire building, the 1950s, LGBT homelessness and the AIDS epidemic answer. Did I miss anything?

"No, I mean direct instances. Like were you, a friend, or relative fired because he wasn't white or not straight?"

Nothing, for the most part.

This is why I really am suspicious of the "rape culture," the calls of racism in police departments, and the suppose LGBT plight. So far I'm not nearly convinced as The Left is. In their world, the sky isn't falling but SEXISM, RACISM AND LGBTPHOBIA!

"We have much work to do."
"We have a long way to go."

25 years later.

"We have much work to do."
"We have a long way to go."

Alt-right and fashion.

Ryan Landry, host of Weimerica Weekly over at Social Matter, recently talked about the decline of standard in men's dress. Many of the points he gives are basic "dress better" tips going around in the men's fashion circle which can be labeled as common sense.

This what I wrote in response -

"Gotta disagree with the (self-tied) bow ties.

Depending on your frame and how fit you are many off-the-rack suits will need to be tailored, so purchase blazers and suits that fit you the best and get them adjusted by a decent tailor. I do agree with less is more, both in flash and quantity.

You also don’t need to spend a lot on clothes that are form fitting (not tight like it’s glued to your skin). Places like Macy’s, JC Penny and J.Crew Factory carry pieces that are usually on sale and are at a price that won’t set you back.

Shoes can cost a penny (Alden, Brooks Brothers) but like above you can find decent shoes at a relatively affordable price at places like DSW. I think the only acceptable seams on a shoe are the cap toe and the wingtip. The seamless look is nice but again this is fashion and personal preference plays a big part in “dressing the part.”

Besides “dressing the part” men need to start working out. Build endurance. Build your strength. If you can participate in a 10K without dying then you’re on the right track. No need to go for a full-marathon. Just get your heart and lungs healthy.

Eat well without going full blown retard by becoming a vegetarian or vegan if you don’t have any digestion issues. Steak every now and then. Chicken that isn’t pumped with hormones. Fresh fish. Greens everyday as a side dish for a meal, be it lunch or dinner. Healthy fats and calories. Eating a pop tart won’t kill [you] once in a while.

So yes, “dress the part” but also take care of body that makes that silhouette."

I'd say this was a nice departure from the usual NRx talk. Conservatism, traditionalism, and dignity aren't initially seen as "sexy" or appealing. The Right has more sound ideas and are more decent than any modernist crap but their appearance on a materialist level leaves something to be desired. Appearance isn't necessarily everything but it helps if you dress "nice."

If conservatism has the ideas then it needs to let go of the baggy, boxy suit and ill-fitted dress shirts and move into a slim suit with a dress shirt whose collar isn't too big. Keep the ideas and concepts but change the look. Conservative women are ahead of the game when it comes to fashion, but conservative  men are sorely lacking in dress. You aren't a beta if you dress well, so dress well.

If there's a couple of men's fashion trends I'm rather annoyed by is the no-break pants and the variations of the "hipster" undercut (which Ryan alludes to in his talk) for hair styles. I like a slight break in my dress pants; no break as possible when it comes to chinos. I use to have the undercut but since it has become so ubiquitous I moved towards a more (Mad Men) traditional hairstyle.

Oh, and go to church every Sunday.

Mind, body and soul.

The insany hypocrisy of the pious modernists.

I think what Trump said 11 years ago on a Hollywood lot was disgusting. It's "guy talk" but nonetheless it was disgusting. I won't defend him and say that this is what men do when alone shooting the breeze therefore it's A-OKAY. It's not. But I will say that those who are offended and are on the left, saying he's a bastard and a sexist, are showing their selective bias and short-term memory.

Many Probably everyone in the entertainment industry loathes Trump. Europe hates him. Yet they love Roman Polanski and they consider it a career milestone to sign up for a Woody Allen film. Now, if you're an actor, or a producer, or director and you think he's a crude man then I'd agree. If you think he's so low, lower than what happens on set and what happens in front of the camera for the name of "art" then you're a hypocrite. The film & television sector makes Broadway appear tame.

