Political Realities and Cultural  Reformation
It has been amazing to watch the implosion of the Donald Trump  campaign.
His political collapse, now under way in full self-destruct mode, is  
for the obliviousness of the candidate to his poor judgement, lack of
policy knowledge, absence of understanding the need for political  finesse,
and generally being uninformed about most issues of substance.  However,
the rise of Trump could so easily have been prevented, at the least
could have been nipped in the bud before his candidacy became
a threat  to the Republican Party itself.
As oblivious to his intellectual shortcomings as Donald Trump is, and  to
his lack of knowledge and absence of self-awareness, is how oblivious 
the GOP establishment has been to its own conceptual shortcomings.
Translation: The hot shots who run the Republican Party 
don't really know what they are doing. 
By way of  comparison, I was also amazed, before the election of 1996, 
when reading Bob Woodward's 1994 book, The Agenda, about how  Hillary 
held seances in the White House in which she called upon the services 
of various New Age religious gurus  -charlatans by my way of looking  at 
as she, Hillary- sought the advice and counsel of the Goddess Athena.
Mind you, I have no problem with someone seeking solace from a  Goddess.
Nearly a billion Hindus, as part of Hindu orthodoxy, call upon one or
another Goddess every day. Meanwhile just about all Mahayana  Buddhists
and Vajrayana Buddhists do likewise, as do all kinds of Pagan  believers
of various denominations   -the word "Pagan" not at all used as a  
simply as a descriptive term to denote non-monotheistic spiritual  
outside the major religions.
Moreover, Raphael Patai's 1967 book, The Hebrew Goddess,  provides
a plethora of evidence that the Hebrews of ancient  Israel also  venerated
a Goddess, known by the names Astarte or Asherah. Indeed, while 
monotheists were successful in redacting the Hebrew Bible to expunge
most references to any form of female deity, one Old Testament book,
Esther, is named after a Goddess. Esther is simply a variant of  Ishtar.
And if you understand the symbolism of the ancient religions of  Mesopotamia
you know that Esther, the Biblical book, is filled with Ishtar  references
Moreover, the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha is all about the Shekhina, 
another word for the Holy Spirit, who is discussed as if she  is a Goddess.
This is not a disparagement of Hillary's interest in female  deities. What 
is all about is the politics of religion. William Clinton's victory in  1996
would have been impossible without the votes of millions of  Protestant
Christian believers. But how could he have explained his wife's  seances
in the White House, her worship of Athena, and her cozy relationship  with
various New Age deep-enders?  He could not have done so in any   kind
of plausible way because of his ignorance of religion, viz, of all  religion
except his own diluted version of Christianity (Christianity plus  water).
What William Clinton had going for him was the pet media, of  course, 
in the tank for the American political Left ever since the time of Jimmy  
And what else William Clinton had was the factor of religious ignorance 
on the part of the media, all those reporters and pundits who also don't  
much of anything at all about religion except, when they have one,
their own faith. Hence, no reporters had an interest in discussing  
strange religious beliefs, if not bizarre religious beliefs,  since the New 
can be more than strange, and no journalists knew enough about religion 
to know what to do with a "revelation" in a best selling book 
by Bob Woodward.
But how many journalists actually read books? Any books. While surely
George Will does, and maybe one or two others, no-one else seems to
have an interest in doing so.  Books are "too long," if it can't be  said in
a sound bite, who cares? Which brings us back to 2016.
Allow me to excuse myself from reading books about Donald Trump
as filled with incriminating facts that might well have been used to 
sink his ship. However,  I have been reading other books about  all kinds 
of scholarly subjects in the year or so since Trump rose to prominence 
in electoral politics, books that really interest me and for which I  have 
direct use as sources for articles and essays that I may write. 
