Why Trump’s Election Freaks Out the Left

I drafted this within a few weeks of Trump’s election in November 2016 but didn’t get around to fleshing it out as much as I wanted, so I kept delaying posting it to the blog. It still isn’t really as fleshed out as I’d like, but since it’s been a year, I think it’s time to pull the trigger. Consider it a commemoration of the one-year anniversary of the God-Emperor’s glorious election.

Without further ado…

Why Trump’s Election Freaks Out the Left

1. A very small minority of Lefties are genuinely afraid, because they are truly, deeply insane and they’ve swallowed their own BS about how Republicans want to kill all gays or whatever. The number of people who actually believe this and are not institutionalized is probably only in the double digits, though.

2. The complement of that set within the Left is afraid for the opposite reason: Now that he’s elected and of course will not round up all gays and put them into death camps, the youngsters who bought the BS mentioned above will see that the Left is full of BS. Obviously that’s going to be bad news for the Left. It’s not only bad news for their hysterical “bigots are coming to kill you!” nonsense in general; it’s bad for an attempt to say “Trump’s going to kill you!” in the 2020 election in particular. Your average gay black dude is going to say, “You told me he was gonna kill me in 2016, and he didn’t. Yawn.” I’m not predicting that your average gay black dude is going to vote for Trump in 2020 (though he should, given that Trump wants to hold off the Muslims who really do want to kill that gay dude). What I’m saying is, if that moronic scare-mongering didn’t work in 2016, how the fuck is it supposed to work in 2020, after four years of being proven false?

3. A point related to the first one: They project. They imagine what they would do in Trump’s position, with a federal government as dominated by their party as thoroughly as it is now dominated by Republicans.

4. They like to tell themselves that they’re in the firm, large majority. They want a political minority that’s just large enough to be noticeable that they can claim to be bravely fighting. Odds of about 99-to-1 in their favor are about right, from the left’s point of view. (While they say, all the while, “We’re an oppressed minority, bravely standing up to the Powers That Be at grave risk to ourselves!”)

But the election reveals that this isn’t true. Even if we discount the documented electoral fraud and take the official tallies at face value, it’s still 47% of the country that voted for Trump. That’s waaaaaaaaaaay too much from lefties’ point of view, horribly close to evenly-matched sides. (And they know that it’s actually worse than that for them because they know damn well about the electoral fraud.)

5. The election reveals that they’re not as smart as they thought they were.

“We know how to manipulate the rubes! We’ll just propagandize them into voting for Clinton!” Ha, didn’t work out that way, did it, assholes? Looks like “the rubes” have caught on.

I mean, think about this: They threw everything they had into defeating Trump. They did their absolute best. And it wasn’t good enough. They lost. That does not bode well for the future for them.

6. A related point: The election reveals that media bias can’t guarantee desired electoral outcomes any more. Uh-oh!

7. The election reveals that their victory against the USA is not inevitable, as they thought it was.

8. The election reveals that electoral fraud can’t guarantee desired electoral outcomes, at least this time.

9. The election destroyed the Left’s comforting delusion that the outcome of their war against the West is a foregone conclusion of victory for them. They thought, many of them, that it was in the bag for them. That all they had to do was sit around and wait for the inevitable.


How many people, how many political movements in the last couple of centuries, have thought that the western world was done, was past its peak and safe to attack? How many have said, “The West used to be strong, but is now weak and in decay; it is safe to attack it now, and indeed it’s so rotten that all we need do is give it a little push and it will topple”? How many have said that, hmmm? And how many of those have gotten their asses handed to them? All of them.

This isn’t the first time that a leftist movement has said that the inexorable tides of history are on their side, guaranteeing their victory. Whatever happened to Communism, anyway?

