Radical Agenda S05E037 – Spoiler Alert

If you’re a Game of Thrones fan and you’re not caught up, I must warn you that this episode of the Radical Agenda will contain spoilers. So hopefully you’re either caught up, or lucky enough not to be afflicted with the terrible disease of this addiction.

The 8th and final season of Game of Thrones reached a rather anticlimactic conclusion last night. Throughout the story, Kings and Queens were murdered, the dead waged war against the living, magic conjured ghosts and brought men back from death, and with the help of some dragons and an army of slaves and savages, a powerful and just woman nearly came to rule Westeros.

Radical Agenda S05E037 - Spoiler Alert

Radical Agenda S05E037 – Spoiler Alert

But the feminists were left disappointed in the end, as the final battle of the great war seemed to occur just as Daenerys Targaryen began to bleed from her most permanent wound. Rather than take the wisdom of her male advisors, and wait out Cersei Lannister, she laid waste to King’s Landing, killing countless innocent men, women, and children, including those loyal to her, as dragon fire rained down on the once great city, reducing it to rubble.

So grotesque was her brutality, that even the hand of the Queen, an imp who murdered his own father, refused to be party to her savagery going forward.

Undeterred, the Mother of Dragons imprisoned her most loyal advisor. She stood before her army and called on them to similarly “liberate” the whole world, vowing that the war would not end until every corner of the globe was under her rule.

Jon Snow, who we recently learned was no bastard, but rather Aegon Targaryen, the true heir to the Iron Throne, would not abide this tyranny. He put a knife through the heart of the Breaker of Chains, as he kissed his aunt for the final time, and barely survived as her furious dragon melted the Iron Throne.

This left the Lords and Ladies of Westeros in a difficult position. With the Unburnt dead, and the only living Targaryen the prisoner of warrior eunuchs, a new Sovereign would have to be chosen.

As they contemplated how to choose, Samwell Tarly made a novel suggestion. “We represent all the great houses. But whoever we choose, they won’t just rule over Lords and Ladies. Maybe, the decision about what’s left for everyone, should be left to, well, everyone.”

A long pause ensued, before the men cracked up laughing, adding in jest, that perhaps dogs and horses should have the vote as well. Interesting theme, that even men who had been progressive enough to bend the knee to a single mother as their Queen, saw the folly of democracy as comedically stupid.

In the end, they settled on a combination of oligarchy and secession. The North would remain an independent kingdom ruled by Sansa Stark, and the remaining six kingdoms of Westeros would be ruled by a cripple. Bran the Broken, of House Stark, though he could not sire children, would become King. Convenient, as he had brought his own chair, and the Iron Throne was now a smoldering puddle of molten metal.

Since the Crippled King could not bear children, it was decided that from this day forward, Kings would be chosen, rather than born. Though not by the people, as the Aristocracy of Westeros surely knew that democracy only gives way to Jewish subversion. Upon the King’s death, or the invocation fo the 25th Amendment, the Lords and Ladies of Westeros would meet in the same place to choose a new King.

Jon Snow’s life would be spared for his treason, but he would live out his days on the Night’s Watch, leaving the door open for his return in a future reboot of the series. Perhaps as the next King, should Bran meet an untimely demise. We are told that there are no plans for a ninth season, but that prequels and spinoffs are expected come in the future.

And so the story concludes, for now. But not before giving us an abundance of Leftist handwringing, a choice selection of which I will bring to you today for abundant mockery.

I liked Game of Thrones, personally. There was plenty of messaging for people of our mindset to complain about, but what it really hammered home was the nature of politics, and power more broadly.

Mao Zedong, whatever his other flaws, was right when he said “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Though Westeros was lacking in this manner of weaponry, the violent and coercive nature of such contests was constantly and perpetually on display throughout the production. For far too many of our fellow citizens, the absurd pageantry of democratic elections lead them to believe that this is all an honest competition, where the most competent leaders emerge through consensus.

In reality, our system of choosing rulers turns out to be barely if at all more tame than the destruction of King’s Landing.

