Publius Decius Mus
The Claremont Institute
10 September 2016
A few days ago I heard Mr. Limbaugh read excerpts from “The Flight 93 Election” by one Publius
Decius Mus (http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-flight-93-election/), which prompted me to go online and read this document myself.
(A copy appears at the end of this article.)
As I suspected from the very
start, the title itself is emblematic of the precarious situation in which Publius Decius Mus finds the conservative movement.
And as a former federal employee who lost his boss on United Airlines Flight 93 on 11 September 2001, I find the evocation
of the official 9/11 storyline to describe the dilemma in which Conservatives find themselves with the choices of Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton very disturbing indeed. The proverb of Solomon comes to mind: “Where
there is no vision, the people perish.”
You see, after believing the
“Let’s Roll” scenario at first, other considerations kept barging in on reality until I finally was compelled
to reject the entire 9/11 official scenario. I am certainly not alone in my skepticism about 9/11.
Emeritus Professor David Ray Griffin of Claremont School of Theology, which is just down the road from the Claremont
Institute, has written several books revealing the many lies, omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report.
His rational approach to 9/11 is a great achievement worthy of our nation’s thanks. But for
now let me focus on Flight 93.
From the beginning I wondered when I would
see video surveillance images of my boss Marion Britton at Newark Airport before she boarded United Flight 93.
Slowly but surely I came to the realization that I will never see video proof that Marion was at Newark Airport on
the morning of 9/11. And slowly but surely I also came to the realization that I will never see video proof
of the alleged hijackers or any of the other passengers who were on board Flight 93.
By hard experience, I came to the conclusion that the post 9/11 security apparatus in the USA did not appreciate
my observations, was not willing to entertain my questions and could be very nasty about it. Yet the fact
remains, we have never seen any credible video surveillance images of alleged hijackers and other passengers at Newark, Logan
or Dulles airports. (The Dulles video tapes have no time-stamp and the Portland, Maine airport video tapes
do not prove that the alleged hijackers were at Logan.)
Of course NBC’s Universal
Studios, owned by defense contractor General Electric, solidified the myth of 9/11 with images galore in its movie “Flight
93.” Reading the rave reviews of this movie, I wondered how the entire Fourth Estate could be so
uncurious about the sheer lack of video surveillance evidence backing an official storyline that brought us into unending
wars in the Middle East. Who would dare to question Hollywood’s propaganda film?
Then there was the matter of the cell phone calls. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
report about Marion’s cell phone calls quickly spread lurid details backing the emerging 19 Arab hijackers storyline.
But years later, at the Moussaoui (“20th hijacker”) trial, the US Department of Justice maintained
that Marion used a seat-back air phone and not a cell phone.
matter was resolved to my satisfaction by the alleged cell phone call made by Edward Felt from a lavatory of Flight 93, where
there are no air phones installed. John Shaw, the 911 dispatcher, took Felt’s alleged call, and heard
Felt tell him there was an ongoing hijacking of United Flight 93 and that he had locked himself inside a lavatory to protect
himself from the terrorists and that he was using his cell phone to call him. Later, the FBI played a recording
of the Felt-Shaw conversation for Felt’s wife and daughters who all agreed they recognized Felt’s voice.
But cell phone calls were not possible from speeding jets with the technology available in 2001. The
jet moves too quickly for proper handoff of the cell phone signal from tower to tower on the ground. So
how do we explain the call from Felt to 911 dispatcher John Shaw? The answer is real-time digital voice
morphing, a brilliant technology that allows high-fidelity voice impersonation. There is no other rational
explanation for the alleged Felt-Shaw call from United Flight 93. But there is widespread ignorance of
real-time digital voice morphing.
Real-time digital voice morphing is a crime
in the general category of what I call cybernetic telecommunications piracy. Another example of cybernetic
telecommunications piracy is remote control hijacking of an airplane or even an automobile for nefarious purposes by an outside
agent or system. These aggressive forms of hacking are new challenges that must be met head on despite
the obstacles of governmental and corporate secrecy. Innocent people are being killed and the perpetrators
have found a way to pull off the perfect, untraceable crime.
one is left wondering how journalists got their golden scoops of bogus calls from United Flight 93 and why their activities
cannot be traced by the telecommunications giant who handled these calls and has immunity from investigation by an illegal
ex post facto law. This is not the only area of doubt about our news media. The
initial reports of a TV crew at the alleged crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania revealed an “empty hole in the ground”
which looked to me like a crater from an artillery round. The vivid image was quickly filtered and kept
from national distribution, but thanks to the wonderful invention called the Internet, has been preserved for judge and jury
in the right jurisdiction and hopefully sooner rather than later.