If you're a social prog and you think Trump is disgusting just remember that you're all for carpet munching and anal sex all while flying the rainbow flag of death and stagnation. Because wuv and "we're just humans falling in wuv." You're the one who says "Aw!" when two people of the same-sex enter a relationship.

You mock the so-called prudes for their supposed backwards view on sex and sexuality yet when you hear Trump's words you become nice and neat. You gently dab your napkin on the side of your mouth to remove any excess food as you use your indoor voices, talking about equality and empowerment while eating vegan dishes and drinking kale smoothies.

Yes, Trump's past reveals a man of extreme narcissism. But the left is all about narcissism while appealing to the "greater good." Save the whales. Save the global warming refugees. Save the starving kids in Africa. They should love Trump. But he actually appreciates America. So in his case it's "save America" but that's the wrong type of agenda. He's white. That's the wrong type of skin color. He got mega mega rich with business. The Left doesn't like business unless the business gives them money. Trump is running as a Republican - The Left's selective bias and short memory makes them froth at the mouth when the "r" would is mentioned.

If one is intellectually honest Trump should be somewhat liked by The Left, but he isn't. His agendas are wrong. He's a white man. He's a person who seems to genuinely like America. The left can't have that.

I may not be a full-on Trump supporter, but how people categorize his supporters is just plain hypocritcal and ignorant.

The irony.

Here are some quotes about Trump supporters -

"I'm not an American, but I assure you that people that vote for Trump don't have brains.
I would be ashamed if I voted for a "person" like him to lead my country and my people. De Niro is right, saying that he is a pig."

And people will vote for Clinton because they want the first woman president. That's some deep shit right there.

 "Trump supporters are truly low information voters"

 "America is entering dark times. Just yesterday a GOP office in North Carolina was firebombed. There was graffiti on the building that read "Nazi Republicans. Get out or else" (Honestly this whole attack seems sketchy. It's something a Trump supporter would do to make themselves look like the victim."

A response to the above quote -

"And they wonder why Hillary called them deplorable.
F-ck this noise. I'd love to see one of these c-nts try to intimidate me. And f-ck all this talk of "revolution" and killing Hillary. The worst part of this for me is these idiots don't see the utter hypocrisy in their words - they wanna call anyone unlike them criminals or degenerates, BUT THEY ARE COMPLETELY BLIND TO THEIR OWN SH-T. LIKE WHAT THE F-CK. ARE WE REALLY ABOUT TO ENGAGE IN WAR OVER THIS ONE BUMBLING IDIOT WHETHER HE WINS OR LOSES. IS THIS REALLY WHAT OUR COUNTRY HAS BOILED DOWN TO??????"

 It's interesting how amazing the MSM can shape a voter block. The Clinton/Obama supporters are hip, sophisticated and intelligent. They're filled with empathy and are all for equality. Trump supporters? Dumb hicks from the sticks who are racists, xenophobic, and are bullies. It's the same tactic on how they portrayed Tea Party members.

In my experience and from what I've read and watched it's the opposite.

I know  I've explicitly expressed my disdain of Trump's GOP nom here but upon reflection the thoughts regarding his supporters I take back. I said those things because I was upset, though my thoughts on picking Trump as the GOP nom still remain roughly the same. Do I actually believe Trump supporters are "dumb flat-headed" folks? There probably are some but in general nope.

Another reason I expressed those unfair words is because I also think Trump will lose and as I stated in the linked page I don't want to see SJWs and damn leftists gloating. I saw the gloating when Romney lost and it left a very, very bad taste in my mouth. Now, if I thought Trump had a decent chance of winning, sure, I may have been a little more charitable with my remarks.

The typical Gnu.

Gnu: Religion is cancer don't separate it in extreme and moderate, cancer is cancer dude.
Someone: Oh really? Got anything that isn't a cliche because using that cliche is just sad on your part.
Gnu: If you want to defend irrational beliefs you got no leg to stand on, that's the real sadness here.
Someone: What's irrational about religious beliefs? Be specific. Take one from Islam, Christianity, Jewish culture, Buddhists ...