In the leadup to the election of 2016, Democrats weaponized the secret courts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and launched a counter intelligence operation against the Trump campaign. When that failed to prevent his election, they used whatever power they had remaining inside the bureaucracy to subvert his Presidency. They launched a bogus investigation, manned by a team of enemy partisans, which consumed two years and tens of millions of dollars. When that failed to bring charges, they used its findings to call for his impeachment.

In the interim, masked criminals took to the streets attacking innocent people who supported the President. They set fires, assaulted people with weapons, and framed good men for crimes. Their allies in the Justice Department overlooked their mayhem, and prosecuted their victims. The media likewise supported this crimewave, and even Joe Biden described these hoodlums as “a courageous group of Americans”.

Recall the longest government shutdown in the history of our republic, as Donald Trump attempted to compel Democrats to back wall funding by refusing to fund the rest of the federal government without it. During that standoff, I said something that we all knew to be true. Trump would have to back down, because Democrats would sooner see the destruction of the country, than finance that which was necessary to fend off the ongoing invasion. Nobody who cares about the wellbeing of the Nation, can afford to play chicken with Democrats who, I remind the listener, were huge fans of Daenerys Targaryen.

On social media, they bemoaned her brutality at King’s Landing, but it was not the violence or destruction that troubled them beneath the surface. Rather, they were furious that their ruthless tyrant Queen would surely be deposed, now that her cruel nature had been made clear for all to see. Like the Left, the Mother of Dragons depended on her title as the Breaker of Chains, to dupe the unwitting masses to follow her. She justified her violence by claiming those who stood in her way were enemies not only of her rule, but of freedom. Yet, when those who stood in her way were innocent women and children, she found no greater mercy for them than she did for the masters of Slaver’s Bay. And when she had “liberated” those poor souls from the confines of their bodies, she swore to send her army of slaves and savages to one realm after another, until the whole of mankind knelt before her.

This tragic outcome was only prevented by the dagger of one White Man, who risked his life before the dragon to end her bloodlust. Then, rather than ascend to his rightful place as King, he was handed a life sentence, and sent to the Wall for his heroism.

Like Jon Snow, we have a similarly thankless task ahead of us. Our tyrants portray themselves as the saviors of those whom they hope to destroy. The victims of their deceptions despise those who come to save them. They rejoice at our despair, and make great the temptation to hold them in our contempt.

But our task, however thankless, is of the utmost importance, and we must win them over before we can find any hope for our own salvation. Fortunately, like the Mother of Dragons, our foes cannot help but reveal their true and horrifying nature, more and more with each day they go without the power they so desperately desire.

Once the masses know the truth, they will reject the siren song of their own destruction, and we will help to guide them to better days.

Today we will have live streaming video courtesy of JoshWhoTV. Subscribe to our JoshWho Channel here and watch live on JoshWhoTV.

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

 

Radical Agenda S05E036 – Adversity Score

The SAT, formerly known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test, is a standardized test widely used for college admissions in the United States. As the name implies, it is, or was, designed to measure the readiness of potential students for the rigors of higher education.

As academia descended into the same Leftist filth that floods our Internet with porn traffic, and our televisions with material only slightly less perverse, intellectual ability began to matter less and less, thus ending the need for such testing.

What matters now, is how much you can contribute to the decline of the American Empire.

Thus the “Adversity Score” was born, from the same Jewish mind that gave you “Common Core“.

Today we will have live streaming video courtesy of JoshWhoTV. Subscribe to our JoshWho Channel here and watch live on JoshWhoTV.

The College Board is a New York-based non-profit that is in charge of overseeing the SAT. Like everything else that is not explicitly hostile to Leftists, it was eventually taken over by communists, and turned to communist aims. This new “adversity score” number is calculated by assessing 15 factors, purportedly to help admissions officers determine an individual student’s social and economic background. These factors are first divided into three categories: neighborhood environment, family environment and high school environment.