9/11 researcher Victor Thorn made an original contribution to 9/11 truth with his eye-ball to eye-ball canvassing of residents
who witnessed debris and recovery teams in closed off areas within the eight mile distance between New Baltimore and Shanksville.
Real or staged, this evidence of a shoot-down never made it to the mainstream media. Thorn’s
supposed suicide on 1 August 2016 was reported by Brian Sussman of KSFO’s Morning Show (which immediately precedes the
Rush Limbaugh Show) even though there has never been an official police media release of the incident from the State College
Police Department in Pennsylvania in whose jurisdiction Thorn’s body was found. How did a report
of the demise of an obscure alternative media figure reach the mainstream media so quickly? Had Sussman
ever reported on what Thorn had to say about 9/11 prior to reporting his death without official sourcing?
Finally, we have the thorough reporting and analysis of a German national who goes only by the moniker
“Woody Box.” In an entirely plausible scenario, he demonstrates evidence of United Flight 93’s
safe landing at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and a debriefing of passengers inside a NASA facility at this airport.
Just google his name and read the details.
I don’t claim to know
all the facts. I just know that the official account of what happened to United Flight 93 does not add
up. My questions on Flight 93 and many other aspects of 9/11 deserve answers but these answers have not
been forthcoming. I wrote 78 open letters on 9/11 to Attorneys General Mukasey and Holder, and sent copies
of each by fax broadcast to every member of the US Congress, every embassy in Washington, every mission to the United Nations
in New York (where I lived at the time), as well as to many private and public individuals and institutions so as to put my
questions on record openly. These letters are published on my private website at www.show-the-house.com/id54.html and www.show-the-house.com/id79.html.
At the very least, and after 15 years, I still see an urgent need for a new and
a real investigation of 9/11. The only way to honor those slain, maimed and bereaved is to tell the truth
and pursue justice. But to hear the likes of Publius Decius Mus invoke the questionable “Let’s
Roll” scenario aboard United Flight 93 in order to hustle votes for Trump just saddens me. The Conservatives
are not worth their salt if they cannot be myth-busters. Publius Decius Mus is merely promoting the myth
that has us engaged in perpetual warfare. If you dare to look closely and to think, this myth about 9/11
is a Zionist myth. And both candidates, in their speeches before AIPAC, have given pledges of allegiance
to a foreign power, the Zionist state of “Israel.” The Zionists know precisely how high either
candidate will jump for ham.
Hillary is “all in” on the Zionist
myth of 9/11. She never replied to any of my 78 open letters on 9/11 to Mukasey and Holder even though
I was her constituent at the time and would follow up many of the fax broadcasts with telephone calls to her offices in New
York and Washington. As for Trump, I think the Donald will agree with me that 9/11 was HUGE and gave the
military industrial complex a big boost after the dissolution of the Soviet Union put their profiteering
in serious jeopardy. Trump correctly predicted that Osama Bin Laden would strike the USA even though this
man in a cave in Afghanistan never had the means and opportunity to pull off such an attack. Yet Trump
predicted the attack, which now looks more and more like an “inside job,” a “false flag” military
intelligence operation or ruse to commence war according to the Zionist-Neoconservative ideology. Trump
was right! This is the stuff on which the Nuremberg Principles were introduced into the body of international
law right after World War Two by Justice Robert H. Jackson of the USA!
with Brexit and the Chilcot Report and a new and a real investigation of 9/11, Europe will finally stand up against the full
spectrum fraud and force that in the last 15 years have destroyed nations, killed millions, made several million people homeless
or refugees, destroyed cultures, brought sorrows and misery to many millions more, and still threatens to cross more borders
to establish controlled chaos so as to divide and conquer. The foreign policy of the USA is diametrically
opposed to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, and therefore is a violation of our Constitution of
the United States, which holds that our treaties are the law of the land.