If you decide to take on the most successful system in the history of the world, you should… um, I don’t even know how to finish that sentence. Why would you do that? Unless you actually had some reason, which they don’t. I suspect that, aside from the general genetically-hardwired aggression of leftists, there’s this: Old leftists who came of age during the Cold War are still burned about the collapse of the Soviet Union. They want to destroy the U.S. so they can say, “Ha! You got our main country, but we got yours too! So you didn’t win; it’s a tie. It’s totally a tie!” For fuck’s sake, grow up. GROW. THE FUCK. UP.

10. The election reveals that white/European populations are starting to figure out what the Left is up to. That is, putting it very delicately, population replacement. Bluntly: white genocide. That should be terrifying for the left. If nothing else, it means white voters will start to block vote along identity lines the way minorities do. That’s electoral death for the left.

And maybe the reaction won’t be limited to electoral politics, which takes me to…

11. While the Left doesn’t have guilt, they have a mental module that is functionally isomorphic to guilt: They are aware of how they have screwed over people on the right (Obama’s IRS, e.g.), and European-descended populations generally (inviting a flood of invaders into their countries), and what those groups’ natural reaction could be now that they’ve started to awaken. In short, the Left knows what they have coming to them.

12. Worst, from their point of view – devastatingly – the election reveals that identity politics a la “You’re racist!” is past its peak. It is now on the downswing. And since the left spent the last 25 years leaning on that, and forgetting how to make an argument, once that magic spell has totally stopped working– and it’s close to that point– they are politically dead.

At some level they know this, but most won’t entertain this realization on a conscious level. Even the minority among them who admit it qualify the admission with more of the same! Even the most astute of the post-election analyses from the left, which admit this is a problem, try at the same time to… not admit it. A prototypical such statement has gone something like this:

“Of course a strong minority, at least, of Trump voters are racist and sexist. Trump definitely appealed to the worst impulses of America’s shameful past with vicious bigotry. Yet perhaps we shouldn’t have yelled quite so loudly “You’re an ultra-Nazi!” at every single person who said that the U.S. has the right to exist as a nation. There is a possibility that we might have turned off a couple of voters by saying things like that. Of course, this isn’t to deny the very real problem of ethnic hatred which has persistently plagued the U.S. and to which Trump gave voice and legitimacy…blah blah.”

It really is amusing. At one level they clearly see the problem and the obvious implication that they have to stop doing this, but even as they admit that, they continue to do it! Have frivolous accusations of bigotry become a physical addiction on the Left at some neurological level? It reminds me of a smoker saying, “This shit is going to kill me,” even as he lights up a cigarette.

Consider this, for example: The population of Michigan is around 10 million. Think about the number of white people in Michigan who are fed up with constantly being told “You’re racist!” for no reason. Now think about Clinton’s margin of loss in Michigan: about 11 thousand votes.

Well, whatever. All signs from leftists provide good cause for optimism that they will continue to shoot themselves in the foot with this crap. It’s almost 100% doubling down on the “They’re racist/they’re sexist” stuff. Those of us on the right should find that very encouraging.

13. Or is THIS one the worst from their perspective: The events of 2014 – 2016, especially 2016, reveal that the trend is worldwide in the western world. Continental Europe, Brexit, now Trump… This isn’t history; it is History.


Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.

Does a Children’s Story NEED Gay Kangaroos?

In The Girl Who Fell Beneath Fairyland and Led the Revels There, a fantasy novel variously categorized as children’s or young adult– no, I’m not going to provide a link– writer Catherynne Valente launches a psychotically vicious attack on traditional marriage. Don’t worry, though; she’s not against all relationships: She also includes pro-homosexual propagandizing.

Soon after our heroine enters Fairyland, the poisonously hateful attack on marriage commences. It comes in the form of the Hreinn, creatures who if captured by hunters must do all their cooking, sewing, etc., for them, as well as bearing “the hunters’” children. This is not at all subtle in its bizarre feminist editorializing about traditional marriage being female slavery, ZOMG!!!! Yet the traditional marriage portrayed here has one massive element missing: The man.