The annoying bits of the alt-right.

By Reader on Social Matter -

 “Richard John Neuhaus, the founder of First Things magazine, was a thoroughgoing Murrayite Catholic. A dyed in the wool conservative…”

Do you know anything about the history of American conservatism?

John Neuhaus was originally part of the Rockford Institute but left and, with a bunch of ((( neocon ))) funding, started First Things. First Things has always been a major neocon publication.

More recently, First Things has become even worse, often advocating for the Third World immigration invasion of the West.

But I guess that is not out of character for Catholics, since Pope Frankie also supports the Third World invasion of the West. Second to Jews, The Catholic Church more than any other religion advocates for the 3rd world invasion of the West.

To hell with these people. I was Catholic but left when I saw how anti-Western the Church has become. If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

. . . .

Here’s a NY Times piece on the Neuhaus/neocons vs paleocons dispute:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/16/us/magazine-dispute-reflects-rift-on-us-right.html

Eventually Neuhaus and the neocons went around to every major donor and asked them to stop funding paleocon publications. Neuhaus told them that the paleocons were all xenophobes / racists / anti-semites.

Just looked at First Things website again — hadn’t looked it in a while — and it is so cucked. I feel like I have an STD from even visiting the site.

There's that word again "cuck." I don't mind the word being used just that's been overused and by people like Reader who are more "shallow right" who treat their faith as if it's "just another institution" of the world. It's not. People have their reasons for "leaving" the Church but for the most part I have found them with  good dose ridiculousness.

More clues that Reader is more political than he is a faithful Catholic, if he ever was one and not just a "Catholic-because-my-dad-was-one" - "Pope Frankie." Yea, I think Pope Francis a poor leader, vague in his rhetoric, but one man does not make the Church and the Catholic Church's stance (#2 should go before #1, or at least have some sort of an amendment to #1) on immigration - on paper - is not entirely to my liking.

 I have faint memory of any controversial piece on First Things about immigration, but it seems like there's a variety of thoughts on the subject matter.

And, again, to highlight -

If you look at long-term demographic trends, within 50 years the Catholic Church will almost exclusively be a jungle religion.

I'm not entirely sure what he means by "jungle religion" but if it means the demise of the Catholic Church then I bet Reader will be one of those bitter people who are like ex-city dwellers that moved to a more suburban area and relish in the city's decay (they mostly complain about the taxes). Strange folks. The pathology is an interesting one.

Newsflash to Reader: The Catholic Church can't read your mind on more political issues that are outside its realm of expertise. Then again the Church might be off without the likes of you; you never wanted it succeed and do not think it's transcendent.

Even more telling the mention of Neuhaus was just a few paragraphs in the entire article, focusing on the man's liberalism. So-called Catholics like Reader tend to have the same stripe: cherry-picking a part and using it as a therapeutic session.

If it shows up on google with much hate, I might like it.

Phyllis Schlafly. Tomi Lahren.

The first met with absolute hate by The Left and the second becoming the female Glenn Beck thanks to viral videos.

When I type in Cenk Uygur I'm met with some respectable results - him meeting with Seth Myers and doing an "hilarious reenactment of his dinner with Bernie Sanders." This is a man who just recently had an outburst at the RNC convention.

The pathetic part is that, after Lahren criticized Colin Kapernick, SJWs or BLMs members managed to find her home address and threaten to attack her. Who does that? Extremists and fascists. They see a target on Lahren's back, easy prey, because she's opinionated and outspoken. Plus, with the power of social media the tactics of The Left can work their magic and slowly intimidate her.

So yes, I think I like Phyllis Schafly and Tomi Lahren. I just placed a hold on Schafly's A Choice Not An Echo at my local library. I think Lahren, though not as sharp in her critique as Lauren Southern, is a great asset to conservatives. Yes, even the conservakins have a place in fighting modernity. And she's mightily attractive as well -

So if The Left celebrates a death, I'll look into it. If The Left hates a certain political pundit (O' Reilly, Kelly, Beck, Levin, Lahren), I might give them a listen.

If The Left hates them they're doing something right (no pun).