Politico: The Looming GOP Crisis Over Ukraine

This is more or less what I said here the other day.

The GOP is divided by age and old people whose early lives were defined by the Cold War are dramatically overrepresented in the Senate which has long been a gerontocracy. The fact that elderly people have controlled the White House and Congress for the past two years explains why so much money has been spent on Ukraine. Older Republicans are still fighting the Soviet Union.


“Now the question is where they, or the traditionalists attempting to keep a hand on the wheel, will steer the party.

The pre-Trump Republicans aren’t going away quietly …

Trumpeting the combined opposition among Senate and House Republicans to the just-passed omnibus spending bill, Representative Chip Roy (R-Tex.) said it was a “pretty damn big deal” that 229 of 263 Republicans between the two chambers would vote against a measure full of both earmarks and the sort of defense spending hikes that once would have been impossible for Republicans to resist. …

Still, even the glacial Senate is changing, in part because of retirements and succession. Seven of the 11 Senate Republicans who opposed a supplemental Ukraine aid bill last spring were elected in the two previous election cycles. (Look no further than the votes of Tennesseans Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, who replaced, respectively, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, both committed internationalists.)

Hawley received another reinforcement this election from Ohio, where J.D. Vance was elected to succeed Sen. Rob Portman, a consummate establishmentarian. …

The GOP’s Ukraine divide is so resonant because it’s here and now and because it neatly cleaves much of the party’s old and new guard. But it also cuts deeply because it represents a stand-in for the internal party debate that never took place over the Iraq war, the long shadow of which still stretches over the GOP nearly 20 years after American invasion. …”

Older Republican = Reaganite.

The pre-Trump GOP was a coalition of True Cons (establishment Republicans who are fiscally conservative, socially liberal who live in the suburbs) and Reaganites (fiscally conservative, socially conservative voters who live in small towns and rural areas). The former group used to be the dominant element. Both groups were part of the Reagan coalition and supported the Iraq War. Trump changed the demographic composition of the Republican Party to such an extent that roughly half the party are newcomers who were Democrats or Independents in the days when Obama was president.

National Review:

“In any case, the replacement of Portman by Vance is a neat illustration of the trajectory of the GOP and the Right broadly. Portman is past, Vance is present. What about the future? “The future lies ahead of us,” as LBJ once said, provoking chortles from WFB and others. (Where else would it lie?) But I can tell you that I know some young conservatives who have more than a touch of Rob Portman, and Mitch Daniels, about them. The winds of politics blow in various directions, as season follows season.

Farewell, Portman. And if you’re not in the arena, I hope you’ll at least lurk on the periphery. …”

I’m now 42 years old.

My views on foreign policy were defined by George W. Bush and the disaster that was the Iraq War which dominated my youth. I’m now middle aged, but too young to remember the Cold War. The life experience of the median Republican voter is becoming further and further removed from the Cold War.

Mitch McConnell & Co. might be powerful now, but they are inevitably going to retire and lose power over the next few years. The air is slowly leaving the balloon as the composition of the base changes and as retirements add up. It will happen gradually and then suddenly in the Senate.


  1. My 2023 prediction: The “New” Republican controlled Congress will not make one iota bit of difference.

  2. Everyone talks about the Napoleonic and German invasion of Russia and it’s failure but what about Charles XII of Sweden? That is an epic story in itself.

    A Swedish victory in 1709 and world history changes drastically. I did a paper on this once. Charles was a fantastic leader and if he would have been healthy then the Battle of Poltava would have been different.

    All this is further proof that the best armies do not always win when their leadership is lacking. All 3 wars had the Russians inferior in ability but yet they still won.

    The Russians won because their enemies had strength but not wisdom. A leader has to know when to fight/how to fight/ and how to use their resources.

    If only Cristina had been the leaders of those armies.

    • Well, to be fair the Russians were a match for the Grande Armee. Look at Eylau and the various battles during that campaign. The Russians were quite likely the best infantry in Europe next to the French and their Guard and heavy cavalry units arguably better than the French.

      • Enoch,

        Anyway strategically I would not have invaded Russia in 1812 or the Soviets in 1941. I finish off the British first with submarines etc.

        I love these type of what ifs..

      • Some thoughts here …

        #1. Nobody beats the Russian soldier hands down. He has stood the test of time against The Poles, The Lithuanians, The Turks, The Swedes, and against every sort of Westerner that Napoleon, Hitler, and now the Jew England Yankee Empire, can throw at them.

        Never forget that the ‘Grande Armee’ was nearly half non-French European – most particularly filled with Poles and Germans.