What is he doing all day in this rad-fem scenario, while the Hreinn are forced to clean “his” house? Oh, right, working a 40-hour-a-week job to support himself and his wife. All this is completely absent from Valente’s portrayal. The Hreinn (housewives) bitch that they have to cook, but don’t discuss that the man is working to buy the food, or they wouldn’t have anything to cook! OR EAT. They kvetch about cleaning the house. Who is earning the money to pay for the house? Seriously, who is working to pay the mortgage to keep the rain off your brainless little head? In the insane feminist fantasyland, when men say they’re going to work, they’re really just drinking beer and having sex with supermodels while women are doing the housework.

Just in case you’ve ever wondered if feminists are actually as stupid and self-centered as they seem. Talk about “out of sight, out of mind”! If a feminazi can’t actually see you doing the work, it literally doesn’t occur to her that you might be doing work! There seems to be nothing in their heads except for the impressions created by immediate sense data.

“I’m here, vacuuming the rug, and he’s not! Bastard!”
“What do you think he’s doing right now?”
“I don’t know. Never thought about it!”
“Where do you get the clothes you complain about laundering?”
“What do you mean, where do I get them? They come from my closet, duh!”

This is immediately followed by an ethereal “Three cheers for lesbians!” Valente includes a lesbian couple and works in that the poor dears are oppressed. This is because… wait for it… people “look at them askance.” Oh my God! Call Amnesty International! (The funny thing is that since this is fiction, she could have had them getting lynched or whatever. But no, being looked at askance is oppression in this whacko’s worldview.)

The surreal pro-homosexual propaganda continues in a later chapter, where we get underground mining kangaroos, one of which has a gay lover. This is established somewhat elliptically, but that’s the best we can say of it. First, the kangaroo, a male, says of another kangaroo, “he broke my heart.” Now this by itself is ambiguous, but there’s more. The two kangas shared a stone and a few sentences later it is remarked that that kind of stone is for lovers. Oh, barf. What kind of sicko attacks man-woman marriage and feels a need to get in three cheers for gay animal sex?

In a children’s book?! How sick do you have to be to write that?

Must we have stumping for gay sex in a children’s book? Would a reasonable, non-ideological person say that’s the best decision? Is it okay to have just… stories? Just stories that don’t leap up and scream politics in your face?

The Left’s usual party line in this kind of context is, “But they show heterosexual lovers and spouses all the time in children’s books! That’s just as propagandistic!” No it isn’t! Portraying everyday normality, and portraying it as everyday normality, is not propagandistic. Getting up and whacking people upside the head with your special-interest political agenda is. “But…but… in your preferred approach, heterosexual relationships are portrayed as normal!” Yes, because heterosexual relationships are normal, you morons!

Gotta love that “portrayed,” by the way.

“Portraying” the sky as blue is not propagandistic. Portraying the sky as an orange background, with the first-string roster of the 1982 Hartford Whalers written across it in flaming green letters, is propagandistic. That’s because the second one is not true, you fucking psychos!

The thing about the gay sex element is, it isn’t about reproduction, even implicitly, since gay sex is not reproductive. Therefore, what we have here is the portrayal of pure sex, sex for its own sake. In a heterosexual relationship, it is all about reproduction, even if only obliquely, because that’s the entire evolutionary reason that sex exists. So even if your young child asks you questions about a man-woman marriage that force you to discuss the sex, you can mention genital intercourse and segue to having kids. I.e., the sex isn’t just about the sex. Do I actually have to say that sex for the sake of sex is inappropriate in a children’s story? Sex for the sake of sex is pornography. Literally, that’s the definition of pornography. I’m all for porn in its place, but in a children’s story?

What exactly are you going to tell your kid if s/he asks about specifics of these gay lovers? What are these gay kangas doing that makes them lovers, as opposed to friends? Well, they’re either sucking each other’s penises, having anal sex, or giving each other handjobs, or I guess, pawjobs. Or all three. There is nothing here about a reproductive sexual act that has some raison d’etre outside itself. No, there is just a couple of male kangaroos fucking each other in the ass.

In a novel intended for children.

