Matt Parrott joins Richard to discuss the vulgar spectacle of the Republican primaries and what it means for Radical Traditionalists.

In my previous article "Defiant Chastity," I asked the plaintive question: Is there anywhere in the debauched landscape of postmodern America where one can still find determined cultural resistance to the wearisome blight of entrenched sexual permissiveness, or stiff defiance against the dully exasperating trend towards enforced tolerance for every conceivable brand of unwholesome carnal perversity?

I then met my own seemingly rhetorical question with a surprisingly concrete answer: Yes, I replied; there IS, in fact, just such an unapologetically unreconstructed, sexually reactionary culture still in existence! It lies in the American West, among the denizens of "Deseret" (that is, Utah), which is to say, among the Latter-Day Saints, or Mormons.

Indeed, beyond the so-called "Zion Curtain" of Mormondom, pre-sexual revolution mores still largely hold sway. Girls are taught to dress modestly and always to behave in a ladylike fashion; boys are raised to be chivalrous, courtly, and responsible breadwinners; young couples are expected to put off intimate relations until their Temple marriage—wherein they are "sealed" to one another, not just for life but for eternity (!).

The fact that these quaint old customs still endure in one sector of America must be upsetting enough to the average standard-bearing Zeitgeist enforcer, inclined as such a one is to bouts of hysterical outrage that anyone anywhere might choose not to accept "enlightened" cultural norms as... well, normative.

Yet there was one significant oversight in my "Defiant Chastity" piece, since I neglected to mention a crucial piece of the puzzle, one that goes far to explain the extent of the desperate fear and ardent loathing that Mormonism provokes in the hearts of our modern-day cultural commissars.

What truly renders the Latter-Day Saints beyond the pale is in fact the overwhelming paleness of their sweet, wholesome Latter-Day Saintly complexions.

Not only does LDS culture encourage conventional gender roles and teach traditional sexual morality, but LDS members in America are also overwhelmingly White. And because faithful Mormons tend to have large families, Utah is one of the only places in the world today where White people are actually reproducing in great numbers.

You can almost see the Establishment liberal's arms flailing madly, much like Robby the Robot's, as he contemplates the connotations of such a circumstance. "White, religious, conservative... and fecund too?! Danger, danger, Will Robinson!!!"

Now that one of Mormondom's own is likely to win the GOP's nomination for the presidency, we are probably about to be treated to ever more grotesque displays of our ruling class's deep-seated anti-White effusions. As Richard has pointed out recently, Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness clearly gives our betters an incurable case of the shakes, the sputters, and the willies all at once. It matters little that Romney is in truth a rather bland moderate, who should have no real impact in any significant way on any important issue should he manage to win occupancy of the White House this November. It isn't so much who Romney is, but rather what he represents, that makes writers like Lee Siegel view him as sinister and dangerous.

After all, they remonstrate, just LOOK at the guy! Not only is he square-jawed, well-dressed, and otherwise Aryan-ly and Stepford-husbandly handsome, but get a load of his extended family! Look... just look... at all of those unmistakably, undeniably WHITE children of his! Danger, danger..."

In today's drearily ubiquitous, hysteria-drenched Naziphobic, aggressively multiculturalist heterodoxy, a White politician with a large, attractive, well-heeled all-White family, who adheres to a conservative creed whose co-religionists are also predominantly White, can be little else but a calculating crypto-Fascist, poised to orchestrate a chilling production of Auschwitz, Part Deux: The Finaler Solution, should he manage to wrest power away from the Righteous Mulatto Messiah (Peace be upon him), who now rules us wisely and benevolently from on high.

President Obama, of course, being darker-hued and flatter-nosed, obviously deserves at least four more years in the saddle, or so our betters reflexively think; Herr Hope'n'Change's elegant, eloquent Brownness can save us from the catastrophic racism and genocide sure to commence should Middle American red-state bigots elect Romney, who's obviously up to no good...after all, just look at how White the man is And listen to how White his voice sounds, too!! (Shiver.)