Very truly yours,
Stephen M. St. John
Post Office Box 720274
San José, CA 95172
408 934 4965
* * * * * * *
The Flight 93 Election
By: Publius Decius Mus
September 5, 2016
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the
leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a
Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your
To ordinary conservative ears, this sounds histrionic. The stakes
can’t be that high because they are never that high—except perhaps in the pages of Gibbon. Conservative intellectuals
will insist that there has been no “end of history” and that all human outcomes are still possible. They will
even—as Charles Kesler does—admit that America is in “crisis.” But how great is the crisis? Can things
really be so bad if eight years of Obama can be followed by eight more of Hillary, and yet Constitutionalist conservatives
can still reasonably hope for a restoration of our cherished ideals? Cruz in 2024!
Not to pick (too much) on Kesler, who is less unwarrantedly optimistic than most conservatives. And
who, at least, poses the right question: Trump or Hillary? Though his answer—“even if [Trump] had chosen his policies
at random, they would be sounder than Hillary’s”—is unwarrantedly ungenerous. The truth is that Trump articulated,
if incompletely and inconsistently, the right stances on the right issues—immigration, trade, and war—right from
But let us back up. One of the paradoxes—there
are so many—of conservative thought over the last decade at least is the unwillingness even to entertain the
possibility that America and the West are on a trajectory toward something very bad. On the one hand, conservatives routinely
present a litany of ills plaguing the body politic. Illegitimacy. Crime. Massive, expensive, intrusive, out-of-control government.
Politically correct McCarthyism. Ever-higher taxes and ever-deteriorating services and infrastructure. Inability to win wars
against tribal, sub-Third-World foes. A disastrously awful educational system that churns out kids who don’t know anything
and, at the primary and secondary levels, can’t (or won’t) discipline disruptive punks, and at the higher levels
saddles students with six figure debts for the privilege. And so on and drearily on. Like that portion of the mass where the
priest asks for your private intentions, fill in any dismal fact about American decline that you want and I’ll stipulate
Conservatives spend at least several hundred million dollars a
year on think-tanks, magazines, conferences, fellowships, and such, complaining about this, that, the other, and everything.
And yet these same conservatives are, at root, keepers of the status quo. Oh, sure, they want some things to change.
They want their pet ideas adopted—tax deductions for having more babies and the like. Many of them are even good ideas.
But are any of them truly fundamental? Do they get to the heart of our problems?
If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character
and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”;
if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined
knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the
centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about
the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions;
if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they
are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t
they?—that we are headed off a cliff.
quite obvious that conservatives don’t believe any such thing, that they feel no such sense of urgency, of an immediate
necessity to change course and avoid the cliff. A recent article by Matthew Continetti may be taken as representative—indeed,
almost written for the purpose of illustrating the point. Continetti inquires into the “condition of America”
and finds it wanting. What does Continetti propose to do about it? The usual litany of “conservative” “solutions,”
with the obligatory references to decentralization, federalization, “civic renewal,” and—of course!—Burke.
Which is to say, conservatism’s typical combination of the useless and inapt with the utopian and unrealizable. Decentralization
and federalism are all well and good, and as a conservative, I endorse them both without reservation. But how are they going
to save, or even meaningfully improve, the America that Continetti describes? What can they do against a tidal wave of dysfunction,
immorality, and corruption? “Civic renewal” would do a lot of course, but that’s like saying health will
save a cancer patient. A step has been skipped in there somewhere. How are we going to achieve “civic renewal”?
Wishing for a tautology to enact itself is not a strategy.
trips over a more promising approach when he writes of “stress[ing] the ‘national interest abroad and national
solidarity at home’ through foreign-policy retrenchment, ‘support to workers buffeted by globalization,’
and setting ‘tax rates and immigration levels’ to foster social cohesion." That sounds a lot like Trumpism.
But the phrases that Continetti quotes are taken from Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, both of whom, like Continetti, are vociferously—one
might even say fanatically—anti-Trump. At least they, unlike Kesler, give Trump credit for having identified the right
stance on today’s most salient issues. Yet, paradoxically, they won’t vote for Trump whereas Kesler hints that
he will. It’s reasonable, then, to read into Kesler’s esoteric endorsement of Trump an implicit acknowledgment
that the crisis is, indeed, pretty dire. I expect a Claremont scholar to be wiser than most other conservative intellectuals,
and I am relieved not to be disappointed in this instance.