        Never forget that the Grand Armee outnumbered Czar Alexander’s armies way more than over 2-1.

        Once Czar Alexander I got over himself and appointed the best general to command, (a man he detested by the name of Kutusov) the Russians adopted the strategy against Napoleon that you see them using now – fighting space, patience, and time – with lots of artillery, to destroy their enemies.

        And just as that was so – so, too, were Hitler’s armies filled full of several millions European soldiers of every description.

        If you have not been a soldier you may be susceptible to various mythologies, circulated by propagandists and amateur historians, that certain countries have superior soldiers.

        Anyone who has served, and or has been a liason to other armies, and who has studied military history, knows that every army has some fearless heroes, some cowards, and mostly those in the middle – guys who want to return home to their families, but, who will bravely risk their lives to do their duties.

        In the end, the armies that win are those armies whose political and military leadership have come up with the right strategies that suits the abilities of their particular countries best.

        • Ivan,

          My comment is confined to the Napoleonic Wars. The firepower of the British was far superior to the Russian infantry. So a British battalion against a Russian battalion would be an easy victory. You have to do the math.

          The British practiced more with live ammunition than other European armies. They therefore achieved a high rate of fire.

          It comes down to training and motivation as with any profession. Discipline is a factor as well.

          Of course I did say in a comment above that a leader has to know how to use his army like a father has to know how to lead his family and how to use family resources.

          I love historical discussions. Everyone usually overestimates the side they support. In my case? I have no inherent biases on both armies. They both were fighting the forces of the Revolution and that makes me on their side.

          • Thank you so much, Dear Cirstina.

            May I respectfully disagree?

            Both the Russian soldier and English were armed with smoothbore muskets – terribly inaccurate things, even at short range and even in the hands of an expert.

            The both had the same same 12 pound cannons and large size mortars, and light and heavy cavalries, as well.

            I have extensively studied Napoleonic wars and I cannot find a superior army or group of soldiers.

            To stand out on such a battlefield, when 50 calibre+ rounds were flying all over the place, and medical treatment was, at best, extremely slack, you would have to have nearly superhuman bravery.

            That said, the French had the best group of generals, both infantry and cavalry, which accounts for their amazing success.

            Of course, Wellington for the English, Blucher for the Prussians, and Kutusov for the Russians were all outstanding commanders.

            To show you how good Field Marshal Kutusov was, you need only return to the Austerlitz battlefield of 1805.

            At that time, Napoeleon had lain the most brilliant of his traps, and when a youthful Czar Alexander saw the retreating French, he order that the Russians exploit this and charge.

            Kutusov told the czar he was wrong, though, when the czar insisted Kutusov prove his point, Kutusov could only tell him it was his nose that smelled something awry.

            Czar Alexander had his way, and the Russian army charge into disaster.

            After that, Kutusov was persona non grata at Russian court.

            For this reason the massive European Army, under Napoleon in 1812, took Moscow, because the czar refused to put Kutusov back in command, until it was too late.

            Even then the Czar kept interfering – forcing Kutusov to wager the entire Russian army at Borodino.

            At Borodino, the Russian army was considerably outnumbered, yet, they fought so suicidally, the European army under Napoleon could only limp into Moscow a short time later.

            Why was Kutusov so good?

            Because he understood that winning wars was not about winning battles or taking cities, but, about wearing out your opponent’s will to fight.

            Kutusov used what was then a revolutionary theory of war, conceptualized and advocated by Catherine the Great’s famous Field Marshal Suvorov, a short time before – Suvorov’s idea being that the general who fights best with time and space will win the war – not the general who wins battles.

            By the way, it was Suvorov’s idea that beat the European Army in Russia a second time – during the 1940s.

            All the best to you, My Dear!

  3. “Older Republicans are still fighting the Soviet Union”


    A case of Mistaken Identity, and an obsession with it.

    Throughout my life I am ever staggered at how such an industrious country can be so so very very intellectually lazy.

  4. In fairness, The Republicans have ever been the party of fat cats, regime-change wars, and big industry.

    So, that has not changed.

    What has changed is that The Democrats are now that, too.

  5. The Enemy sees Heritage America the same way they see Russia: a nation to be conquered, humiliated, torn apart, and erased.

  6. Wrong, they’re not fighting the Soviet Union, and that’s not their motivation. They’ve been winnowed down by the kikes as the most venal, corrupt, senile yes-men that can conceivably be imagined. The people their age in the 80s would never have supported these policies, they themselves in the 80s wouldn’t have, they never would have antagonized the USSR this way. These people are senile kike stooge maggots, there is no place in our Constitutional system for the bribed servants of the Jews to dominate policy and attack our right to free speech, bear arms, free association, etc.