Besides, having seen something of his TV show, The  Apprentice, 
I was disgusted at how badly he treats other people in a business setting, 
contrary to just about all rules of good management, not to mention  
to just about all considerations of  basic human decency. Plus, to  listen 
to him 
speak is to listen to someone who clearly has close to no intellectual  
whatsoever, who has zero concern for the humanities or the behavioral
sciences, who constantly "shoots from the hip," who is, in a word, 
a blowhard.
And I was anything but impressed when seeing a TV show that featured
his 100+ rooms Florida mansion as if that kind of Veblenesque  conspicuous
consumption for just two people, or maybe three or four counting  kids,
was anything else than a clear advertisement  for the man's  
his need for gross ego display, and his insecurities writ large.  Trump,
as I see him, has no class at all, he is one more psychological basket  case
of the type who sometimes emerges from our flawed economic  system, 
a system that allows such a travesty of a human being to rise to the  top.
And isn't all of this obvious to nearly everyone?
I guess not.
But I have other priorities than to focus on an election in which both  
for the presidency are so hopelessly flawed that under no  circumstances
could I possibly vote for either. Both need to be  "locked up,"
just in different kinds of institutions. Both, each in their own way,
are unfit for the presidency.
However, there are people whom, you would think,  have such a  vested
interest in the outcome of the balloting on November 8 that they would 
do everything necessary to ensure the defeat of the candidate they
despise the most. We are past the time, which would have been before
at the start of the primaries, when it made sense to seek to elect a  
whom voters could champion in good faith.
The problem was acute for both parties. Hillary, in any  normal political 
would not have a remote chance. She is the second most disliked  candidate
in all the years since questions about "like-ability" have been asked.  
she is running against the candidate who has the worst unfavorables on  
Hence, until the disclosures about Trump's misogynistic values, his  boorish
behavior with women, all of which obviously has resulted in pathological  
about women who have accused him of sexual misconduct, the race for  the
White House remained reasonably close, with Trump narrowly ahead
on two occasions since the GOP convention in July.
Now, despite a torrent of incriminating e-mails that, among other  things,
show Hillary's inner circle denigrating Catholics, Evangelicals, and
Christians generally, the Wikileaks story is shrugged off by the  media
and most voters as far less important than Trump's  sexcapades.
Indeed, the ratio of  bimbo stories to Hillary's e-mails is now  30: 1.
It is possible, of course, that some of the accusations against him are  
Not every woman always tells the truth. It should surprise no-one if  it 
turns out 
that of the (so far) 9 self-identified victims of  Trump's  ravages, two or 
are opportunists seeking undeserved fame, or seeking a payoff of some  kind,
like a book contract. Still, there is such consistency in most  accounts,
each of which are congruent with Trump's unguarded remarks on 
Access Hollywood,  that most of the women deserve benefit of the  doubt.
The observation should be made, of course, that nothing demonstrates  the
entrenched political bias of the news media than how the press and  
are reporting the story. William Clinton's various affairs  with  women that
came to light in the 1990s were, if anything, more immoral and more  
in character than  Trump at his worst. Accusations against Clinton  included
forcible rape, plus variety of kinds of molestation that were far more  
than Trump's self confessed groping, kissing, and putting his hand up
a woman's skirt. Yet in the 1990s the media went to lengths to  trivialize
all (all) of Clinton's crimes and misdemeanors, and now in 2016  Trump's
objectively not-as-evil actions are treated as heinous offenses  deserving
extreme recriminations.
But let me deal with the issue of  Trump inasmuch as, whatever else  you
may say about William Clinton, he had political skills and was  more-or-less
well informed about questions of policy. Donald trump is singularly
unqualified to become president of the United States. I am hardly  alone
in expressing the deepest fear that if he is successful it could be
a  disaster for the country.  
The $ 64,000 question is: Why wasn't Trump stopped by  the Republican Party
long before Cleveland?  The answer isn't that there was no interest in  
doing so.