It goes without saying, of course, that the Mormon Church isn't anything close to being a sinister secret cabal of Nordic supremacists seeking world domination. In fact, while the sect is growing by leaps and bounds, a great deal of its growth is taking place in the largely non-White "Third World," primarily Central America, South America, and Polynesian Oceania.

Yet... if we examine the history of the Saints, we do, indeed, find much in their past doctrines that is un-kosher by today's narrowly delineated standards of what meets muster for acceptability in consideration of racial matters. If Romney gets the nomination, as he probably will (once the temporary bump in the road of his South Carolina primary loss gets smoothed over), we can expect to hear ad infinitum how Blacks were excluded from the Aaronic priesthood for most of the Mormon Church's history, as well as how the Book of Mormon's weird account of ancient American pseudo-history pits the noble and civilized Nephites, who were blessed by God by being given "white and delightsome" pigmentation, against the sinful and savage Lamanites, who received divine punishment for their ungodly deeds by being cursed with unattractive and displeasing dark skin. (The wording of these passages has been changed by Church authorities in recent years, in order to tone down the blatant racialist appeal of bygone days.)

The inevitable anti-Romney whispering campaign to come will no doubt include a repeated, insistent drumbeat recitation of these facts regarding Mormon lore, in tandem with a lurid and sensationalistic reminder—as if anyone really needs reminding—of the church's widespread 19th-century practice of the "principle" of plural marriage, a practice still kept alive by many breakaway fundamentalist Mormon church bodies today, and, indeed, one of the reasons for the church population's astonishing fecundity through the years.

Through such shameless demagoguery and fear-mongering, much of the gullible, brainwashed, intellectually stupified electorate—most of whom are, ahem, White—will no doubt be persuaded that Romney's kind just don't belong in the corridors of power, because..."oh, well, because we need cultural diversity, and because Hitler was evil, and because Martin Luther King was good, and because the White cheerleading squad in that movie <i>Bring It On</i> stole their routines from the righteously sassy black girl squad from the inner-city, and because Denzel Washington and Will Smith are so badass, and, because of my internalized and indoctrinated White guilt and White shame are so easily exploited by those who rule over me..."

Thus Mitt Romney's unbearable Whiteness—the very thing that, unlike his wishy-washy flimflam platform, he can't change about himself—may just ultimately be his undoing. Only in White America!

Patrick Buchanan joins Richard to discuss his life as a "rebel within the Establishment," as well as the counter culture, the neoconservatives, South Africa, his new book, and much more.  

Vox Popoli: 

The good ship Herman Cain has had an amusing run, but it should sink in today's Iowa straw poll . And why wouldn't he cast dispersions on Captain Underoos's religion anyway? If I was a Republican candidate, I would totally demand that Mitt Romney show everyone his underwear. Does anyone remember how he answered CNN's important "boxers or briefs" question?

The sad thing is that the Republican candidates simply don't understand America. Ron Paul could have sewn up the nomination early if he'd simply answered "thong, baby, thong".

1. Michele Bachmann 4,823 votes
2. Ron Paul 4,671
3. Tim Pawlenty 2,293
4. Rick Perry 1,718 write-in votes
5. Rick Santorum 1,657
6. Herman Cain 1,465
7. Mitt Romney 567
8. Newt Gingrich 385 
9. Jon Huntsman 69 
10. Thad McCotter 35 

This effectively ends the Pawlenty campaign, unless he's running for vice-president. It should also end the Romney campaign, but it won't yet since he's got all that money to spend. Paul will be ignored by the media unless he can manage to win something outright; pity he has moved in the wrong direction on immigration at precisely the wrong time. 

Bachmann becomes the "Huckabee" candidate that the Establishment will throw to the social conservatives if necessary, but Perry becomes the de facto replacement for Romney as the chosen candidate. Cain will stay in as a sideshow, this really isn't a bad showing for him. Santorum, Gingrich, Huntsman and McCotter all look pretty irrelevant now, not that some of them didn't before.

So, Anthony Weiner has resigned… I usually don’t find much use in discussing scandals like this, but I’ve noted that Pat Buchanan has suggested that a blow was struck for the “old morality” by the public’s expressed disgust and the political class’s unanimous condemnation of the Congressman:

The national reaction to Anthony Weiner, the clamor that he get out of the House now, to which the Democratic Party is yielding, testifies to the enduring moral health of the nation.