Each of the three categories has five sub-indicators that are indexed in calculating each student’s adversity score. Neighborhood environment will take into account crime rate, poverty rate, housing values and vacancy rate. Family environment will assess what the median income is of where the student’s family is from; whether the student is from a single parent household; the educational level of the parents; and whether English is a second language. High school environment will look at factors such as curriculum rigor, free-lunch rate and AP class opportunities. Together these factors will calculate an individual’s adversity score on a scale of one to 100. A score of 50 is considered “average.” Anything above 50 proves “hardship” while anything below 50 is considered “privilege.”

Coleman, the Jew who came up with this garbage, insists the new dimension of scoring will not take race into consideration, but we all know what this is. Blacks, due to their genetically imposed IQ deficiency, score lower on tests than do Whites. This performance gap leads Whites to better success in life than blacks, and so the Jews are trying desperately to drag Whites down to the level of negroes, for their own sick amusement.

This is one the most blatant example of racial IQ disparities emerging as central to an issue of public interest, and the Jews trying desperately to cover it up. Nobody with a career to protect dares to say what it is, for fear of those same Jews.

Last night’s episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight may have been one of the best yet. He must have been feeling pretty good about turning 50. (Happy Birthday, Tucker!)

He had Heather Mac Donald, author of The Diversity Delusion, as his guest last night to discuss this issue, and the dance they both engaged in was a lesson in edginess which I stood in awe of.

Tucker begins the segment with a monologue describing the basic characteristics similarly to how I’ve done here, carefully neglecting to mention the ethnic background of Coleman, instead referring to him as a “Left wing social engineer”.

Tucker describes the purpose of the SAT as being the exact opposite of the new “adversity score” regime. To provide a fair and level playing field on which students are judged by merit.

Predictably, racial disparities emerge in this, for unchangeable reasons originating in genetics. Since Tucker Carlson cannot say this on Fox News, he instead says “Nobody thought the SAT was going to make everyone the same. That’s impossible, people are not the same. Some people have natural advantages, including on standardized tests, and always will. You can’t change that, unfortunately, any more than you can make anyone tall enough to play in the NBA.”

This is especially telling, since Tucker is surely aware of the work of Charles Murray on the subject of Race & IQ. Tucker was mentioned by name in Murray’s book “The Bell Curve” and Tucker has spoken positively about Murray on his show before, most notably in the wake of Murray being chased off a college campus by violent communist agitators. He described Murray as “one of the great living sociologists in America” as he introduced Murray as a guest on the program, and they briefly discussed his books, without mentioning the specifics of the content.

Equating SAT scores to height and athletic ability is the acknowledgement of the genetic origins of intellectual ability. Mentioning the NBA specifically, carefully calls attention to the fact that nobody is concerned about racial disparities where they cause blacks to dominate, such as in basketball.

Moving on, Tucker says “It doesn’t take a perfect SAT score to guess who’s going to lose under the system. It’s who always loses…” At which point Radical Agenda listeners say “White males” during the brief pause, and then Tucker skillfully avoids this implication by saying “The middle class”.

“They’ve been told, America is a meritocracy” he says of “the middle class”. But parenthetical “people like David Coleman know, that’s not true. They know it because they make the rules. They benefit from the corruption of the system”

If you think Tucker is completely naive of the concerns raised by anti-Semites, then you might assume this was entirely innocent. I suspect Mr. Carlson has endeavored to inform himself of this material, which explains the seething hatred revealed by his tone.

“Wouldn’t it just be easier to reward the kids who know the most about English and math? That’s what you would do if you cared about fairness, or the future of your country. You would emphasize achievement over victimhood. Our decadent elites don’t care, so they do the opposite” Says Carlson, carefully noting how Jews like David Coleman are inherently anti-Nationalistic, and thus unconcerned for the future of the countries they parasite off of.

Tucker introduces Heather Mac Donald, who immediately brings this to the subject of race. “I think what everybody needs to understand, Tucker, is all of this, is driven by the seemingly intractable racial achievement gap. Everything about diversity in our culture, is a surrogate for that problem. ”

To rescue herself from the predictable accusation of being a White Supremacist, she then changes footing to “culture” by saying “If we could close the racial achievement gap, and the way to do that is by changing culture, the whole discourse about diversity would go up in a puff of smoke overnight, and we’d never hear about this pseudo scientific concept again”.