Some party leaders were apoplectic about the possibility of a Trump  
The answer is that no-one in the GOP establishment had any idea how to 
accomplish the objective. They showed themselves to be dinosaurs in a panic 
after the asteroid hit the earth, totally uncomprehending what was  
What the Republican establishment simply "doesn't get" is that their
high-priced elite values are shared by just about no-one in the  Republican
base. They are out of step with the millions who have grown to  distrust
any and all claims to the effect that "Islam means peace," for  example.
Most people know better. Far better. Instead, the religiously illiterate  
of Republicans, none of whom  have ever read the Koran, none of  whom
have the least knowledge of Mid East history, and none of whom are
capable of thinking of any issue at all except in  terms of  money,
urges policy toward Islam that is indistinguishable from the views
of the DNC.  But this is only to broach the subject of elite  Republican 
malfeasance. They, too, don't know what the hell they are doing.
For the record, when you do study Islam with any objectivity at all, 
what almost literally jumps out at you is how similar in spirit  Muhammad's
religion is to Nazism. It is horribly Judeophobic (anti-Semitic, as that  
is ordinarily used in America), misogynistic beyond belief, bigoted  in
the extreme against all other religions, motivated by hate,  
violent, opposed to free speech, etc, in a word,  antithetical to  
we value as American citizens.
Is it any wonder that Trump's plan  to curtail immigration from  Muslim
countries resonated with the Republican base?  Trump's plan is far  too
tepid, of course, far too limited in outlook. We need to outlaw Islam
from the United States entirely  -with the only exception being a few  Sufi
groups who are blameless since they aren't really Muslims at all, as
most Muslims understand the word. But Trump is so badly informed
that he has none of the "smarts" necessary to pursue the idea he  proposed
and hence has few good replies to accusations of "racism" and
intolerance and the like and, instead, can think of nothing  better
than to lash out at the family of a nominally Muslim US serviceman 
killed in action, but clearly not someone who had much knowledge 
of the core teachings of  Islam. All of which is very basic, but  Trump
doesn't know the basics of  Islam, himself.
Trump, like every Republican candidate for president in the 21st  century,
is one more religious illiterate. And we cannot afford to elect religious  
to the nation's highest office any more. 
After all, we have see the mess that the current  
has caused by way of utterly ill-advised Mid East policy, a mess
that seems to get worse and worse and worse, all the while as millions 
of his devotees, almost none of whom know anything at all about Islam, 
also tell the public that Muhammad's religion means "peace."
How, though, could the disaster which is Donald Trump as the official
nominee of the Republican Party have been  averted? There are several  ways,
starting with the need for a purge of the highest ranks of the  GOP
establishment. The rich Republicans who run the national party should
have been shown the exits long before now. They are the kind of  people
who see nothing wrong with the likes of Charles Ichan, someone who
is as anti-American as it is possible to get, who lacks even a shred  of
social conscience, who could care less if whole communities are
destroyed as long as other rich men like himself make even more
profits so that they can buy the biggest yacht that harbors at
Martha's Vineyard or at Catalina Island, so that they can splurge on
every luxury known to man, who have never heard of  Thorstein  Veblen,
and who are clueless that their greed and ostentation marks them
as enemies of the people.
This would mean, of course, adopting a new philosophy and replacing
both their libertarian "me-me-me" ethics and their free trade policies  that
enrich the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. While it may be  true
that some of the excessive riches of the monied class does trickle  down
to the huddled masses,  we all know how the system really works, 
to give the upper 1% still more money so that they can indulge
in status spending contests with others who are filthy rich. It is
a "potlatch economy."  Except when things go wrong, in which  case
we get "socialism for the rich," with the government (whichever party
is in power it does not matter) bailing them out, no jail time  despite
how they may wreck the economy, while average citizens lose their
homes, see their careers ruined, and suffer all the negative  consequences.
Who did this class of rich Republicans pin all their hopes on for  2016?