  7. “My views on foreign policy were defined by George W. Bush and the disaster that was the Iraq War ….”

    In fairness to G.W. Bush, it should be acknowledged that there was no alternative to pursuit of that disaster—well, no serious alternative. Bush could have gone on television, I suppose, and said something like the following:

    “It’s time we recognize, my fellow Americans, that our country is a weak, disordered, and slowly-declining power. Via decades of non-European immigration at home and UN-mediated support and encouragement of non-European development abroad, our Jewish overlords have brought us to the point at which we have no choice but to flee with our tail between our legs, i.e., to pull from Saudi Arabia the troops that have been stationed there since the end of the first Gulf War and that Osama bin Laden, with his bold attack on the World Trade Center, has demanded we pull therefrom. To do otherwise would be to invite more terrorist attacks, which we have no real power to thwart. Though paltry as a portion of worldwide economic development, the economic development in the Arab world is great enough that Islamist groups are in a position to conduct such attacks; and the increased Middle Eastern presence in our own population enables their members to travel into, out of, and throughout our country more or less inconspicuously.

    “Naturally, I, as your president, am disinclined to present you this unpalatable truth. Hereafter, accordingly, I will prattle about a danger posed by Saddam Hussein and will exaggerate, if not outright fabricate, the threat posed by his access to weapons of mass destruction. As you know, the presence of our troops in Saudi Arabia is something of a stopgap, a costly, tedious means of keeping at bay, essentially for the benefit of Israel, the Iraqi government we haven’t the strength to overthrow productively. Yes, we have the military might that would enable us to depose Hussein; but as my father recognized a decade ago, when he halted the first war after the routing of the Iraqi army, i.e., without an advance on the Iraqi capital, we haven’t the strength that would enable us to establish, in Hussein’s place, a government that would govern that country in a manner to our liking—or at all, really. Yes, there were Democrats who, in acts of transparent political opportunism, criticized my father, at the time of the first war, for his stopping short in that way; but the war I’ll now launch to remove Hussein will have a disastrous outcome that will attest to the wisdom he showed at that time.

    “It’s my understanding that some persons of Middle Eastern ancestry are of the view that my father’s decision not to advance on Baghdad made America, in the eyes of Middle Easterners, look weak. Well, that’s what I’m trying to tell you: We ARE weak—so get ready for a military and political mess that’s the best I can do for you. Decades, as I’ve said, of unwise immigration; of unwise involvement with the so-called developing world; and—not least importantly—of involvement with Israel’s regionally-destabilizing presence in the Middle East leave me no serious alternative. We’re going to scurry out of Arabia, just as Osama bin Laden has demanded we scurry. In exiting it, we’ll bump off Hussein and hope for the best—which won’t be good. You voted for this, you witless Teutons.”

    • @John Bonaccorsi…

      No, George Bush certainly would not have given that first speech to the country.
      For that matter, he would not have allowed himself to think it, if he could have thunk it, because I doubt very seriously he did.

      No, to be able to refuse to give such a first speech, as you theorize, it assumes President Bush had circumspection up to it, and that I do not think he had, nor has.

      George Bush Jr. was, and is, a very decent fellow, one with whom you would always feel pleased to share a backyard barbecue, or, if necessary, go to a fight, BUT, if the latter – pray that he was not in command.

      Happy New Year!

  8. I wonder how many “conservatives” will put ZOG window flags on their vehicles and say “I don’t support the war, but support the troops” if or when Murica puts boots on the ground. I think I’ve seen this before.

  9. Three things are driving this Khazarian war. First, Ukraine is a massive Laundromat. Tens of billions of dollars have been laundered through there. Including the crypto Jew Bankman, whose company went through a planned controlled demolition recently.

    Secondly, the Jews want a second homeland, centered on Crimea. This is a 140 year old plan on their part. Satanyahoo used to talk about it openly. But only in Hebrew.

    Third, the Jews want to break up Russia and control all its resources.

    You got the massive Jewish money pipeline, all yids on both sides. You got the new big Israel. And you got the dismemberment of Russia, a major Jewish desire.

    The Jews control the Uniparty. They are fighting Russia, yes. The yid wants to destroy the stubborn slav and his nationalist Church.

    Vance is long time CIA. The agency even kindly supplied him with a street shitter wife/handler. He will disappoint you in the end. When it comes time in the Senate to declare world war, he will vote as he is told.