The culture war is not yet wholly lost.

The truly remarkable thing that the Weiner episode—along with countless other leaked photos and accounts of DC sexual escapades—reveals is the large percentage of lying, sociopathic perverts who are currently governing the country. This strikes me as far more significant than the fact that Debbie Wasserman Schultz washed her hands of a congressman who was no longer useful.

In the ‘90s, Buchanan and the Religious Right defined the “culture war” as one primarily over morality (or, more accurately, over moral hot-button issues that could be voted on). Yet one wonders whether this is the battlefield on which the real war was and still is being fought. First-generation Latino immigrants are overwhelmingly Catholic, and according to a Pew study, 75 percent of them self-identify as “Pro-Life.” One can thus easily imagine a United States that is “virtuous” (as the conservative movement (mis-)defines the word) as well as poor, non-Western, and brown.

To be more blunt, if America’s historic majority is to be dispossessed on this continent, then who really cares if the public gets grossed out by a Cognressman’s Twitter feed?

...against the WASP menace. 

The waning days of Democratic control of the District of Corruption have actually been rather surprising. I generally expect nothing good to come out Washington, which means that I’m never disappointed. Though in the case of the “DREAM Act” going down in defeat, I’m positively overjoyed.

We shouldn’t forget, however, that the anti-Amnesty crowd is essentially putting a finger in the dyke. In 2010, the majority of births in the United States were to non-White mothers. Even if all immigration, legal and illegal, were cut off tomorrow, the much touted “2050” date, when American Whites will become just another ethnic minority, would merely be postponed, not cancelled. The immigration restriction crowd—which acts independently of the conservative movement, I should point out—has effectively taken its stand: no major illegal immigrant amnesty will be passed in the coming two-to-four years. That’s undoubtedly a good thing. Though the reality is that far more radical measures will have to been taken if America is to remain anything resembling an Anglo-Saxon, “Western” nation-state...

Just as the DREAM died, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is set for repeal. The end of DADT is a kind of milestone in the slow, relentless ratcheting up of anti-traditionalist “liberalism.” The same groups, indeed, many of the same people (Joe Lieberman, most noticeably) who once argued that DADT was a necessary, reasonable comprise, now depict it as “un-American" and cruel. (We should expect exactly the same process to take place with "civil unions.")

As someone who believes that homosexuality is, in part, genetically determined, I think DADT is a suitable compromise for the military—and society at large. Some things are better not spoken of. And society would be healthier without both moral crusaders who want to “save” gays and the utterly repulsive “out” homosexuals of the Perez Hilton variety. Silence on the homosexual question (by both homosexuals and normal people alike) is the best way of containing the homosexual phenomena, which, without question, has culturally destructive effects.

And I have no doubt that the decent homosexual people in the military who decide to “come out” after the passage of the bill will be substantially outnumbered by those who join the military with the express purpose of transforming it into a polymorphously perverse freak show.

At any rate, I am far more offended by the prospect of women in combat than by gays serving openly.

Yesterday, I shook off the hangover from the open bar at the Election Night party and read about our historic victory.  The conservative movement has heroically stopped Obama’s diabolical scheme to make America socialist, with John Boehner as our weepy Leonidas. Conservatism is flush with victory and all throughout the land, ambitious College Republicans, my fellow think-tankers, and unemployed scribblers are dreaming of staff jobs, committee assignments, and midnight tangos with the supple interns of Capitol Hill. The “beautiful losers” made excited references to 1994, seemingly blind to the reality that the “Republican Revolution” did nothing to stop the growth of government or reverse cultural decline and President Clinton cruised to victory two years later.  Nonetheless, young conservatives are cute when they are happy, and I tried to hold my tongue as wild proclamations were made around the office about the imminent end of Big Government.  

It was satisfying to see the Democrats go down to defeat, in the same way it was satisfying to watch Jon Stewart’s pained expression while reporting on President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Evil, or rather, the Evil Party, was justly punished. At the same time, let us be under no illusions about the Stupid Party.