So Catherine Valente is so evil and insane, so damaged, that she spews hate propaganda about man-woman marriage… but presents her ideal fantasy land announcing, “I have seen the future, and it is ass-ramming kangaroos.”

Look, people, I don’t mind adult male kangaroos sodomizing each other, in the privacy of their own San Francisco apartment, if that’s what they want to do. It just has no place in a children’s novel.

In 2016 the Left themselves rejected the short story Space Raptor Butt Invasion for a Hugo Award, apparently on the grounds that it wasn’t really a serious nominee for a Hugo. But we’re supposed to keep a solemn expression on our faces and nod profoundly as we contemplate the loving eroticism of kangaroos sixty-nining. People, Space Raptor Butt Invasion was a joke. And it wasn’t offered to children. Ass-ramming gay kangas is presented as serious, and material for children.

Grok this: The Left is not a political movement. It is sheer evil and insanity that has masked itself as a political movement for strategic reasons.

To put it another way, it is the political arm of insanity. The Left is like Hannibal Lechter in that scene from The Silence of the Lambs in which Lechter carves off the dead cop’s face and places it over his own face as a disguise. The Left is not “political” as healthy, sane people understand the word “political.” It is pure evil in political guise.

The Left gave up its last tiny shreds of sanity years ago. It’s now on the descent into the combination asylum and torture chamber that is Hell. And its goal is to drag everyone else there – including your kids – with it.

We’re Past Peak Leftism

Not that Brexit and Trump didn’t already make it plain, but…

Glenfilthie in the comments here, refuting some pathetic defeatists/ trolls:

The media is no longer relevant. Consider: they hated Trump with the heat of 1000 suns; but you annoying peons and peasants voted for him anyway – in spite of the prepared hoaxes, the cooked polls, and the fake news. The media is deader than a dodo.

When the left marches through an institution they inevitably destroy it. The NYT can’t sell a subscription to save its life, our universities are laughable intellectual wastelands, and city states where they rule are going the way of Detroit. Leftism is dead – you boys are grossly over-estimating their power. Watch them – they are turning on each other as their money and influence drains away!

The slitting of Harvey Weinstein’s throat, and Donna Brazile tossing Hillary Clinton out the car window a couple of days ago, are just two recent examples, of many, of that last part.

The Dismantling of the Clinton Machine Accelerates

Even the Washington Post (!) mentions – in a headline! – that Tony Podesta has resigned from the Podesta Group as a consequence of Mueller’s investigation:

Amid swirl of controversy, Democratic power lobbyist Podesta steps down

The first paragraph:

“Tony Podesta, a Democratic power lobbyist, announced to colleagues Monday that he is stepping down amid a series of indictments that cast a shadow on work his firm had done with Paul Manafort that may have benefited a Ukrainian regime friendly to the Kremlin.”

Second, NBC News says,

Podesta Group, Mercury Are Companies ‘A’ and ‘B’ in Indictment

The indictment, unsealed Monday, refers to “Company A” and “Company B” as the firms Manafort and Gates solicited in 2012 to lobby on behalf of the Ukranian government.

Tony Podesta, who founded the left-leaning Podesta Group in 1988, stepped down from his position with the firm on Monday morning, an employee told NBC News.

Tony Podesta is the brother of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, who is not under investigation.

And HOLY SHIT! Another NBC News piece has THIS as its HEADLINE!!!!:

Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

For a major Old Media organization to be reporting on a Democrat being investigated like this is surprising, but to put the fact that he’s a Democrat in the headline – whew! That’s new, seriously new.

Then, just yesterday, Donna Brazile absolutely hangs Hillary out to dry – in Politico! – in an exerpt from her forthcoming book:

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Brazile rips into Clinton for taking over the Democratic National Committee, in terms of finances and decision-making power, before the 2016 Democratic nomination contest had even begun, let alone concluded. In other words, Clinton took over the party apparatus that was supposed to oversee a fair nomination contest between Clinton and others like Sanders. That is, one of the players in the game managed to get herself appointed referee of the game.