    Same with the other CIA agent Tucker, who is now on board with fag marriage and a military attack on China. Langley is paying the bills, and those who don’t cooperate tend to die young, so yes, you go on your show and say that fag marriage is fine.

    DeSantis is worse than McCain on foreign policy. Fat Margie is now demanding that we bomb Mexico. Washington is Bedlam, a madhouse. Tom Massie calls Washington Mordor. That’s how I see it.

    • Any Jew supporting Ukraine is an absolute idiot:

      1) Putin is pro-Semite and has been a great friend to the Jews in Russia and worldwide – apart from a few criminal oligarchs like Khodokovsky and Beresovsky.
      2) The Nazis in Ukraine are a powerful force, and in the event Putin fails they may well overthrow Zelensky and then bloodily purge all Jews from Ukraine, like their hero Hitler.
      3) Zelensky is a coke-addled villain and Jews should be wary of casting him as “The One” (let the reader understand).
      4) Israel does not need the Ukraine WW3 scenario expanded to Syria/Lebanon.

      • @James…

        Apparently there are a lot of ‘Jewish idiots’, for the bulk of Jewry, in The West, is against a leader who not only is half-Jewish – he is, as you say, a friend to Jews in Russia.

        The Nazis are a powerful force in Western Ukraine (Volhynia & Galicia – much less so anywhere else in that country soon not to be. Without the help of the Rotschild’s Jewish World Order, whom, ironically, they, the Ukrainio-Banderite Nazis, so despise, they will have to do it all on their own, because everyone else in the area (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and above all, Poland – even though Poland has sent several thousands of troops to fight with them) hates them, just as they hate those others.

        As to Israel : now that Netanyahu is back in charge, whatever moderate support Israel has given to the Ukraine will likely be quietly phased out, and quickly.

        Many at this site fail to realize that Jewry is not at all united, and, one glaring area is the massive rift between secular Judeo-Bolshevik Jewry, in The West, and Israeli Nationalists in Israel.

        Netanyahu has no time for these people, which is why Zelensky’s regime has already threatened him.

        Moreover, Netanyahu does not like Biden or the Democrat Party, this after Bill Clinton did a regime change operation on him in the mid 1990s.

    • They the kykes want to re-establish the Khazar empire in the area between the black and Caspian Seas. Same thing goes for the Kurds, who are Jews in Muslim wrapper, crypto Jews, in the same area that includes the Mediterranian in their desire to form a Kurdish state. The Jew hope to exploit east west trade between Russia, China and Europe and extract tolls on commerce. A future East West conflict was foretold in the bible as the source of a great war and destruction.



      • @RB

        “I have mentioned that some years ago I was contacted by a foundation, formed for the purpose of maintaining the genealogy of a certain family. My great-grandfather Armstrong, who had a biblical name, father of my grandfather Nathan Armstrong, had married into this family. So the foundation has my genealogy back to the kings of France, and King Edward i of England. The genealogy of the royal family of Britain carries every generation back to King David of ancient Israel. Therefore God has preserved my ancestry every generation from David, and I am of THE HOUSE OF DAVID!

        “Plainly, in these tumultuous last days, God would raise up one who would know he is of the house of David, as Christ’s chosen apostle and messenger to the kings of the Earth, to carry the true message of Christ’s gospel, which was suppressed from the world from midcentury 1 to the middle of the 20th century” (Good News, May 1980; emphasis mine throughout).

        I had a similar experience to what Mr. Armstrong had in tracing my genealogy back to King David. My aunt gave me what she and others had done to compile our family genealogy. It cost me $50 just to copy the typed material. There was one significant difference between my genealogy and Mr. Armstrong’s. My genealogy was traced back to the royal family of Ireland. The genealogy of the ROYAL FAMILY OF IRELAND is one single dynasty, which also carries “EVERY GENERATION BACK TO KING DAVID.”

        So I can say what Mr. Armstrong said, “Therefore God has preserved my ancestry every generation from David, and I am of the house of David!”

        All of God’s new revelation for His end-time Church has come through Mr. Armstrong and me. God’s Work has been done through supporters of that revelation.

        Here is another statement Mr. Armstrong made, this one in his book The United States and Britain in Prophecy: “Of course it is well understood that the scepter went to Judah and was handed down through the Jews. King David was of the tribe of Judah. All succeeding kings of David’s dynasty were of the house of David, tribe of Judah. Jesus Christ was born of the house of David and the tribe of Judah.”

        Christ was also a descendant of David, or of the house of David. So we can see a lot of emphasis placed on the house of David in these verses.

        At an archaeological dig in Jerusalem, Herbert W. Armstrong College students have helped to uncover David’s palace. We are clearing debris away from that site. We believe that Christ will rule from the very spot where David did anciently. We are getting ready for the imminent return of Christ!

        That is the majestic conclusion of the succession of kings that was prophesied to sit on David’s throne!
        — thetrumpet.com

        Brown Brains, you have linked to a church whose founder/leader believed/believes he is descended from the ROYAL FAMILY OF IRELAND all the way back to King David. He believes the throne of David was brought to Ireland, then moved to Scotland, then moved to England…

        Well at least in a way you are supporting Irish royalty…you Irish basher…

      • ” Same thing goes for the Kurds, who are Jews in Muslim wrapper, crypto Jews, ”

        Many jwz believe the Kurds are a lost tribe of Israhell.

  10. Disclaimer: liberalism means fiscally, and/or socially, moderately laissez-faire (let it be), not woke (reverse racism and sexism, climate and covid mandates, etcetera), by comparison libertarianism means extremely laissez-faire.
    Consequently liberalism isn’t left or right, there are left-liberals and right-liberals.
    Left-liberals are more socially laissez-faire and right-liberals are more fiscally laissez-faire, but both tend to be both socially, and fiscally laissez-faire.

    Liberalism is on its way out.
    It’s giving way to national conservatism/populism on the right and woke/NeoMarxism on the left.
    That is increasingly the right is going to be more national conservative and the left more NeoMarxist.
    If right-liberals want to remain in the republican party, they’re going to have to make many concessions to national conservatives, conversely if left-liberals and left-populists want to remain in the democratic party, they’re going to have to make a ton of concessions to NeoMarxists, otherwise they’ll be booted out.

    This’s the new paradigm we’re entering, the old post-WW2 paradigm was left-liberalism versus right liberalism, the new paradigm (2016-present) is national conservatism versus NeoMarxism.
    Hopefully Marxism will, in both the west and in China, finally be destroyed once the dust has settled, but they could just as easily succeed, or we could all be destroyed in nuclear winter.

    Leftists aren’t necessarily the enemy, there’re good and okay leftists like Jimmy Dore (left-populist) and Bill Marr (left-liberal), the problem is NeoMarxists that is corporatized Marxists and opposed to trad Marxists.

    Justin Trudeau and Jacinda Ardern are Klaus Schwab’s spiritual progeny, and Klaus Schwab said China is the model for the world, that’s who runs the mainstream left now, and much of the right too now, technoligarchs like Klaus, Bill Gates, George Soros, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, they’re importing a queer, open borders variant of China model here
    While Biden began his political career as an empty suited centrist, he too with his build back better/green new deal takes his orders directly from people like Klaus.
    The real virus is not covid from Wuhan, it’s the contemporary Chinese way of thinking from Beijing, it’s by far the worst mind virus ever devised, and it threatens to zombify and consume the whole earth.

  11. Twitter/Rep. Marjorie Taylor GreeneWe disagree often, but I’ll be praying for Jamie Raskin. Cancer is a terrible disease. I watched my father die from it, and it broke my heart. It’s good Rep Raskin has hope and his form of cancer is curable with the treatment he will be starting.

    It’s difficult to say who’s the most obnoxious and harmful (not to mention physically repulsive) Jew in Congress because there are so many candidates (Schiff, Schumer, Nadler, et al) — Raskin is definitely one of them.

    While I don’t think it’s something I would do, I have no problem with extending such a message of concern to a fellow member of Congress, even a disgusting, oily bastard like Raskin, someone who really should be regarded as an enemy of America — I just want to note that it could have been done privately rather than publicly on social media — she did it this way to signal her virtue and let the system know that her apparent rebelliousness is contained.

    If you’re relying on MAGA dissidents like MTG to bring significant change to the GOP, I think you’re going to be disappointed.

    • Jewish blood is a risk factor for Non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Both of Raskins parents were Russian Jews. Israel has the highest rate of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in the world. Why is God such a racist? Why does he hate Jew blood the way he does?

    • Perhaps a ‘looming GOP crisis’ in 2024:

      Trump Floats Third-Party Threat If GOP Won’t Back Him

      One can see this as a kind of blackmail from Trump — obviously, the GOP establishment does not like Trump and does not want to see him as the nominee in 2024 — if he ran as an independent in 2024, it would draw a lot of support away from the GOP candidate (even if it’s DeSantis), and would probably guarantee a victory for the Democrats.

    • If you’re relying on MAGA dissidents like MTG to bring significant change to the GOP, I think you’re going to be disappointed.