Of course, “culture” in this instance, is a pseudo scientific proxy for mentioning race. Blacks are not failing in school and life because they have bad taste in music, they have bad taste in music for the same reasons they fail to measure up to Whites, because they are savage creatures who are unfit from birth, for White forms, and standards of achievement.

Bringing it back to race, Mac Donald then goes to a subject which recently made a high profile libertarian the target of the Jewish mob. She mentions “We see every year in New York City, that Asian kids from poor immigrant backgrounds, whoop everybody’s ass, regardless of their income levels.”

Asians, as every Radical Agenda listener knows, have higher average IQs than do Whites, which is why they do so well in school and life. Even as poor immigrants who often spend their childhood years in their parents’ restaurants, they always advance within a generation because they are fit to, unlike their darker counterparts.

However, as the author of a book attacking the “diversity delusion” Mac Donald is surely conscious of the terrible fait which the Jews will visit upon anyone who dare mention the genetic component of this reality. So she goes on to say “because their families, their parents, are so relentlessly focused on their student’s academic involvement. That is what is necessary to close the academic achievement gap. And until you get rid of the ‘acting white syndrome’ that stigmatizes academic achievement on the part of black students, unless we get rid of the preferences that black students know about, that sends the message that they don’t need to work as hard in order to get admitted to highly selective schools over their non-student of color peers, with better scores, we’re not going to close that academic achievement gap, and we’re going to be saddled with this scourge of diversity, which is simply a way to dismantle precisely the colorblind meritocratic standards that are a key to any society’s success”.

Of course, this is patently absurd and Mac Donald and Carlson both know it. Asians are not advancing through education and the professional world because their parents are invested in their studies, anymore than blacks are dominating in the NBA because their loving and ever present fathers were very good athletic coaches. Blacks scoff at academic achievement for the same reason Aesop’s fox called the grapes sour, they are hopelessly out of his reach. Jews are promoting blacks through credentialing , in order to undermine the legitimacy of our institutions and diminish the ability of White men to stand against their tyranny.

Failure to act on that obvious reality, is how we got our “colorblind meritocratic standards” that allowed Jews the power to do this. Until we recognize the threat they pose, and exclude them from such avenues of influence in our societies, we will decline ever more rapidly into the muddy filth of the diversity regime, until there is not a blond hair left on this Earth.

Tucker ends the segment with one of his signature Jewish questions, asking how David Coleman, who has led a life of privilege typical of American Jews “how can someone like that, bring that to us with a straight face, and act as if it’s legitimate, because it’s not”

Mac Donald filibusters, as is typical of our Tucker Carlson’s Jewish Questions bit, complaining about the “excuse making grievance industry” and saying this is “simply what you would expect from anybody involved in higher education in this country”.

But of course, David Coleman is not just anyone involved in higher education. He is a Jew. A Jew who has been praised on the pages of Forward.com as being “at the heart of the latest culture wars, entangled in the struggle between conservatives and liberals over the role of government in education reform,” for his tireless efforts to drag America into the Abyss.

 

 

There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls…

Join us this and every Monday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at  323-9-AGENDA

Today we will have live streaming video courtesy of JoshWhoTV. Subscribe to our JoshWho Channel here and watch live on JoshWhoTV.

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

 

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

 

 

Outlaw Conservative S01E018 – Raise My Taxes

As one who was once enamored with libertarianism, I find it difficult to believe I end up being the guy arguing against free trade, and in favor of new taxes. I’m also a guy who is surrounded by inexpensive electronics, almost all of which were surely manufactured in another country. So cheering on the President while he makes my tools and toys more expensive, feels weird to say the least of it.

Even as I drifted rightward ideologically, I still thought free trade was ideal for a long time. In my first Vice News interview, Elle Reeve asked me about trade and I told her I disagreed with most of the Alt Right on the subject. I like the quote commonly attributed to Bastiat which goes “When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will”. Ron Paul told me economic sanctions were a reliable prelude to war, and I believed it.

