Do you remember the horrendous unaccompanied child immigration cram that happened prior to Obama's attempted amnesty? A year ago, M. Catherine Evans wrote an opinion piece on the Glenn Beck crowd playing up their Christian bona fides by helping and aiding the lawless invasion of America by Central Americans. She nailed the "Uber Christian" cuck stupidity that the Trump trolls are mocking (correctly) before it was MPC cool. Look who is out there calling for "personal and private grace" for "troubled souls"... Mr. Erick Erickson. Evans cuts to the point in language that would frighten the cuckservatives with a great passage.
Compassion for the down-and-out is fine, but invading a nation by the tens of thousands is an act of war. Even Joan of Arc understood the need to fight for her country’s sovereignty and St Joan was a million times more Christ-like than Beck.Jesus said love your neighbor, not love some third world family flown in on DHS planes to create a fake crisis to push through immigration reform to turn America into a third world country. Take a stand for once. Christians once colonized the world and brought civilization with force and a message. It is okay to be masculine and defend one's territory and kin while still being Christian.
Evans followed that up with an opinion piece on the curious case of Senator Cruz, Glenn Beck and Dana Loesch, among others, visiting the illegal immigrants that made up last year's refugee surge. You remember the one that caused that weird virus that was making American kids sick with that weird flu that made them paralyzed that was commonly found in Central American jungles? Who could have predicted the rise of Trump's support? Evans nearly did (italics added).
That is what makes Beck and company’s goodwill trip to the border so reckless. The illegal surge, disguised as a “humanitarian crisis,” is affecting real people in real towns across the nation. Citizens with limited resources and no multi-million dollar relief funds are going before country supervisory boards to voice their objections. What the people “get” is that the Obama administration, in total collaboration with their government-controlled media, threw children in front of the camera knowing full well it would clear the way for teen and adult illegals to cross the border. Now they have to deal with nearby facilities being used to house illegals with medical, legal, social and psychological problems. And all this happened without their knowledge or consent. Talk about “Un-American".
So if these high-profile conservatives think they will keep raking in the votes and money while playing both sides they are delusional. Heart-tugging photo-ops, slick marketing, savvy, sexy book covers and courting the Tea Party rank-and-file may have worked up until now but anyone who lends his name or face to this government-sponsored invasion of illegals could soon be on the outs with those of us standing on bridges.
Talk about clairvoyance. Evans saw the voter boycott of 2015, and even warned those pundits. This is the disconnect that the e-GOP pundit class has with the base despite being founded to offer an alternative to the stiff shirts of old. All Evans did was simply point out the damage being done to America by this immigration surge, and that this surge was on top of a multi-generation long invasion. The GOP never does anything about it, and many of its leaders are openly pro-immigrant invasion.
What was the immediate Red State response to Evans that will sound so familiar to the Trump supports? "Yer a bunch of racist bastards!" (not a quote) Read that and tell me what that is if not the exact cuckservative attitude that the Trumpshirts are pointing out and laughing at daily. Gardner race baits a bit, but if you read M. Catherine Evans two links, she really does not make it a race issue. It is a sovereignty issue. It is an issue of the basic purpose of one's government: protect the territory for the benefit of its citizens. It is an issue where nearly 50 million Americans are on food stamps, and the government is actively importing low human capital "refugees", "asylum seekers" and other euphemisms for illegal infiltrators of zero marginal value (possibly negative). A year later, who was right: Red State or Evans? Evans.
I like Aaron Gardner. I also like my homeland. I am a Christian too, but I am not one of those stupid cuck Christians that travels to the third world for my "good boy" points. Evans is right that Red State, Beck, Loesch and company cloaked themselves in Christianity that their flyover state supporters can relate to in order to make the immigration crisis look like a good thing to tackle. Their stunt also enabled illegal activity that actively harmed the very people they claim to speak on behalf of in the media (red staters). If the base of your voter pool feels one way and you supposedly represent your base's interests, it might behoove you to align yourself with your base. Since the GOP is false opposition, their failure to do so should clue in conservakin and normal voters who still believe in the system that the game is rigged.
Gardner and I exchanged tweets this week where I pointed out how Erickson made himself part of the story by disinviting Trump and playing white knight to Megyn Kelly. It is a move the right often hates the mainstream media doing as the propaganda wing for the Left. Gardner first replied he does commentary not reporting. When pressed about impartial referee ideas, he said Red State is an activist site and that it was a private event. It is a private event with public effects. Why publicize the disinvite if not to send a message to Trump and his Trumpists? Erickson's grandstanding is hypocritical and not in line with focusing on this being a private event. It was pathetic, and it was what the Leftist media would do. It was punishing heretics.
The move was also a weak choice rather than giving Trump a stage and allowing him to reveal that he has little to no grasp on many many issues. Invite Trump, allow candidates to confront Trump, and then maybe your preferred candidate can expose and vanquish him. Unaware somehow that we live in a Victim Culture, Erickson found a way to make a blowhard billionaire look like a victim. It played into his outsider, "me against the world" pitch... and people wonder why the right loses repeatedly. The disinvite was not the first time Red State had inserted itself into the story (as noted above) and in other actions of the e-GOP crowd from their dealings with Evans.
It did not end with Gardner's defense, which would have been a guy looking out for his coworker. This is where we can see the same shame, isoate and attack behavior directed what should be a "big tent" ally that we see today with Trump and his supporters. Methinks this crew wants to dominate the edgy conservakin brand. Ben "Friar Tuck" Howe was the tryhard that tweeted the Evans articles as anti-immigrant. The Loesches then became very angry with the Evans article. Protect the brand.
Which is incredibly funny to read since Evans' article was an opinion piece. The Belsky she is attacking is deputy editor at the American Thinker Drew Belsky. Howe really white knights here, and I will paste the tweets as Howe eventually attacks Belsky on his job and threatens to use his sway at Red State to marginalize a pro-life non-profit "Live Action Films.— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 21, 2014
@DJB627 You chose public by running a ridiculously malicious article and not seeking private comment.
Howe rips a gem here. Sounds like the insults against the trolls. Read the threads to see how diplomatic Belsky is.So @DJB627 was all "everyone's opinion should be heard." Now his writer hints at defamation suit against @Aaron_RS. http://t.co/ZcrfHX31AS— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 22, 2014
Here is the "nice non-profit you got there buddy, be a shame if something happened to it gimmick.American Thinker? More like … AMERICAN DUMB AND STUFF!!! #burn— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 29, 2014
Fortunately, adults with cooler heads prevailed.I wonder how much of @DJB627’s influence is active over at @LiveActionFilms. Makes me wonder if @RedState should even give them attention.— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) July 22, 2014
My wife may listen to Dana Loesch in the car sometimes, and she is cute in a "Famke Janssen's dorkier sister" way. Unlike the white knights of her circle, that will not stop me from posting the tweets where Ms. Loesch threatens Mr. Belsky and then smears him. Please read Evans' articles to see how she is in no way smearing Dana Loesch. She is merely pointing out the truth and warning the professional right media of consequences that may come (they have now arrived).@BenHowe @DJB627 @LiveActionFilms @RedState Live Action's work is good, there is no reason to doubt their credibility or product.— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) July 22, 2014
@DJB627 So you claim no responsibility for baselessly smearing other conservatives? Do you run every outfit for which you work this way?— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 21, 2014
The Belsky guy was cordial and nice to everyone attacking him, go read the tweet threads. This caused Evans to publish a clean up type of essay at American Thinker. In review though, someone points out the hypocrisy of the cuckservatives or conservakin or fauxcons. The cuckservatives launch an attack right back of slipping the racist or anti-immigrant wording as if that is a useful smear. They follow it up with hysterics, threats, shaming and attempts at damaging business and reputation. This is all in 2014. This is all over a little article that points out what the entire right wing is dealing with right now. These people are pro-amnesty shills who will use whatever cloak and dagger to get their policy pushed. They will marginalize people by using their power of soft censorship and when that fails hard censorship and attacks. Those are the methods of a social justice warrior shitlib.I'm uninterested in saving your credibility now @DJB627 with your after-the-fact invite.— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) July 21, 2014
This is where the Erickson-Buckley-Will idea comes into play as a bigger, post-WW2 problem for anyone leaning rightward. Once a media member inserts his or herself into the story and transforms the old story into a new story now about the media, you will lose. The entire institution picks up on it and will fight the opponent until they are destroyed. Erickson is fighting his own side and shouting them down as racists and anti-Christian. Get off the fucking Cross, Erick, and let Jesus get back up there. You are not some Christian holy warrior; you're a paid shill. Going after a potential "same team" voting bloc like Trump supporters is something the Left never ever does, especially when the size of support is that high. The Left coddles it and finds a way to co-opt it. Erickson is being a new Buckley though. He may be nowhere near as intelligent or eloquent, but he serves the same purpose. George Will confirms it.