Why, Jeb Bush, of course, still one more scion of a family of  incompetents,
given a war chest that dwarfed that of all other candidates, and who ended 
with about 3% of the vote. This may be unfair to Jeb, the one Bush  who
seems to actually be intelligent, but his dullard brother had  poisoned
the well and politicos who did not know it had to have been deaf and  blind.
Which is to speak foremost of someone else who is intelligent but who
is so wedded to the power elite of his party that he is  incapable
of understanding anything but the world view of  that  elite,
namely, Karl Rove.
None of this means that wealth is evil,  that is not true at all. But  
that is made use of  for purposes of self-indulgence, which  underwrites
country clubs before it underwrites colleges or publications or  honest
charities is immoral wealth. It does not matter if this is to discuss your 
mother or brother or anyone else in your family;  as  I know from painful
experience, sometimes family members are essentially unethical.  Wealth
should be invested where it will do the most good, not only for one's
personal needs and desires. which surely are legitimate, but which  must
be genuinely helpful to the community and the country. Which is a  viewpoint
that is alien to libertarians and their free trade cousins and which should 
uncompromisingly opposed.
The ethical rich will always be needed in politics. However, it is time  
the party invests in independent-minded thinkers who will not allow 
themselves to be intimidated by elites. This is to speak of honest men 
and women who know damned well that unrestricted immigration 
is a disaster, that unrestricted free trade is also a disaster that has  
America millions of jobs, and that dishonesty about the real nature  of
Islam has led to wars which are worse in their results than just  about
everything else combined.
Which is not some sort of justification for the policies of the Democratic  
If anything the Democratic Party is a worse disaster than the  Republican
Party  -except insofar as the GOP has Trump, about whom no words
are adequate to characterize the man's unbelievable failings.  Which is also
said despite his one glaring virtue: On policy issues, as  uninformed as he 
he is honest to a fault. The Republican establishment is incapable of  
Besides the need for moral and intellectual reform in the ranks of  
Party leadership there is one other thing that the GOP could have  done
to have made the rise of someone like Donald Trump impossible.
Indeed, it is impossible to miss the solution inasmuch as Rupert  Murdoch
has shown the way. And that is: Invest in education.
This means education in the broadest sense of the word, not simply in
colleges and universities,  or perchance religious K-12  schools.
"Education" actually means any kind of institution or process that
facilitates useful learning, including the usefulness of morality 
and moral judgment. 
Conservatives -most of whom are Republicans-  continually complain  about
the condition of American education. About which, so it seems to me,  they
are largely right. The public schools are under the control of the  NEA,
an organization that puts the welfare of school administrators above
the needs of children and teachers, that is hopelessly political in  the
guise of being professional, and that abhors any kind of  accountability
for results, or lack of results, since, after all, it is politically  
to tell the truth, predominantly black schools almost always  underperform,
many of their graduates are functionally illiterate, and too many  black
teachers don't know how to teach since they often are products of
the same anti-intellectual culture of the students in their  classrooms.
Which is not my opinion alone as a white male, but is derived in part
from the views of Thomas Sowell, a black scholar of standing.
That is, since education means more than schooling, in this case there  is
a dysfunctional subculture that needs to be uprooted, kicked out,
so to speak, so that meaningful learning can happen in the lives
of black young people.
In other words, and who can blame them, what middle class white  parents
would choose to send their kids to a predominantly black public  school?
None in their right mind. Their offspring would receive an inferior  
because of saturation in a dysfunctional culture, and because  of teachers 
who accept many of the values of that dysfunctional culture. This  problem
must be dealt with head on, totally honestly, with no toleration for
that dysfunctional subculture because, well, it is dysfunctional.
It produces social failures. It cannot be justified in any way.
The situation in higher education is just as bad even if the problems
are different. What has happened in many or even most of the nation's
colleges and universities, has been their conversion into academies
of Cultural Marxism, in which Leftist values of every kind are  ceaselessly
inculcated into the minds of students, and any kind of independent  thought
is ridiculed and condemned.