Brazile is a corrupt and self-serving asshole, but never mind that for now. The important thing is that the anti-Clinton preference cascade continues.

Hillary’s Deal with Russia: Uranium One

In case you just got back from a trip to the Large Magellanic Cloud, Hillary! is now implicated in at least two scandals involving Russia.

One is that a Democratic organization involved in her campaign paid for the ridiculous Russian pee-pee “dossier” on Trump. And this was facilitated by Obama’s FBI.

The other is, as Secretary of State, selling a fifth of the US supply of uranium to this unfriendly foreign power. She should be put on trial for this, and if found guilty, executed for treason.

Vox Day’s Third Law of SJWs is SJWs Always Project. Leftists yelling “Trump colluded with Russia!” is a perfect example.


Officials of Fusion GPS, the company behind one of the fake Russia dossiers, take the Fifth:


Julian Assange investigated both presidential candidates. Found no Trump corruption involving Russia. But Clinton has such: https://twitter.com/kwilli1046/status/907733771901947904

From the “This is my surprised face” files: The fake dossier was originally started by a cuck before being handed off to the Democrat machine:

UPDATE to the above:
This guy http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/28/finally-a-definitive-timeline-showing-when-clinton-dnc-started-the-russian-dossier/ says,

“Some outlets have incorrectly reported that Republicans began financing the [fake Trump] dossier before the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee took over last Spring.
But that is incorrect. Democrats are solely responsible for the dossier, which was passed around by their research firm, Fusion GPS, to Beltway reporters and select lawmakers during the heat of the presidential campaign.”

For a laugh:

Wow, interesting! I recently typed uranium; into Google, and uranium one was actually the first auto-fill to come up! In fact, you don’t even have to finish the word uranium; it comes up at ura! Holy shit, this story grew so fast it caught the SJW censors at Google napping!

Ha ha, sweet! Eat shit, assholes!

Two links from Heartiste:



Media note: My local paper (I don’t subscribe, but my woman does for some reason) picks up stories from services like the Associated Press, etc. They could report on this if wanted to, but they haven’t. In the world according to this newspaper, the Uranium One deal never happened. They have breathed not one word about it. It’s totally invisible. If there’s anyone whose only source of news is this paper, that person is completely unaware that any such scandal ever occurred.

I have said this before in another context, but it bears repeating: Orwell was not exaggerating.

“I’m just as good as you! I’m totally just as good as you!”

At John C. Wright’s blog – why have I never linked to this guy before? – Wright shows an excerpt from a recent Marvel comic in which a “bad guy” fights the new, pointlessly female “Thor.”

The “bad” guy says, with unanswerable common sense, “You wanna be a chick superhero? Fine, who the hell cares? But get your own identity.”

To which the female “Thor” responds with, among other things, “Thor is Thor.” Leftists: They lie even when they utter tautologies. Thor is indeed Thor, bitch, and that ain’t you.

She rambles on for a bit, then punches the guy in the jaw, while saying some blather about feminism.

Obviously, this whole white man replacement thing really constitutes the SJWs screaming, “NO! It’s not enough to have a female superhero! It must be a female superhero who shoves aside a male superhero! She must appropriate a man’s identity!”

Thus giving away the game that it’s all about hate. Not the fake accusation of “hate” that the Left always lobs at people who dare to disagree with them, but actual hate.

Of course, the so-called “bad guy” is totally right. Why not just have a heroine? Why does it have to be replacing a hero? It is the equivalent of the scene in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in which Edmund draws spectacles and a moustache on the statue of a lion.

It’s defacement for the sake of defacement. It’s symbolically spitting on people the SJWs hate and fear, because, I guess, they think it will make them feel better. It’s astounding how much space white men take up in the heads of the Left. You don’t constantly protest, “I’m just a good as you! If not better!” against someone unless you’re constantly tortured by the feeling that you’re not as good as them.

Predictably, this never works in assuaging the feelings of inferiority, which is a reason that SJWs are never content, even when they win.