Since Political Debate Is Now Name-Calling… Let’s Call Them By Their Name

A thoroughly dorky-looking chap (to judge by his mugshot, which he apparently viewed as an occasion to unleash his best pimply smile) attempted to shoot up a Jewish community center in Ohio last week.  Windows and wallpaper suffered greatly, I believe.  I’d forgotten to bookmark the original piece; but baiting a search with the words “white supremacist shooter in Ohio” immediately brought up PC bottom-feeding news outlets.  I reeled in story on by someone named Tasneem Nashrulla that dripped with all the same buzzwords as my misplaced news flash.

To be precise (according to this standard of precision), our heavily armed dork is a “white nationalist”.  Personally, I get “nationalist” and “supremacist” confused more and more as the Democrat propaganda machine shifts into 2020 gear.  Supremacists throw on hoods and light torches after a little moonshine on Saturday night; nationalists lobby for enforced borders while sober.  What we know in a case involving either kind of desperado is that the evil perpetrator is white: other disgusting attributes and inclinations—racism, sexism, hate-mongering, wife-beating, ethnic purging, gun-collecting—flow from the originary taint of albitude.

That the Dork in this Ohio case was Caucasian seems unassailable.  So what is the evidence that he was/is a nationalist/racial supremacist?

Let’s see… he wrote nasty things about blacks on Instagram, we learn, and he owned at least one item sporting a Confederate flag.  That certainly qualifies him as a “hater”.  (Everyone knows that all Confederates absolutely hated all black people, whom they enslaved on sight and would later join the KKK en masse to harass.  Northern states, in contrast, loved people of African descent so much that they often passed laws forbidding them to settle down, vote, or serve on juries—this as a paternal means of exhorting them to discover Hollywood.)  On the subject of nationalism, it might be thought a bit awkward that the Confederate cause was virulently anti-nationalist, and that hundreds of thousands of Confederates indeed lost their lives resisting absorption into a dominant Union… but you’re missing the point.  Tolerance of slaveholding equals white supremacy, and white supremacy equals white nationalism.  There.  Any idiot can keep that formula in his head.

Don’t let it go, for you’ll need to draw upon it in making the “white nationalist/Irish Republican Army” connection.  The Dork also possessed IRA memorabilia among his shell cases and bump stocks.  Now, the IRA was… as I recall… fiercely nationalist, to be sure; also rabidly Marxist, a patent contradiction one finds frequently in organizations of young people who like to leave suitcase bombs in supermarkets.  Marxism, you see, overtly condemns nationalism in its quest of universal proletarian rule.  Like so many idiot mass-shooters, then, the Dork could as easily be called a white Leftist as a white Rightist.  Or we could just call him an idiot.

I also would have thought that the “Saxons”, as they’re known in Gaelic, might struck an impartial chronicler of events as more “white” than the Celtic sons of Erin, who were often caricatured in nineteenth-century cartoons as dark, simian wild men.  I would have thought, as well, that the subjugation of the native Irish to a system of servile tenantry would make them more compatible with slaves than slaveholders.

But… I’m drifting from my formula once more.  The relevant truth to haul from our fact-fishing net here is that the IRA was nationalist—just as the significance of the Confederate emblem is that all white Southerners hate all blacks.

Do you see how this works?  We start with “white”, and then we fit other pieces in around it until we assemble the jigsaw of a mass-murdering, psychopathic racist who would likely vote for Donald Trump.  No mention of a Trumpy Bear beside the Dork’s pillow… but I’ll bet he had an orange toothbrush and a red baseball cap somewhere!

I have a suggestion for Republicans (which they will of course not accept, under the sage leadership of the squalid swamp creature who rules their Senate majority).  It’s clear, both from candidate talking points and from media agitprop, that the Democrat strategy as we enter the final year before Election 2020 is to tar Republicans as racists.  Militant racists—the sort who hope to carry their obnoxious convictions into law, and thence into execution.  That’s why Bernie Sanders used the phrase “white nationalist” twice in a two-dozen-word Tweet (also this past week) when lamenting those of his family who fell victim to the Holocaust.  He declined to notice that the butchers in question were white National Socialists, and that the specific ideological accelerant behind Auschwitz was the totalitarian march to a “better tomorrow”: i.e., the suffocating centralization of which he himself is the most recognizable exponent in our society.  In other words… to be blunt… Bernie Sanders is so “down” with the new strategy for defeating Trump that he has zealously whitewashed the greatest murder machine of Jews to come along for centuries.  (Or perhaps second greatest: notice that I haven’t mentioned Islam in this discussion, since I didn’t want to confuse matters further.  As an aside, just remember that all attacks on Jewish community centers are Nazi—read “white nationalist”—by definition.  Islamic terrorists are confused Klansmen who “identify white”.)

If this cynical linguistic saloperie can pass as a strategy, then how about another for our side that actually has truth at its foundation?  Actual truth: not fact-fragments of a partial jigsaw puzzle whose vast gaps will be filled in by a sketch artist.  How about we call the Democrat Party “Child-Killers”?

No longer does one even have to quibble over whether or not a seven-month-old fetus is a child.  The D’s have moved the ball so far down the field that newborns may now (in states where the “better world” is closer at hand) be left on the table to waste away.  Leftist intellectual Peter Singer believes that Mom should enjoy an additional couple of years to decide if she wants to “off” the latest effluvium of her body.  Considering the mood of today’s Democrat base, would you call that “outer limit” or “cutting edge”?

And we should add the practice of automatically waving through anyone who shows up at our southern border with a child in tow—an insane protocol which only an unprincipled fraud or an utter imbecile would fail to recognize as a magnet for child abuse.  We know that the percentage of those falsely claiming to be relatives of their toddling charges is somewhere between thirty and fifty: Jaco Booyens modestly advances the former; Ted Cruz gathered the latter from border patrol agents.  In his interview with Mark Levin, Booyens further revealed that the average life-expectancy of a child seized by sex traffickers is seven years.  So… so, yes, aiding and abetting this atrocious situation is almost as overt an act of child-murder as leaving a newborn to starve; more gutless, if somewhat less Satanic, in that the death is postponed until its facilitators can safely speed back to their gated communities or jet to Honolulu for the next conference on climate change.

Child-Killers.  Yeah, let’s hear you say it, GOP.  “The Child-Killer agenda clamors for more funds to prop up our public education disaster, but CK leaders know that teachers’ unions are mere money-laundering filters for the Child-Killer Party.  In fact, the privation of functional literacy and basic math skills which our children suffer in CK-designed regional curricula is setting them up for a slow death of economic strangulation—or perhaps a much quicker one on the streets or in the zoos that pass for prisons.  Meanwhile, Child-Killer ideologies decree that dedicated classroom teachers must torment even kindergartners with questions about their sexual identity, ensuring the psychological mutilation of many innocents and—as studies show conclusively—elevating the suicide rate among adolescents.  If this is the CK answer to overpopulation, would a more humane program not be simply to sterilize the citizenry?”

They say “white nationalist”, you say “child-killer”.  They scream, “White supremacist!”—you scream back, “Child-killer!  Child-killer!  Child-killer!  Child-killer!”  Seems pretty juvenile, I admit… but that, brothers and sisters, is where we are.  If winning elections requires that one become reductive, then we might as well become truthfully rather than stupidly reductive.

Comments are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner