Politics in America are not hard to figure out at all, once you strip away all the rhetorical BS and the convolutions some of us encourage.

The more negative a person’s attitude toward the USA (we’re unexceptional, and/or racist, and/or imperialist, and/or exploitative, etc. etc. etc.), and the more they want to hurt it (destroying the middle class, crippling our industry, incurring unsustainable debt and selling off national resources as interest payments, giving money away as foreign aid, then borrowing it back from the same nations for more deficit spending, etc.) the more likely the person is to identify with the Democrats.

You can bank on this correlation better than 95% of the time. The more they rag on America, the more you can bet they vote Straight Jackass Ticket.

Nobody admits this out loud, but it’s been true for at least 40 years.

Conversely, the more a person appreciates the freedom we’ve all enjoyed here; the more they’ve studied history; the more they’ve read of our founding documents…the less likely they are to identify with Democrats.

I mentioned convolutions. Many would assume that the Republicans are on the other side–the loyal opposition to the socialists, communists and fascists who call themselves “liberal” and do everything possible to weaken us while strengthening our enemies.

Once upon a time there was some truth to that.

But the establishment Republicans are really just Democrats in drag. Many years ago the official Socialist Party of America imploded, because the leadership recognized that between the Democrats and Republicans, all their goals and agendas had been embraced by our alleged representatives.

The GOP was infiltrated and now the inmates are in full control of the asylum. Yes, I know the mainstream (leftist) media that gives Democrats a pass on everything are like rabid attack dogs toward anyone with an “R” after their name and state. That’s worth an essay of its own.

More importantly (because it is the rope we’ve been hanging ourselves on), people who love their country will support politicians who sell us out, who are little different from Democrats, simply because they have an “R” after their name and state.

The easiest example to point out is the Bushes. These big government left-wing globalists still garner devoted support from the voters they’ve betrayed, because of that “R.” It works out perfectly for our domestic enemies because the damage done by the Bushes (and the Boehners, McCains, Romneys, Doles, etc. ad infinitum) get blamed on “the right-wing.” The remedy is somebody like Clinton and Obama, but of course, who will give us “change” (more of the same but in lethal doses).

(Same principle in economics. Put a chokehold on the free market. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class shrinks, blame laizzes faire capitalism and strangle the free market a little more. Rinse and repeat.)

The “conservatives” in government today are mostly nothing but neocons. A neocon is a socialist who believes in lower taxes and a strong military.

People who hate America always have plenty of candidates to vote for. Those candidates will use their office to hurt our republic and help its enemies.

People who love America have plenty of candidates who want our votes and pay lip service to our ideals. Those candidates will also use their office to hurt our republic and help its enemies.

There’s evidently not much we the people can do about the tragic political theater pushing us over the cliff, because there are too many enablers among us. But despite all the convolution, the principle stated above is a reliable rule of thumb: America hate=Democrat sympathies. Put it to the test for yourself.

When Vox Day is on target, the man is SuperSniper. Two of his recent blog posts beautifully express some truth that needs to be swallowed quickly (if it’s not too late already).

When Vox used a Dick Winters quote to illustrate this point, the former paratroopers at Virtual Pulp were pleased with the Band of Brothers reference. (The terms being used here are “killers” and “non-killers,” which correspond to “radicals” and “moderates,” respectively, in the culture war and politics.)

In war, physical or metaphorical, there are very few who are capable of instinctively waging it “without restraint and without regard to their personal safety”. And one important difference between actual war and cultural war is that in the case of the latter, many of the nonkillers spend a fair amount of their time sniping at the killers on their own side rather than at the other side.

Imagine how effective Easy Company would have been if instead of being expected to follow the killers’ example, its nonkillers dedicated themselves to explaining at length that instead of flanking the German gun position on D-Day and killing the German gunners, they should all prove themselves to be better than the Germans by being nice to them. And then, when the killers ignored them and began the flank attack, instead of laying down covering fire, the nonkillers started shooting at the killers. Does anyone seriously think this would be a successful way to wage war?

Why, then, does anyone imagine that the same tactical approach will succeed in cultural war? If the moderates will not at the very least provide covering fire for the extremists, they are useless. And to the extent that they open their cowardly mouths to criticize, correct, and concern-troll the only people on their side who are taking action, they are worse than useless.

Having wasted plenty of time in debates in recent years, this makes me wince with its accuracy. It would be better if moderates simply dropped their pretenses and wore the uniform of the enemy. The leftists, SJWs, feminists and homophiles advance so many logically flawed and provably false arguments, a reasonably informed person could effectively expose them single-handedly, perhaps taking back the respective portion in the marketplace of ideas being contested. This rarely happens, because more often than not, lilly-livered concern trolls (as Vox calls them) butt into the conversation and begin laying a smokescreen for the other side to hide behind.

They will take issue with the syntax/semantics used if you’re not careful to use Newspeak/politically correct terms. They will accuse you of mudslinging if you don’t sugar-coat your rebuttals. They’ll say you’re heavy-handed if you don’t let the other guy off the hook when they lie or change the subject. Of course they will rarely take note of the other side’s lies, distortions, obfuscations and hypocrisy. By the time they’re done, they will have clouded the matter in question sufficiently to cover the retreat of the opponent. Or even join forces with them and attempt to bury you under a deluge of rhetoric.