In Will's essay, he writes how Buckley purged the elements on the right. Will cites how Buckley started the National Review in 1955 and made conservatism "politically palatable". The GOP and conservatism were popular for decades prior to 1955, George. It did not need Buckley. Palatable to whom? Palatable to the inner party, the Left. Let's not whitewash Buckley's past. Buckley was a CIA asset, after being an FBI informant, and even had CIA connections after his official job ended. Buckley was most likely a piece of Operation Mockingbird, and he fulfilled his role well.
Buckley purged the Birchers, who Will notes were onto Eisenhower as a communist, who probably was not but it sure looks funny with the friends he kept. Buckley did not purge them for that; he finally purged them for their opposition to the Vietnam War. Let's not rewrite history as Buckley casting out evil conspiracy theorists, but of Buckley the former CIA man purging Birchers who knew how deep communist infiltration went (ctrl+F Communist-controlled) and were isolationists cautious about the war machine.
Will mentions that these Trumpshirts are worse than the Tea Party, which is comical since in 2012, the GOP elite were saying the crazy Tea Party had taken over and was too hardline and needed to be purged. Will ends the essay with the classic, dumb cuck reference. Buckley purged those bastards and you know who loved it? The Gipper.
Buckley received an approving letter from a subscriber who said, “You have once again given a voice to the conscience of conservatism.” The letter was signed, “Ronald Reagan, Pacific Palisades, Cal.”Oh boy oh boy, Reagan loved that move so it must be right. What did Reagan conserve? What elements of the Left's power structure did Reagan dismantle? He did not even attempt to dismantle them as Nixon did. Reagan did something far more destructive, and right in line with the contemporary purge pundits' thoughts. Reagan pushed through amnesty in 1986 rather than try Operation Wetback 2.0. If there was ever a two term president who had the mandate and would havehad the political capital to pull that off, it would have been second term but pre-Iran Contra Reagan. The media would have torn into him, but it is not like he had another election to face. He did not, and that political "what if" hangs there. Reagan could not even conserve the GOP electoral anchor: California. Hispanics will keep pouring in, and eventually those precious freedoms like Muh Free Speech and Muh 2nd Amendment will go away.
What did Buckley conserve? The National Review applauds communist MLK. The National Review loves them some Israel, but hey, Buckley purged anyone not 100% gung-ho about Israel (Ask Joe Sobran). The National Review fights everything hard for a few years and then caves like nothing happened. Forget conserving anything, was Buckley right or were the Birchers right? The Birchers were right to warn of the slow infiltration of collectivism, socialism and communism infecting American institutions. Laugh at and mock the Birchers of the 1950s, but they would look at Rachel Maddow and Sally Kohn as caricatures of the lesbian, Marxist Jew on TV brainwashing the "good people" that Birchers warned America about generations ago. They were right, not about everything, but about enough. Buckley was wrong... or a tool of the inner party Left to neuter the right and keep a two party facade alive.
Buckley conserved nothing, as will Erick Erickson. National Review offers mere crumbs for the right yet purged John Derbyshire and Steve Sailer still offer critical insights for navigating our broken society. Reagan at least re-started the tax cutting of the Kennedy-LBJ era, built up the military to bankrupt the Soviets and set up the hyperpower force of the post-Cold War era. It is an empire that now views GOP voters and their demographic cohort as the main enemy to fear. It is an empire that spreads gay rights, third wave feminism and a buffet of progressive beliefs. Buckley was wrong. If Erick Erickson is the new generation's Buckley, then purging any last remnant or echo of the old America First right fits perfectly. Erickson is wrong, too. Just take it in stride. The current purge the Trump phenomenon and "icky people to my right" Red State actions are nothing new... and they will be repeated again.
***Update: In time for Labor Day weekend, the "again" happened. Jonah Goldberg wrote an essay saying that any conservative movement that was cool with Trump was not conservative. National Review is patting themselves on the back, but the #NRORevolt is alive on twitter.