Yet we may
also reasonably ask: What explains the Pollyanna-ish declinism of so many others? That is, the stance that Things-Are-Really-Bad—But-Not-So-Bad-that-We-Have-to-Consider-Anything-Really-Different!
The obvious answer is that they don’t really believe the first half of that formulation. If so, like Chicken Little,
they should stick a sock in it. Pecuniary reasons also suggest themselves, but let us foreswear recourse to this explanation
until we have disproved all the others.
Whatever the reason
for the contradiction, there can be no doubt that there is a contradiction. To simultaneously hold conservative cultural,
economic, and political beliefs—to insist that our liberal-left present reality and future direction is incompatible
with human nature and must undermine society—and yet also believe that things can go on more or less the way they are
going, ideally but not necessarily with some conservative tinkering here and there, is logically impossible.
Let’s be very blunt here: if you genuinely think things can go on with no fundamental
change needed, then you have implicitly admitted that conservatism is wrong. Wrong philosophically, wrong on human
nature, wrong on the nature of politics, and wrong in its policy prescriptions. Because, first, few of those prescriptions
are in force today. Second, of the ones that are, the left is busy undoing them, often with conservative assistance. And,
third, the whole trend of the West is ever-leftward, ever further away from what we all understand as conservatism.
If your answer—Continetti’s, Douthat’s, Salam’s, and so many
others’—is for conservatism to keep doing what it’s been doing—another policy journal, another article
about welfare reform, another half-day seminar on limited government, another tax credit proposal—even though we’ve
been losing ground for at least a century, then you’ve implicitly accepted that your supposed political philosophy doesn’t
matter and that civilization will carry on just fine under leftist tenets. Indeed, that leftism is truer than conservatism
and superior to it.
They will say, in words reminiscent
of dorm-room Marxism—but our proposals have not been tried! Here our ideas sit, waiting to be implemented!
To which I reply: eh, not really. Many conservative solutions—above all welfare reform and crime control—have
been tried, and proved effective, but have nonetheless failed to stem the tide. Crime, for instance, is down from its mid-’70s
and early ’90s peak—but way, way up from the historic American norm that ended when liberals took over criminal
justice in the mid-’60s. And it’s rising fast today, in the teeth of ineffectual conservative complaints. And
what has this temporary crime (or welfare, for that matter) decline done to stem the greater tide? The tsunami of leftism
that still engulfs our every—literal and figurative—shore has receded not a bit but indeed has grown. All your
(our) victories are short-lived.
More to the point,
what has conservatism achieved lately? In the last 20 years? The answer—which appears to be “nothing”—might
seem to lend credence to the plea that “our ideas haven’t been tried.” Except that the same conservatives
who generate those ideas are in charge of selling them to the broader public. If their ideas “haven’t been tried,”
who is ultimately at fault? The whole enterprise of Conservatism, Inc., reeks of failure. Its sole recent and ongoing success
is its own self-preservation. Conservative intellectuals never tire of praising “entrepreneurs” and “creative
destruction.” Dare to fail! they exhort businessmen. Let the market decide! Except, um, not with respect to us. Or is
their true market not the political arena, but the fundraising circuit?
three questions matter. First, how bad are things really? Second, what do we do right now? Third, what should we do for the
Conservatism, Inc.’s, “answer”
to the first may, at this point, simply be dismissed. If the conservatives wish to have a serious debate, I for one am game—more
than game; eager. The problem of “subjective certainty” can only be overcome by going into the agora. But my attempt
to do so—the blog that Kesler mentions—was met largely with incredulity. How can they say that?! How can anyone
apparently of our caste (conservative intellectuals) not merely support Trump (however lukewarmly) but offer reasons
for doing do?
One of the Journal of American Greatness’s
deeper arguments was that only in a corrupt republic, in corrupt times, could a Trump rise. It is therefore puzzling that
those most horrified by Trump are the least willing to consider the possibility that the republic is dying. That possibility,
apparently, seems to them so preposterous that no refutation is necessary.
does, presumably, the argument that the stakes in 2016 are—everything. I should here note that I am a good deal gloomier
than my (former) JAG colleagues,
and that while we frequently used the royal “we” when discussing things on which we all agreed, I here speak only
How have the last two decades worked out
for you, personally? If you’re a member or fellow-traveler of the Davos class, chances are: pretty well. If you’re
among the subspecies conservative intellectual or politician, you’ve accepted—perhaps not consciously, but unmistakably—your
status on the roster of the Washington Generals of American politics. Your job is to show up and lose, but you are a necessary
part of the show and you do get paid. To the extent that you are ever on the winning side of anything, it’s as sophists
who help the Davoisie oligarchy rationalize open borders, lower wages, outsourcing, de-industrialization, trade giveaways,
and endless, pointless, winless war.
All of Trump’s
16 Republican competitors would have ensured more of the same—as will the election of Hillary Clinton. That would be
bad enough. But at least Republicans are merely reactive when it comes to wholesale cultural and political change. Their “opposition”
may be in all cases ineffectual and often indistinguishable from support. But they don’t dream up inanities like 32
“genders,” elective bathrooms, single-payer, Iran sycophancy, “Islamophobia,” and Black Lives Matter.
They merely help ratify them.
A Hillary presidency will be pedal-to-the-metal
on the entire Progressive-left agenda, plus items few of us have yet imagined in our darkest moments. Nor is even that the
worst. It will be coupled with a level of vindictive persecution against resistance and dissent hitherto seen in the supposedly
liberal West only in the most “advanced” Scandinavian countries and the most leftist corners of Germany and England.
We see this already in the censorship practiced by the Davoisie’s social media enablers; in the shameless propaganda
tidal wave of the mainstream media; and in the personal destruction campaigns—operated through the former and aided
by the latter—of the Social Justice Warriors. We see it in Obama’s flagrant use of the IRS to torment political
opponents, the gaslighting denial by the media, and the collective shrug by everyone else.
It’s absurd to assume that any of this would stop or slow—would do anything other than massively
intensify—in a Hillary administration. It’s even more ridiculous to expect that hitherto useless conservative
opposition would suddenly become effective. For two generations at least, the Left has been calling everyone to their right
Nazis. This trend has accelerated exponentially in the last few years, helped along by some on the Right who really do seem
to merit—and even relish—the label. There is nothing the modern conservative fears more than being called “racist,”
so alt-right pocket Nazis are manna from heaven for the Left. But also wholly unnecessary: sauce for the goose. The Left was
calling us Nazis long before any pro-Trumpers tweeted Holocaust denial memes. And how does one deal with a Nazi—that
is, with an enemy one is convinced intends your destruction? You don’t compromise with him or leave him alone. You crush
So what do we have to lose by fighting back? Only our Washington
Generals jerseys—and paychecks. But those are going away anyway. Among the many things the “Right” still
doesn’t understand is that the Left has concluded that this particular show need no longer go on. They don’t think
they need a foil anymore and would rather dispense with the whole bother of staging these phony contests in which each side
ostensibly has a shot.
If you haven’t noticed, our
side has been losing consistently since 1988. We can win midterms, but we do nothing with them. Call ours Hannibalic victories.
After the Carthaginian’s famous slaughter of a Roman army at Cannae, he failed to march on an undefended Rome, prompting
his cavalry commander to complain: “you know how to win a victory, but not how to use one.” And, aside from 2004’s
lackluster 50.7%, we can’t win the big ones at all.
deck is stacked overwhelmingly against us. I will mention but three ways. First, the opinion-making elements—the universities
and the media above all—are wholly corrupt and wholly opposed to everything we want, and increasingly even to our existence.
(What else are the wars on “cis-genderism”—formerly known as “nature”—and on the supposed
“white privilege” of broke hillbillies really about?) If it hadn’t been abundantly clear for the last 50
years, the campaign of 2015-2016 must surely have made it evident to even the meanest capacities that the intelligentsia—including
all the organs through which it broadcasts its propaganda—is overwhelmingly partisan and biased. Against this onslaught,
“conservative” media is a nullity, barely a whisper. It cannot be heard above the blaring
of what has been aptly called “The Megaphone.”