Because you are a bigger threat than those with whom they allegedly disagree. You’re gonna scare them away, you big meanie, when you state your case so effectively while not letting the other side get away with lying, double standards, cognitive dissonance, and ignorance of the subjects they claim to be experts on. As Vox puts it in the other post:

So, they suddenly become “strategists” and experts in coming up with ways to prevent anyone from actually doing anything. It’s freaking hilarious to see a few of them “strategizing” together because they inevitably produce a consensus that is not only less effective than literally everything they’ve been criticizing, but is usually unrelated to the original objective. “We should be better than them” is their battle cry. They love to show that they are “better” than the other side by preemptively surrendering and refusing to fight back. Which, of course, is why they reliably lose.

Remember, moderates got us into Vietnam, and ensured we stayed there for quite a while without accomplishing anything of lasting consequence. Anything good for the American or Vietnamese people, anyway. Moderates decided that we shouldn’t finish off Saddam Hussein in Gulf War One because our air power brought smoke on an Iraqi convoy. Egad! We killed people and broke things! That’s not how you’re supposed to fight a war! We must be better than they are. Send everyone home so we can do this again in 12 years.

This attitude pervaded when, after other countries had been fielding professional athletes in the Olympics for some time (the Soviet Bloc nations for their entire history), the USA finally fielded professionals as well. It was just wrong that we would send our best athletes to compete against their best athletes. If Americans don’t have two arms and a leg tied behind our backs, we’re cheating!

You see this in politics all the time. Democrats use every dirty trick possible to ram their agenda down our throats. When it becomes obvious to even the ostriches that Democrats are driving the country over a cliff, Republicans get elected into the majority on promises of curtailing the damage. Those tricks and loopholes the Democrats used, given legitimacy by the news media (because Democrats did it, after all), will not be utilized by the backstabbing frauds of the Establishment G.O.P., who will cave to the other side on every significant bill. Why? Because it’s more important that they prove they’re “better” than the other guys than actually trying to avert the train wreck. At least that’s the reason according to their apologists.

In reality, they share the agenda of those they allegedly oppose. Watch them get a serious challenge from someone in their own party who is NOT a backstabbing fraud, and you’ll see them fight like hell, using every weapon in their arsenal.

The poster boy of the moderates right now is the pantywaist Judas goat RINO John Boehner, who had all the tools at his disposal needed to stop executive amnesty, but surrendered without a fight, of course. He and his ilk have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory so many times, it shouldn’t take above-average intelligence to see their true colors. They are not opposed to Obamunism. Never have been. Their job is to hoodwink the gullible, and sell us out. That is their true job, and they do their true job quite well.

Whichever side you think moderates really want to help, in effect they are just another asset at the disposal of the opposing force.

Some scumbag in the college town of Chapel Hill, NC, murdered three Muslims over a parking dispute.

Of course the press would have a field day if the perpetrator was a Tea Party gun nut. But since he instead is a goose-stepping pinkshirt homophile Obamunist, ya gotta wonder: will they just ignore it? Or will they devise some creative technique to make it pay political dividends to their Marxist agenda somehow?

There’s really only two labels they can stick on him over and over and over and over again which are both accurate and don’t contradict the state-approved narrative:

1. White
2. Male

But this is the mainstream media, so why should we even entertain the notion they’d attempt to be either accurate or honest? After all, merely calling him a white male doesn’t come nearly close enough to presenting the Greater Truth behind the story! Let’s get creative:

3. Did he ever attend church in his life—even if it was something like Jeremiah Wright’s Sacred Tabernacle of Race War? Then he’s a Christian! A Christian white male.

What’s that you say–he’s an anti-theist? Well we don’t care what kind of theist he is; they’re all dangerous! (Except Jew-hating Muslims, of course.)

4. If not a church, then how ’bout a Bhuddist Temple? A Sikh or Hindu Ashram? A Mosque, like his victims? An Obama rally? Then he’s religious, by gosh. Hmm. “Religious white male.” Doesn’t quite sound marginal enough, does it?

5. Was he ever heard quoting anything from a rule or scientific principle that could be considered fundamental to a field of study or discipline? Then he’s a fundamentalist! Aha, now he’s starting to sound appropriately threatening. But still…

6. We can do better. Did he live or work in a building with long rectangular sections? You know…wings? Could that wing he lived or worked in be considered on the right if you’re facing the building from a certain direction? Then of course HE’S RIGHT-WING, which explains everything!

7. Combine for extra Greater Truth Narrative points! Do both #3 and #6 apply? Then he’s religious right! #1, #2 and #5? Then he’s a white male fundamentalist!

You get the idea. Now get your creative cap on and help the press craft this narrative.

While collectivists evidently have no problem with weapons in the hands of those who would use them to murder and for other crimes (Mexican drug lords carrying their gang wars across the border; Islamic Jihadists, etc.), it has always driven them batty that non-criminal American citizens are armed. Especially non-criminal American citizens who prefer to live in a free state and who would participate in the militia if necessary.

Left-wing politicians have concocted miriad schemes over the years to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, but that pesky Constitution (which they swear to uphold) keeps getting in their way. Of course, in every other instance that doesn’t even slow them down. They’ve got armies of lawyers paid (with your tax dollars) to interpret away your protections and come up with brilliant arguments like “We have to pass (this horrific new legislation) to find out what’s in it.” But for some reason, there are people left in our mind-numbed population who still understand English enough to recognize what the 2nd Amendment means.

Lots of well-made points in the video, but I like best the grammatically indentical sentence from the 2nd Amendment applied to something else:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

That’s one for the Goodreads crowd to chew on.