      If you’re expecting ‘immediate’ change then, yes, you’re absolutely right. But just how much can any one person do and remain electable? Impatient WNs completely skirt this issue. “Aw man, if they were serious they’d go 1488 nigger death GTK, this is pathetic.” (No doubt a dated reference.) Okay, so I’m exaggerating, but even so, that’s the basic attitude. What better plans do they have of their own? None that I can see – probably because none exist. Just the same old bitch and whine, bitch and whine, cry into your beer bullshit. WNs are of course basically correct about the issues, but a more pathetic crowd of inept whiners cannot be found anywhere along the entire political spectrum.

      Now in this case what annoyed me was the pretense that issuing a public note of concern is something akin to a definite signal that MTG is irredeemably worthless. It may be worthwhile to argue voicing a message of support in a time of suffering would better have been done in private rather than public, but normal people understand that these things are judgment calls. There are reasons for and against. No one can be expected to get it right every time. But nope, here it’s being treated as the end of the world. That is just one among countless, countless examples of utterly brainless bullshit I have read from these people over the years. Even the supposedly smarter ones. Just unreal.

      • As with everything in these takes, it is a gross exaggeration:

        – MTG helped mainstream the term anti-White, National Divorce and the Great Replacement in her freshman term in office and did more than anyone except Trump to mainstream much of our politics over the past two years

        – MTG was smart not to join Fuentes and his band of idiots in going full Hitler and jumping on the Ye Train

        – MTG votes the right way on most issues and is the loudest opponent of funding the war in Ukraine

        – Finally, a Republican House will block all sorts of awful shit that Democrats want to pass, which is why the $1.7 trillion Omnibus was passed in the lame duck session

        Is MTG or Dump some sort of perfect politician? No, but both are bridges away from the old GOP in which we were totally marginalized and even immigration restriction was taboo. Both also have done things which were helpful and other things which were maddening

        • >it is a gross exaggeration:

          I didn’t ‘grossly exaggerate’ anything — the comment you replied to was a ‘gross exaggeration’, or ‘gross extrapolation’, of what I said.

          But like I suggested before: sometimes it appears to me that your reading comprehension is low — and it’s always the case that your confirmation bias is high.

          Here’s the key part of what I said:

          If you’re relying on MAGA dissidents like MTG to bring significant change to the GOP, I think you’re going to be disappointed.

          Caveat im Voraus: I am not a fan of female politicians generally.

          That said, I see MTG as unserious — while I like her instinct to be regime critical, I don’t see her as someone who will be able to effect change in the GOP, or can or will attract serious people to the GOP — and by serious people I’m thinking mostly of professional Whites, who as I said before are generally intelligent and dislike politics and politicians, especially where a bit too much rhetorical showmanship is apparent, as it often is with MTG.

          Her straightforward mouthiness will attract attention, and hopefully people will disregard her somewhat abrasive personality and take note of what she is actually saying, rather than how the media portrays her and what she says.

          Perhaps I will be proven wrong; we will see — but I don’t think so.

          • >… but I don’t think so.

            The above was another way of saying that if push comes to shove, she will protect her cushy sinecure (she won her seat with 57% of the vote) where she makes appearances and launches soundbites while her staff does the work by siding with the GOP establishment.

            linkMTG, who backs McCarthy, said tonight: “If my friends in the Freedom Caucus, Matt Gaetz and others, will not take the win when they have it, they’re proving to the country that they don’t care about doing the right thing for America. They’re proving ..they’re just destructionist”

            So assuming her remarks are fairly reported here, she backs McCarthy for speaker, thinks that is ‘the right thing for America’, and also says those who don’t want him as speaker are ‘destructionists’.

            Maybe she’ll say ‘Let’s go Brandon!’ on the House floor, and take part in reading the full Constitution into the record (as McCarthy suggested) in order to ‘own the libs’.

            And speaking of ‘the right thing for America’, what do they say is the ‘last refuge of a scoundrel’?

          • And to illustrate the problem with women in politics generally, an example from Germany:

            Bundestagsabgeordnete Cotar verlässt AfD und rechnet ab

            Joana Cotar (a member of the Bundestag) announced in Nov that she was leaving the AfD; she gave the party’s alleged ‘Anbiederung an Putin’ as a reason — you can think of ‘Anbiederung’ as nearness or sympathy.

            Of course this is ridiculous: the AfD has been against anti-Russia sanctions because they harm Germans and Germany, and do nothing to stop the hostilities, which have a particular background — the AfD is also against sending weapons to Ukraine, and has consistently advocated for peace talks.