The Trump presidency has given me a profound appreciation for contemplating trade policy. I’m made to recall a BBS game, back when there was no Internet and we just called one another’s computers over the phone line, called TradeWars. I had never gotten into it back then, but I can see now why it was so popular, since I now view trade policy as an exciting exercise in strategic thinking, as opposed to a tedious mathematical equation.

Today we will have live streaming video courtesy of JoshWhoTV. Subscribe to our JoshWho Channel here and watch live on JoshWhoTV.

The phrase “trade war” was all over the news beginning with the Republican presidential primary, and has grown louder and louder in recent months. Thinking of trade as a competition amongst nations, made sense to me as a free trader. “May the best man win” was my attitude, confident that in a fair competition, my country would dominate. Altering the playing field through public policy, to accomplish higher purposes than a quick buck, was an element of strategy in that competition which I had never really contemplated very deeply before.

Free trade is a fine default position, from which to contemplate other possibilities. “What would actual free trade orthodoxy dictate here? What deviations from that standard exist in the system? How can we alter our public policy to offset the negative impacts of some other nation’s trade policy?” Those are questions which might be asked by a reasonable free trader. As I began to contemplate Trump’s trade proposals, I looked at things from this perspective myself. If some country was charging tariffs on US exports, I figured we could, and should, retaliate with our own tariffs, but only as a means by which to compel that country to break down their barriers to trade.

The unreasonable free trader insists on unilateral free trade. He adheres to an absurd orthodoxy which cannot stand up to scrutiny, unless he dare confess a willingness to see the impoverishment of himself, his neighbors, and his offspring. If Mexico wants to charge a 15% tariff on imports from the United States, fine with him, we can’t retaliate with our own tariff. If the Chinese subsidize cheap goods and dump them on our shores for no other purpose than to put American companies out of business, fine with him too. What matters to him is the correctness of his position, rather than the outcome of any particular policy, or lack thereof. I had previously been in this camp myself, before having my beliefs challenged in the lead up to the 2016 Presidential election.

As I watched the debate over trade policy unfold, I discovered a whole new dimension of domestic and foreign policy. A high stakes strategy game, with infinite possibilities.

The (possibly misattributed) Bastiat quote, and Ron Paul’s concerns about foreign relations still remain at the forefront of my considerations, but if trade policy can result in martial conflict, this is a reason to consider it carefully, and act decisively, rather than to unilaterally disarm. If trade policy can be viewed as a military provocation, it only stands to reason that my country should answer such provocations by making them costly and thus undesirable. For the same reasons, it is likewise insane to think that we ought to have unmitigated trade relations with adversarial nations.

Pat Buchanan has a column out yesterday, titled Tariffs — The Taxes That Made America Great, which I plan to read on air today. Going all the way back to 1789, he outlines a rich history of American economic nationalism. From the earliest days of our constitution, tariffs were the revenue mechanism of choice for the federal government. Not so much because it was the most lucrative, as much as to promote “the encouragement and protection of manufactures.”

To hear the cult of free trade tell it, trade policy is incapable of encouraging anything but graft, corruption, war, and economic catastrophe. So why did George Washington set our young republic down this course?

As it turns out, things aren’t so simple.

What first made me consider these implications was a moment during the Presidential debates of 2016. Then candidate Trump pointed out that Mexico was imposing a 15% tariff on US exports, yet the United States had no reciprocal barrier to Mexican exports. This was going on while we were supposedly in a “Free Trade Agreement” with that country, commonly known as NAFTA.

Mexico obviously benefits from the ability to sell products to the United States far more than the United States benefits from the ability to sell products to Mexico. If one wanted a world free of trade barriers, it would stand to reason that the United States ought to apply some sort of pressure to compel Mexico to change their policy, and a tariff on Mexican exports could surely accomplish this. Canada too, also in the midst of the North American “Free Trade” Agreement, had an astronomical tariff on US dairy exports. Again, even from the perspective of a free trade advocate, why would the United States do nothing to rectify this barrier?

For that matter, if free trade was universally beneficial, as we’ve been told by both parties for what seems like an eternity, why would these countries harm their own economies by imposing these tariffs?

What becomes obvious when one looks into it in some depth, without the blinders of ideology, is that these policies exist for good reason.