Washington Generals self-handicap and self-censor to an absurd degree. Lenin is supposed to have said that “the best
way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” But with an opposition like ours, why bother? Our “leaders”
and “dissenters” bend over backward to play by the self-sabotaging rules the Left sets for them. Fearful, beaten
dogs have more thymos.
Third and most important,
the ceaseless importation of Third World foreigners with no tradition of, taste for, or experience in liberty means that the
electorate grows more left, more Democratic, less Republican, less republican, and less traditionally American with every
cycle. As does, of course, the U.S. population, which only serves to reinforce the two other causes outlined above. This is
the core reason why the Left, the Democrats, and the bipartisan junta (categories distinct but very much overlapping) think
they are on the cusp of a permanent victory that will forever obviate the need to pretend to respect democratic and constitutional
niceties. Because they are.
It’s also why they treat
open borders as the “absolute value,” the one “principle” that—when their “principles”
collide—they prioritize above all the others. If that fact is insufficiently clear, consider this. Trump is
the most liberal Republican nominee since Thomas Dewey. He departs from conservative orthodoxy in so many ways that National
Review still hasn’t stopped counting. But let’s stick to just the core issues animating his campaign. On
trade, globalization, and war, Trump is to the left (conventionally understood) not only of his own party, but of his Democratic
opponent. And yet the Left and the junta are at one with the house-broken conservatives in their determination—desperation—not
merely to defeat Trump but to destroy him. What gives?
that other issue. The sacredness of mass immigration is the mystic chord that unites America’s ruling and intellectual
classes. Their reasons vary somewhat. The Left and the Democrats seek ringers to form a permanent electoral majority. They,
or many of them, also believe the academic-intellectual lie that America’s inherently racist and evil nature can be
expiated only through ever greater “diversity.” The junta of course craves cheaper and more docile labor. It also
seeks to legitimize, and deflect unwanted attention from, its wealth and power by pretending that its open borders stance
is a form of noblesse oblige. The Republicans and the “conservatives”? Both of course desperately want
absolution from the charge of “racism.” For the latter, this at least makes some sense. No Washington General
can take the court—much less cash his check—with that epithet dancing over his head like some Satanic Spirit.
But for the former, this priestly grace comes at the direct expense of their worldly interests. Do they honestly believe that
the right enterprise zone or charter school policy will arouse 50.01% of our newer voters to finally reveal their “natural
conservatism” at the ballot box? It hasn’t happened anywhere yet and shows no signs that it ever will. But that
doesn’t stop the Republican refrain: more, more, more! No matter how many elections they lose, how many districts tip
forever blue, how rarely (if ever) their immigrant vote cracks 40%, the answer is always the same. Just like Angela Merkel
after yet another rape, shooting, bombing, or machete attack. More, more, more!
is insane. This is the mark of a party, a society, a country, a people, a civilization that wants to die. Trump, alone among
candidates for high office in this or in the last seven (at least) cycles, has stood up to say: I want to live. I want my
party to live. I want my country to live. I want my people to live. I want to end the insanity.
Yes, Trump is worse than imperfect. So what? We can lament until we choke the lack of a great statesman
to address the fundamental issues of our time—or, more importantly, to connect them. Since Pat Buchanan’s three
failures, occasionally a candidate arose who saw one piece: Dick Gephardt on trade, Ron Paul on war, Tom Tancredo on immigration.
Yet, among recent political figures—great statesmen, dangerous demagogues, and mewling gnats alike—only Trump-the-alleged-buffoon
not merely saw all three and their essential connectivity, but was able to win on them. The alleged buffoon is thus
more prudent—more practically wise—than all of our wise-and-good who so bitterly oppose him. This should embarrass
them. That their failures instead embolden them is only further proof of their foolishness and hubris.
Which they self-laud as “consistency”—adherence to “conservative principle,”
defined by the 1980 campaign and the household gods of reigning conservative think-tanks. A higher consistency in the service
of the national interest apparently eludes them. When America possessed a vast, empty continent and explosively growing industry,
high immigration was arguably good policy. (Arguably: Ben Franklin would disagree.) It hasn’t made sense since World War I. Free trade
was unquestionably a great boon to the American worker in the decades after World War II. We long ago passed the point of
diminishing returns. The Gulf War of 1991 was a strategic victory for American interests. No conflict since then has been.