            All of that made no difference to this unserious woman, who chose the safer course (leaving the AfD is always safe, no matter the pretext), the course of consensus, by parroting the absurd Establishment line on Ukraine as justification for her action, i.e. if you are against current policy it must be because you’re a fan of Putin.

          • >MTG, who backs McCarthy, …

            linkDan Crenshaw blasts anti-McCarthy Republicans as “narcissists” and “enemies”

            If you’re a self-styled MAGA dissident, and on important questions, or uncomfortably often, you find yourself siding with Dan Crenshaw, then you may be going about the whole dissidence thing the wrong way.

        • >gross exaggeration

          And just to mention it: speaking of a ‘gross exaggeration’, aren’t you the guy who somehow sees ‘White libtards’ as a greater threat than Whites losing control of their homelands to a demographic majority of non-whites?

          To me, such a position is unfathomably unnatural, ridiculous, stupid (innumerate), and cowardly.

          Not to mention a ‘gross exaggeration’ of the problem posed by ‘White libtards’.

          • Yep.

            The former is the cause of the latter. This country was nearly 90% White until White libtards passed the Immigration Act of 1965. The same is true of all Western countries where White libtards have opened the borders and brought in millions of Third World immigrants in order to cultivate “diversity.” The same people fight relentlessly to oppose any effort to do anything about the problem.

            Why do Southern cities like Birmingham and Montgomery have black majorities? Why have Whites left those cities? Could that have anything to do with the Brown decision which integrated public schools or the Voting Rights Act which created the black vote or the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which eliminated all White spaces or, say, the Fair Housing Act which made housing discrimination illegal?

            What are you going to tell us next? White libtards had nothing to do with pushing gay marriage or “trans” into our culture? Maybe they are also a small problem that has little to do with the raging war in Ukraine or our nonexistent border?

          • @Hunter Wallace JANUARY 1, 2023 AT 8:55 AM

            >the Immigration Act of 1965

            So there were ‘White libtards’ in 1965 too? — who knew?! — LOL

            How far back are you intending to go to justify your retreat from White Nationalism? — do you also acknowledge that those who say Whites stole this land from Native Americans and ought to ‘go back to Europe’ are correct?


            I think it’s fair to say those who voted for the 1965 act could not have reasonably foreseen the current reality — I was living in California in 1975 when the Vietnamese ‘boat people’ started showing up, and would never have imagined that Whites would eventually be so marginalized — so I think it’s pretty scurrilous to now attack people who were alive in 1965; that’s not something I’m interested in doing, but I’m not surprised that you would do it.

            Anyway, the question is not so much what happened in the distant past, but what will happen in the future — and there I think the picture is very clear: today, officeholding Democrats are a real problem; in fact, they are responsible for most of what is happening that you disapprove of — and since non-whites vote
            as a bloc for Democrats, a majority non-white America practically guarantees a lock on power for Democrats — the only way to keep that from happening is to preserve a large enough white majority, since only Whites vote for Republicans in significant numbers.

            Hence your renunciation of White Nationalism is both idiotic and self-defeating.

            It’s as simple as that.

            If you are an example of the intellectual quality of people who were involved in the Alt-Right, then I now see better why it was such a cluster fuck.

          • It has really always been a problem.

            I could go all the way back to the beginning of American history.

            In the 1860s and 1870s, for example, the country literally destroyed itself because White libtards in the Northern states couldn’t stand the Dred Scott decision which denied American citizenship to their precious black citizens. Even then, blacks were already citizens in five New England states. Massachusetts repealed its anti-miscegenation law in the 1830s. It was also Massachusetts which passed the first civil rights law. Frederick Douglass was a celebrity there. He married a White woman. Aside from the Bible, Uncle Tom’s Cabin was the most influential, best-selling book of the 19th century in the United States. All of that sanctimonious bullshit was eventually incorporated into the Constitution itself in the Reconstruction amendments and the Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. The Force Acts of 1870 and 1871 empowered the U.S. military to repress the Klan. Most of our Northern states were already integrated by the 1880s and had civil rights laws that banned racial prejudice at the state level because of the White libtards who live there

            Have White libtards in our Northern states ever been on the same team us? They loudly opposed Andrew Jackson for deporting American Indians to Oklahoma. They opposed the Mexican War and the annexation of Texas. They opposed the Louisiana Purchase. They fought the War Between the States to destroy the Confederacy and to liberate blacks and give them equal rights. As far back as the American Revolution, they were abolishing slavery and extending equal rights to blacks in their own states. Thomas Jefferson was attacked for being a racist in his times. The attempt to dissolve the borders and change the racial demographics of the country by ushering in an overwhelming tidal wave of Third World immigration is consistent with how these people have acted for two centuries. It would have certainly been familiar to the Confederates who cited the Great Replacement to justify seceding from the Union. Go read what George Fitzhugh wrote about the future of America in the 1850s.