Mexico wants to build up their own industrial base, and so while exports are helpful to this pursuit, imports are detrimental to it. So they’ll preach the wisdom of free trade when they want access to markets, but apply a decidedly different standard when it comes to their own trade policies. Competition from American dairy farmers would harm Canada’s dairy industry, and so to keep that industry thriving domestically, they make dairy imports from the United States prohibitively expensive.

As the Trump administration imposed tariffs on steel, American steel manufacturing, an industry once gone from our country, exploded. Steel production is important for a lot more than a Nation’s GDP stats. This is a military necessity, and if we are dependent on foreign countries for our steel, then we had best hope we never find ourselves in conflict with those countries on whom we depend.

With tariffs being imposed on Chinese exports, what other industries might take root in the United States? Could we begin making our own computers? Our own smartphones? In an age of information, where so much vital knowledge is passed through our electronic devices, is that not likewise a national security issue? How can we even contemplate security, when a foreign country, under the rule of the Communist Party, no less, manufactures all the devices on which we communicate?

To see so many of my fellow conservatives go into kneejerk conniptions about “socialism” whenever any sort of economic intervention is contemplated, is a sad sight indeed. Especially while those same conservatives are simultaneously suckered into the neverending foreign policy disasters of the same neocon element that pushes free trade. To them, America is to be always at war, and yet open to any human, material, or informational penetration. The world is supposedly some terrible place, replete with monsters to slay in every corner of the Earth, and yet as we go around the world confronting every real and imagined danger, every man, woman, child, product, service, and bit of propaganda can flow freely to and fro across our unsecured border.

Our economy declines, our birthrates follow, and instead of changing course, we replace our industry with imports, and our population with immigrants who can never hope to maintain what we have built. This state of affairs can only describe a nation on its death bed, and yet we have the cure for this otherwise terminal illness, sitting right beside us on the night table.

Want to share this post on Facebook, or in polite company? Share if from OutlawConservative.com!

 

Today we will have live streaming video courtesy of JoshWhoTV. Subscribe to our JoshWho Channel here and watch live on JoshWhoTV.

I’m looking forward to hearing from you at 808-4-Outlaw, and the more you talk the less I have to, so please do give us a call.

Join us, this and every Wednesday from 5-7pm US Eastern time for another exciting episode of Outlaw Conservative!

You can always listen live at https://OutlawConservative.com/live

Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!

Donate to the production of Outlaw Conservative using your credit or debit card at TipTheHost.com

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

 

 

Radical Agenda S05E035 – Politicized

Previously on the Radical Agenda, we discussed a sudden shift in jurisprudence during the FDR administration, often referred to as the “switch in time that saved nine”. This was in response to a Leftist plot to pack the Supreme Court, in which the court decided to approve some New Deal measures previously understood to be unconstitutional, on the hopes that it would prevent this court packing scheme from coming to fruition.

Courts are of course, in theory, supposed to be above politics. That is why Supreme Court justices are given lifetime appointments, so that they need not concern themselves with the popularity of their decisions. For over a century, this seemed to be working out pretty well.

Under FDR, this changed. Leftists being the cunning manipulators they are, with their limitless willingness to lie, cheat, steal, and coerce, found a way to intimidate judges, and by this mechanism, got their way in defiance of the US Constitution. They did not soon forget the lesson learned. Conservatives, sadly, did.

Radical Agenda S05E035 - Politicized

Radical Agenda S05E035 – Politicized

Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court was not, as those on the Left would like to pretend, some kind of power grab by the far Right. Kavanaugh worked for the Bush administration, and was a gift by Trump to the establishment wing of the Republican Party. This concession was met, not with reciprocal deference and cooperation by the Left, but rather with an unprecedented wave of calumnies, which included false rape accusations and perjury. Protests against his nomination devolved from expressions of dissatisfaction, to mindless disruptions of the proceedings, and borderline if not outright political violence.

In the wake of his confirmation, Democrat presidential candidates took to the campaign trail to discuss their plans to replicate the FDR court packing scheme. Media organizations and other far Left activist groups, have called for Kavanaugh’s investigation and impeachment. Not because any honest person believes the claims against him, but because his confirmation is politically inconvenient.