Conservatives either can’t see this—or, worse, those who can nonetheless treat the only political leader to mount
a serious challenge to the status quo (more immigration, more trade, more war) as a unique evil.
Trump’s vulgarity is in fact a godsend to the conservatives. It allows them to hang their public
opposition on his obvious shortcomings and to ignore or downplay his far greater strengths, which should be even more obvious
but in corrupt times can be deliberately obscured by constant references to his faults. That the Left would make the campaign
all about the latter is to be expected. Why would the Right? Some—a few—are no doubt sincere in their belief that
the man is simply unfit for high office. David Frum, who has always been an immigration skeptic and is a convert to the less-war
position, is sincere when he says that, even though he agrees with much of Trump’s agenda, he cannot stomach Trump.
But for most of the other #NeverTrumpers, is it just a coincidence that they also happen to favor Invade the World, Invite
Another question JAG raised without
provoking any serious attempt at refutation was whether, in corrupt times, it took a … let’s say ... “loudmouth”
to rise above the din of The Megaphone. We, or I, speculated: “yes.” Suppose there had arisen some statesman of
high character—dignified, articulate, experienced, knowledgeable—the exact opposite of everything the conservatives
claim to hate about Trump. Could this hypothetical paragon have won on Trump’s same issues? Would the conservatives
have supported him? I would have—even had he been a Democrat.
on planet earth, that flight of fancy at least addresses what to do now. The answer to the subsidiary question—will
it work?—is much less clear. By “it” I mean Trumpism, broadly defined as secure borders, economic nationalism,
and America-first foreign policy. We Americans have chosen, in our foolishness, to disunite the country through stupid immigration,
economic, and foreign policies. The level of unity America enjoyed before the bipartisan junta took over can never be restored.
But we can probably do better than we are doing now. First, stop digging. No more
importing poverty, crime, and alien cultures. We have made institutions, by leftist design, not merely abysmal at assimilation
but abhorrent of the concept. We should try to fix that, but given the Left’s iron grip on every school and cultural
center, that’s like trying to bring democracy to Russia. A worthy goal, perhaps, but temper your hopes—and don’t
invest time and resources unrealistically.
simply building a wall and enforcing immigration law will help enormously, by cutting off the flood of newcomers that perpetuates
ethnic separatism and by incentivizing the English language and American norms in the workplace. These policies will have
the added benefit of aligning the economic interests of, and (we may hope) fostering solidarity among, the working, lower
middle, and middle classes of all races and ethnicities. The same can be said for Trumpian trade policies and anti-globalization
instincts. Who cares if productivity numbers tick down, or if our already somnambulant GDP sinks a bit further into its pillow?
Nearly all the gains of the last 20 years have accrued to the junta anyway. It would, at this point, be better for the nation
to divide up more equitably a slightly smaller pie than to add one extra slice—only to ensure that it and eight of the
other nine go first to the government and its rentiers, and the rest to the same four industries and 200 families.
Will this work? Ask a pessimist, get a pessimistic answer. So don’t ask. Ask
instead: is it worth trying? Is it better than the alternative? If you can’t say, forthrightly, “yes,” you
are either part of the junta, a fool, or a conservative intellectual.
if it doesn’t work, what then? We’ve established that most “conservative” anti-Trumpites are in the Orwellian sense objectively pro-Hillary. What about the rest of you? If
you recognize the threat she poses, but somehow can’t stomach him, have you thought about the longer term? The possibilities
would seem to be: Caesarism, secession/crack-up, collapse, or managerial Davoisie liberalism as far as the eye can see …
which, since nothing human lasts forever, at some point will give way to one of the other three. Oh, and, I suppose, for those
who like to pour a tall one and dream big, a second American Revolution that restores Constitutionalism, limited government,
and a 28% top marginal rate.
But for those of you who are sober:
can you sketch a more plausible long-term future than the prior four following a Trump defeat? I can’t either.
election of 2016 is a test—in my view, the final test—of whether there is any virtù left
in what used to be the core of the American nation. If they cannot rouse themselves simply to vote for the first
candidate in a generation who pledges to advance their interests, and to vote against the one who openly boasts that
she will do the opposite (a million more Syrians, anyone?), then they are doomed. They may not deserve the fate that will
befall them, but they will suffer it regardless.
End of article by Publius Decius Mus.