It gives me no joy to say this, not even the contrarian Schadenfreude expressed by denizens of the Alternative Right when the conservative movement, yet again, fails to move. Despite years of disappointment and the cynicism that can only come from working in DC, there was something that suggested this year would be different. The Tea Party is not Astroturf -- it is remarkably decentralized, grassroots, and leaderless, and though corporate front groups like FreedomWorks claim to speak for it, the Tea Party’s feelings on immigration and Islam suggest that there is something more here than Republican strategists slapping a new label on a program of tax cuts for millionaires. With Tom Tancredo mounting a spirited third-party run, Sharron Angle actually speaking up in defense of actual Americans, and institutions like the New York Conservative Party openly defending White advocate Jim Russell, this actually seemed like more than politics as usual. 

I’m usually not as pessimistic as Richard about electoral politics.  My attitude yesterday was “talk about how much Republicans suck tomorrow, tonight is all about watching liberals get what they deserve.”   And while the elephants did do about as well as the pundits thought they would, the results out of Nevada can only be described as a crushing blow to the American far right.  Politico reports

Luis Gutierrez is pushing Harry Reid today to return to immigration legislation, on the grounds that Hispanic voters saved his hide.

Reid got an amazing 90% of the state's 12% Hispanic voters, according to exit polls; Sharron Angle got just 8%.

Now for years the establishmentarian conventional wisdom has been that Republicans need to improve their numbers among Hispanic Americans.  On the other hand, writers at VDare, particularly Steve Sailer, have said that the GOP should forget about minorities and focus on getting a larger share of the white vote (See the Sailer Strategy).

If the Politico article is correct, subtract Hispanics out of the Nevada vote and Angle wins by about 5 percent. Despite Angle hammering Reid on the issue of illegal immigration, not enough whites came out to make up for what was lost among the Latino electorate, as the Sailer strategy would’ve predicted.  Not in a relatively conservative state like Nevada, not in a "wave" election year. 

Seems that the conventional wisdom may be right after all.  Harry Reid’s win was a victory for third world, get out the peasants ethnic politics. If the far Right position on illegals couldn’t work in Nevada this year, where and when will it? (It must be noted that Pew Research contradicts Politico, reporting that Angle actually won 30 percent of Latinos, which if accurate means the Sailer Strategy fails even if it doesn't lead Hispanics to vote like blacks.) Also, in Colorado Hickenlooper not only beat Tom Tancredo but got more votes than the Constitution and Republican candidates combined.

Where to go from here? Sailer has got some other ideas that weren’t tried in the Nevada race, like trying to tell Hispanics to vote like Americans and making the Democrats unappealing by branding them "the Black party." We can call this “Cultural Sailerism” compared to what Angle ran on, which was “Classical Sailerism.”  Cultural Marxism proved a more successful strategy in the long run than its intellectual predecessor and hopefully its Sailerist counterpart will have the same fate.

These past few weeks, my in-box has been deluged with Republican propaganda of various sorts; all of it reiterating the message that “the American people” are rising up and poised to “take back their country” from the entrenched “ruling class.” I also received quite a few emails from individuals -- country club Republicans and Red State yahoos alike -- who echoed the same line.

Judging by last night’s results, I apparently have my country back.

Not too long from now, rhetoric will be shredded by reality.

• Obamacare will not be repealed. (No major entitlement has been repealed for decades, and House Republicans couldn’t get rid of Obamacare even if they weren’t lying cowards.)

• The House Republicans will likely halt any “cap-and-trade” legislation. That’s a good thing. But it’s hard to rely on them for much else. The word “stimulus” has had the micky taken out of it, but there’s no telling what kind of Keynesian nonsense they would support if the Dow Jones dropped a couple thousand points. Let’s not forget that in 2008, the Republicans brought us “stimulus” checks in the spring and bailouts in the fall.

[To lighten the mood, here’s a amusing joke I heard at last night’s big Republican shindig at the Leadership Institute:Some people are claiming that Obama is a Keynesian. But it’s been proven that he was born in Hawaii!  Hardyharhar…]