There is no reason to belabor this point. Although you can argue  specifics
with him, and I have a number of reservations and criticisms to  make,
you can hardly do better than to study the writings of David Horowitz
on the subject of the mess which is American  higher education.
The point to make is that people on the Right endlessly complain  about
the 'marxification' of higher education yet, despite their wealth, they  do
little or nothing to reform the system.
There also is the news media which, as I see it, is America's  classroom:
A classroom in which almost all the teachers are Left-wing  ideologues.
There isn't any substantive argument to any other effect than to say
the media is a Cultural Marxist institution  -a few exceptions duly  noted.
This is true whether or not few journalists have ever cracked a book
on the topic of the Frankfurt School,  Antonio Gramsci, Lenin's  philosophy
of the oppressed, or anything else of similar nature. Cultural Marxism  has
become part of the air that many or most reporters and analysts  breathe.
It exists in the form of the assumptions they make, the values they hold  
and their view of society and what it should be and should not be.
Unlike classical Marxism actually based on Marx, or Marx plus Engels,
Cultural Marxism starts from nihilistic assumptions, which are related to 
the values of  Anarchists. In this worldview,  none of the  lessons of  
embodied in the religious traditions of mankind are given the least  
except for Islam, the most retrograde of all 'faiths,' yet discussed as if  
is a legitimate expression of  the angst of "the  oppressed."  Otherwise, 
today's Leftism features an all out war against religion, against  
Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Confucians, Taoists, and everyone else
who believes in spiritual realities.
Today's Cultural Marxist Leftism also consists of ceaseless attacks  against
evolution, although, to be sure, lip service is given to Darwin. What this 
is about is acquiescence in the gender feminist view that  sociobiology
is anathema, that there are no truths to learn from the realm of  nature,
that human nature is infinitely elastic, and that morality is  completely

subjective; anything goes, in other words, except, of  course, Christian
morality or Jewish morality or Buddhist morality, and so forth.
Hence, by the feminist view of the world, we are not related to other  
our behaviors are unrelated to the reflexes and proclivities of apes in the 
and there are no natural gender differences that have evolved over the  
of millions of years because these differences contribute to species  
This is not to discuss the naive anti-science primitivism of a large  
of the Religious Right and creationist views, rather it is about disdain  
molecular biology, contempt toward human genome research, hatred
of the science of primatology, and everything related,  because, you  see,
if the lessons of sociobiology were allowed in the debate, those  truths
would puncture each and every pretension of rabid political feminism
and render it untenable.
Cultural Marxism also teaches, certainly that branch of this  philosophy
associated with Herbert Marcuse does, that a sexual free-for-all is
the highest ideal for society, that parents should be indifferent  toward
the sexuality of their children, and that any and all scientific research  
disproves Marcuse-like conclusions must be disallowed and  belittled
as backward and false.
About all of which much more could be said, indeed, could be  discussed
at great length.
The point now is that all of this needs a major corrective.
We are not getting any such thing from Fox news even though it  employs
some first rate commentators and on-air news people. This is to speak  of,
for instance, Brit Hume, Bret Baier, Charles Krauthammer, Shannon  Bream,
and a few others. It includes Chris Wallace, Juan Williams, and now  and
then, when he isn't being a know-it-all, Bill O'Reilly. However, this  is
pretty much the roster. Nearly everyone else consists of political  hacks.
or wet-behind-the-ears kids or second tier intellects who sometimes  are
not very well informed. That is, in some ways Fox is every bit as bad  as
its competitor networks even if, added up, it is superior to 
every other news service.
What can be seen at Fox, however, is the vast potential that the news  media
could have. As well, several major newspapers show us  similar possibilities
for print media. For all of its Leftist biases and political correctness  
you would still be hard pressed to rate any other paper higher than
the New York Times, for instance. Again and again, it  publishes
real substance, educational copy in the best sense of the
word "education."  To which we can add, for radio, again despite
its blatant Left-wing prejudices, NPR.
In other words, there is no reason why a genuinely conservative media
could not be created that counters the Left-wing news media that  currently
dominates the airwaves, cable television, and the press at large. This  
out of discussion the Internet essentially because (1) there is ample
conservative presence there already, and (2) despite all of the hype
peddled by the computer industry, most people still get their news
and news analysis, from TV, radio, and newspapers.
What this says is that rich conservatives, of whom there are more  than a 
who compulsively put profit above everything else, are foolish beyond  
In the current climate of opinion you can say that they cannot help  
their libertarian and laissez faire assumptions won't let them  think in 
other way. But there is another way, and it is far better than  their
present views.
To win a war of ideas there needs to be an actual war, a war with  more
combatants than one side which always wins by default, in this case
the political Left   -minus market share carved out by Fox.
About wars, they always are costly. They seldom earn profits. In  fact,
if a pure calculus of profitability was decisive, there would be no  wars.
The odds are overwhelming that even if you win the result would be
that you have less money than when you started.
Yet wars are popular and will always be popular  -precisely  because
they are almost always about achieving otherwise completely  intransigent
political objectives that are personally extremely important, or  important
to an entire nation. Yes, a war is guaranteed to be expensive. But a  war
can win for you something that money cannot otherwise buy, the  triumph
of  ideas or of values for which you would sacrifice your life if it  came 
to it.
The Left, for all of the complaints anyone may make of its premises
and values, understands this with perfect clarity. The Right, at  best,
only understands this marginally, "through a glass dimly," vaguely,
and usually not at all.
Suppose you had achieved financial security, you were pretty much  
an income in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for the rest 
of your life, or what if the number was in the millions? What then?
The answer given by example by most of the wealthy is to venture  forth
on still another quest to make still more money.  But what if you  said, 
"to hell
with that, I most of all want to invest in the success of my values and  
toward the goal of seeing to it that I have done everything open to  me
to reform American culture, to undo the vast damages done by the
political Left in the past 30 years or so, to return America to its  senses
and renew our nation's heritage" ?
At least a few people have done exactly this. An example  that comes to mind
is Pamela Geller, who cashed in on her experience at the New York Observer
and subsequently used the money she then  had access to, for the purpose
of  sponsoring a blog called Atlas  Shrugs which covers news of Islam
on a daily basis, year after year,  providing information about crimes
in the name of  Islam committed  around the world, crimes that expose
the true character of Muhammad's religion,  crimes that, with rare 
the mainstream media studiously  ignores in favor of fluff and "human 
stories that have no news significance  whatsoever. 
That is, if your sole source of news are  the traditional TV networks
or a daily major metropolitan newspaper,  you would be ignorant
of all but maybe 1% of atrocities  committed by Muslims somewhere
in the world every day, including heinous  crimes in places like Minnesota,
California, Maine, or Virginia. And this  proportion,  1% reported
vs. 99 % unreported, is not exaggerated in  the least. Indeed, the 1 %
may actually be more like 1/2 of a percent.
You are free to have reservations about  some of what Geller reports, 
I certainly do, and she sometimes is  shrill about things,  but the value 
of what she publishes at her site is  inestimable, which she puts her heart
and soul into every day, despite threats  to her life by Muslim fanatics.
All the while as the mainstream media  denigrates her, calls her a bigot,
vilifies her, and excuses outrage after  outrage perpetrated by 
followers of Muhammad.
We need many more conscientious people  like Pamela Geller. We not only
don't need more people like Charles Ichan,  we need to get rid of the Ichans
we already have, they are traitors to the  United States of America.
Pamela Geller, to the best of my   knowledge, does not earn a dime 
for her efforts. What she does is inspired by her awareness of what 
could happen, or even would  happen, if  the forces of  Islam are
successful. Every Jew in Israel would be  killed in a new holocaust,
for starters. But what Jew, anywhere,  would be safe?