They didn’t have to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation to accomplish the goals of their campaign. Nor do they have to accomplish his impeachment or any other means of removing him from the Court to accomplish the goals of that campaign. All they have to do is apply enough pressure to make him change his behavior, and in this, they seem to have been successful. He has been in the majority more often than any other justice so far this term, often allied with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is at the ideological center of the current court.

The most noteworthy example was in December of last year, as Kavanaugh joined with the Roberts and the Left in protecting Planned Parenthood’s public funding. This ran in stark contrast to the Left’s hysterics, as they wore “Handmaid’s Tale” costumes to their protests, insisting that Kavanaugh’s confirmation would result in women being enslaved to breed against their will.

Justice Clarence Thomas aptly noted in his dissenting opinion, joined by Alito and Gorsuch, that this was obviously politically motivated.

“So what explains the Court’s refusal to do its job here?,” Thomas wrote. “I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’”

“Some tenuous connection to a politically fraught issue does not justify abdicating our judicial duty,” Thomas added. “If anything, neutrally applying the law is all the more important when political issues are in the background.”

In a more recent case, a group of consumers had sued Apple, claiming that the company’s monopoly over its App Store led to inflated app prices. Apple disputed the legality of the suit, arguing the consumers had no standing to sue the company because it merely operated an intermediary between users and the developers who make and sell apps. The Supreme Court on Monday said that iPhone users can proceed with the class-action lawsuit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for the 5-4 decision, surprising many by breaking with his conservative colleagues and siding with the court’s liberal justices.

Some on the more populist Right may see this as a win for our side, given the tech censorship we’ve faced. I have similar inclinations, but it emerges as part of a pattern where Kavanaugh seems to be siding with the Left in hopes of avoiding their enmity should they regain control over the legislative and executive branches. Whatever the merits of each individual decision, the savvy observer is left to contemplate whether the Left’s pressure tactics are succeeding in altering the outcome of court battles.

But it is not just the courts that have been politicized.

We have seen the intelligence apparatus of the United States turned to Leftist aims. Most notably with the “Russia hoax” being used as an excuse to spy on the Trump campaign, and later to subvert his presidency. Of course, they were politicized well prior to that, as evidenced by bogus intelligence being used to justify the United States carrying out Israeli foreign policy in the Middle East, resulting in thousands of Americans needlessly dying in wars that served no legitimate purpose for the United States, not to mention a ceaseless emptying of our treasury on such fruitless pursuits.

We have likewise seen the law enforcement apparatus turned to explicitly political purposes. Both with the Mueller probe that followed this politicized intelligence operation, and with the prosecutions, and lack thereof, that ensued after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017. Nobody saw fit to go after the Clinton campaign for openly admitting to paying Russian sources for the “Steel Dossier”, even as the investigation vigorously pursued any connection between Trump and Russia. Likewise, nobody saw fit to prosecute any of the Left wing terrorism that was openly bragged about in Charlottesville, even as the FBI and local authorities relentlessly hunted down Right wingers who defended themselves against that terrorism.

Libertarian notions as to what motivates businessmen were likewise blown out of the water, as the tech and financial sectors mutually conspired to silence Right wing voices, first at the fringes, then moving ever more reliably toward the center. No profit motive could be found in these pursuits, as the politicization of their businesses has only sacrificed credibility with the broader public, chased away users, who are ultimately their products, and even caused them to turn away money from advertising sales that went against their political motivations.

The Left can do this of course, because they have no fear that the Right would ever replicate the behavior. We would view the use of our intelligence and law enforcement apparatus as a corrupt act, and so we would not do it. We attempt to draw a line of separation between politics and the market, and so we are not inclined to boycotts, or turning away business, over political disagreements.

Noble though these inclinations my be, we are sacrificing political advantage as a result. Same as we have with the use of criminal violence. The Left has politicized everything from the media, to the courts, to the intelligence agencies, to law enforcement, to business, right down to the criminal element. Meanwhile, the Right has attempted to play by decidedly outdated rules. We tend to view the political realm as a gentleman’s contest, where we abide by certain rules, even if it causes us to lose. This is an impossible worldview to maintain, once one has opened participation in their political system to hostile elements, who do not care for such gentlemanly standards.