            You’re right.

            I am attacking those people for passing the Immigration Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I’m attacking them for giving us the Brown decision and the Loving decision and Obergefell which gave us gay marriage and the Fair Housing Act and building the entire edifice of the system we have in place today – brick by brick, stone by stone – which you ignore out of a laughable, fictional, ahistorical fantasy of White racial solidarity which was never true in the past and which isn’t true in our own times.

            I don’t want to live in a White ethnostate with those people because it would be a total disaster. They are responsible for all the changes that brought us to the dire point we are at today. They would start sabotaging it from day one. Just like they sabotaged this country and every other Western country which was nearly 100% White until a generation or two ago. In every Western country, the same worthless class of White people can be found tearing down their history and opening the borders and passing hate speech laws, etc. Some of us recognize the problem and don’t want to live with them.

      • >‘immediate’ change

        There isn’t a lot of time left for the GOP demographically — only Whites vote for GOP candidates in significant numbers — non-whites bloc vote for Democrats — the day is fast approaching when even a big majority of Whites will not be able to affect the outcome of elections, and a big majority of Whites is a relative rarity as well — as I’ve said to OD: right now, your only hope to prevent absolute domination by Democrats is to maintain a sufficiently large white majority.

        >MTG is irredeemably worthless

        What ‘annoys me’ is people who go off on things that were never said or even implied — I never said or implied that MTG was ‘irredeemably worthless’ — I do not follow her or really know that much about her — personally, from what I’ve seen, I do not care for her — she’s too prole for my taste; she lacks gravitas — but she is reasonably articulate, and as someone who stirs things up with regime critical views, I think she serves a purpose, and for that reason I hope she sticks around (I also think she should have expressed her sympathy to Raskin privately).

        But given the inertia of the GOP, I just don’t see people like her, Matt Gaetz, et al being able to accomplish much.

        >it’s being treated as the end of the world

        Not by me.

  12. Neolibs and Neocons, the ideologues that defined American conservatism during the cold war and so called ‘war on terror’ eras respectively, the apex of America’s wealth, power and influence, tend to be pro-American unipolar world order, whereas national populists and national conservatives, the ideologues redefining American conservatism now during America’s waning wealth, power and prestige, tend to be pro-multipolar world order.
    They tend to be neutral to or even pro-Russia.
    Hopefully the former ideologies will be supplanted by the latter so we can avert WW3 in time, but it doesn’t look good, unfortunately woke Marxist dems are just as pro-American unipolar world order as ever, even tho they profess to hate America.
    Somehow America is uniquely good because it’s both uniquely bad, and uniquely self-hating I guess?
    Oh well, it’s not about reason with these people, it’s all about power.

  13. @Brad The $1.7 Trillion budget bill contained $846 billion for the DOD/military didn’t it? Or was there more than $846 billion in military spending?

  14. Ukraine is a pickle. Most of the crazy right wing payriotatds would like to bomb Russia more. Hopefully Hawley can figure out a credible political policy.

  15. What is your ideal of Foreign Policy, Hunter Wallace? It seem you want to allow Russia and China do whatever they want, including invading the European allies of USA.

    • Isolationism.

      After half a lifetime of war, I don’t want to be involved in endless conflicts in Eurasia. The people who live there should be allowed to sort out their own problems.

      • May I suggest, Sir, another alternative to isolationism?

        what Viktor Orban practices for Hungary – full on engagement with everyone, staying as constructive as possible, without trying to boss anyone around.

        We can be involved, if we have some respect for someone other than ourselves.

        That is how, to my view, a tribe of people advocate for themselves best.

        Be a friend to all, and, where that is not possible, not a belligerent.

  16. Ivan,

    No hard feelings I hope. It is God Save the Tsar.

    My Russian lessons continue in the language. I asked my family if I could make some Borscht soon.

  17. Amazing how anyone can claim this isn’t a proxy war between GAE and Russia. Let’s do the following thought experiment:

    After U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Russia provides billions $$ of weapons to the Taliban, along with advisers, special forces, mercenaries, real-time satellite intelligence, even bombing a US-built gas pipeline from Afghanistan to Iran, and imposes wide-ranging sanctions on the U.S. “in response to their unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.”

    Does this qualify as a proxy war? (or an actual war?)

Comments are closed.