Not only that, Geller has many Christian  friends. She also knows what would
happen to them:  A  Christian holocaust in at least some places, the way
that Armenians were  slaughtered in  the early 20th century, or no better
than servitude, anti-Christian bigotry,  and even de jure enslavement
as sanctioned by the Koran. Islam is what  it is, not what the uninformed
want it to be, as if it was simply a  somewhat exotic faith where people
speak Arabic but are otherwise peaceful  and serene. Any such view
is pure fiction which is only possible to  believe when people are woefully
ignorant of the facts.
We all owe Pamela Geller a debt of  gratitude. Instead, nor only does the 
treat her like a pariah, most of her  fellow conservatives ignore her, 
don't read
her posts, and wish she would go away  inasmuch as the painful truths 
she publishes are contrary to  the fairlyland fantasies promoted by the
Bushies, by Grover Norquist, and by  oilmen who look the other way
because they do not wish to jeopardize  lucrative business dealings
with the Saudis.
It all comes down to a simple  question: What counts more to you,
money or America? Money or the truths of  your religious faith?
Money or the future of  civilization?
When I think of "typical Republicans" the imagery I find myself   
thinking about comes from a classic Hollywood movie that starred  Michael
Douglas, Wall Street. Surely you have seen the film that has, as  co-stars,
Greed, Avarice, Selfishness, and others of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Is it any wonder that a creature from Hell like Donald Trump became
the nominee for president of the Republican party in 2016? There has
been a catastrophic collapse of conservative values on the Right
in the past decades, a collapse that an establishment Republican like
George W. Bush did just about nothing to correct during  his eight years
in office. Few presidents have been as incompetent.
I am not someone who thinks that conservatism is the answer to our  
Nonetheless, it seems self evident that without the best possible  
ideas to compliment the best available liberal ideas, there cannot be  
truly good 
solutions to those problems. 
As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said, the value of conservative  
should never be underestimated. But there cannot be good conservative
ideas as long as the Right is under the spell of libertarianism with its  
fix for everything, freedom, as if liberty by itself could replace  
the values of faith, the values of the arts, the values of a healthy  
of life, and still other things that seldom produce bottom line  profits.
But what if there were a number of high quality newspapers across the  
that provided forums for the best conservative minds?  What if  
with conscience said to themselves, "things have gone too damned far,
we cannot tolerate a Satyricon America, Satyricon politics, nor the
'satytriconization' of education and entertainment."? What if  conservatives
rebelled against nihilistic values, and against nihilistic  libertarianism?
What if there was at least one alternative to Fox News, a network
that built on everything Fox does right but that disregards  everything
that Fox does wrong, especially policies it has in place that has  allowed
someone like Shepard Smith to have his own TV show in which
he attacks every value that means anything to America's Christians
and observant Jews?
What if conservatives  -those who know what they are talking  about,
who actually are educated to culture-  made serious efforts wherever  
to reform colleges and universities to remove Cultural Marxists  from
their faculties, to root out nihilistic values, and to replace such  
with qualified teachers who know how to think for themselves, who  have
no use at all for nihilistic nonsense?
What if there was concerted effort by conservatives to educate  America
to good ideas, to healthy values, to the best in human culture? How  would
someone like Donald Trump even be possible?
Conservative newspapers or TV stations or any other forms of media
including motion pictures, might not make any money even if, for sure, 
it would be smart to try and earn a profit even if it takes several years 
to do so. But that is not the point. The point is winning the war of  ideas 
and values. The point is, to quote myself from 2014, long before  Donald
Trump usurped the idea, to make America great again.
None of this can possibly be cheap; au contraire,  it would cost a lot of 
But the results, as soon as there are successes, would be a bargain
like nothing else.
Billy Rojas
Eugene, Oregon
October 15, 2016

Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
  • [RC] Po... BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community

Reply via email to