 

There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls…

Join us this and every Monday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at  323-9-AGENDA

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

Radical Agenda S05E034 – Constitutional Crises

If you think Clown World is a mess, imagine you’re Ron Paul right now.

You turn on the TV for your daily dose of Jewish nonsense, and you see Nancy Pelosi, of all people, talking about a “Constitutional Crisis”.

Her concerns are echoed, pun intended, by (((Jerry Nadler))).

You change the channel in disbelief, but everywhere you go, there’s a Democrat saying the same thing. Constitutional Crisis, Constitutional Crisis, Constitutional Crisis, and you think this would make more sense if it were some kind of deathbed confession. It’s almost as if the Democrat Party had finally decided to read the damn thing, and suddenly felt guilty about destroying the country for all these decades.

But of course, no such luck.

Radical Agenda S05E034 - Constitutional Crises

Radical Agenda S05E034 – Constitutional Crises

They aren’t feeling guilty about taking your guns away, or stifling your speech. They have no qualms about launching a counterintelligence operation against the now sitting President using the secret courts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They haven’t renounced their use of illegal immigration to alter the electoral college or the makeup of the House of Representatives. They haven’t come to grasp the meaning of the “general welfare” clause, and given up on wealth redistribution. They certainly haven’t stumbled upon the 10th Amendment and embraced the wisdom of states rights.

No, none of these eminently reasonable things have sparked the Democrat Party’s newfound interest in the Constitution of the United States.

Rather, they are complaining that Attorney General William Barr has not broken the law by releasing the unredacted Mueller report to the public, and have thus voted in committee to hold Barr in contempt of Congress. The matter will soon go before the floor of the House of Representatives for a full vote. The House being in Democrat hands, the measure is likely to pass.

Once approved, Pelosi, as House speaker then turns the matter over to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,” according to the law. The Justice Department has to actually make the choice to take up a criminal case against someone, however, and in the past, the Justice Department has declined to prosecute criminal contempt of Congress cases. The current US Attorney for DC is Jessie Kong Liu, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, and like the rest of the Justice Department, is under his authority. So this route of presidential harassment is less than likely to bear fruit.

It is worth noting, of course, that Representative Nadler is more than welcome to go stop by the AG’s office and view the unredacted report at his leisure. This isn’t something that is being kept secret from him. He just doesn’t want to make the effort, and this means of review would not be nearly as helpful toward his blatantly obvious political motives.

While Congress has broad investigative powers, there are of course limits. The Supreme Court has said that congressional inquiries should have a “legitimate legislative purpose” and has explicitly stated that they should not be used for political purposes, or to embarrass, expose wrongdoing, or target a particular person or group.

Given Nancy Pelosi’s prior statements about subpoena power being an “interesting … arrow to have in your quiver in terms of negotiating on other subjects”, the motives here could not be more obvious. Add to this, Representative Al Green on MSNBC earlier this week, saying he fears that if Democrats don’t impeach Trump, he’ll be reelected, which of course, is what this is all about.

The White House, for their part, has invoked Executive Privilege over the material in the report, blocking further access to it.

Executive privilege, as you may be aware, is the power of the President and other members of the executive branch, to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government, in pursuit of information or personnel relating to confidential communications that would impair proper function of their offices. The power of Congress or the federal courts to obtain such information is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, nor is there any explicit mention in the Constitution of an executive privilege to resist such requests from Congress or the courts. Both are seen as “inherent” to the powers of the respective branches.

Historically conflicts between these competing powers has been handled through negotiation, rather than allowing the courts to decide. In this case, since the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to resist the Trump administration in every imaginable way, and a few which were previously beyond imagination, negotiation seems unlikely. The Democrats are thus left with the choice of whining about it impotently, or taking the matter to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is likely to side with the President, as would any liberal majority if liberals had any kind of standards beyond their own pursuit of power.

Hence the “Constitutional Crisis” could best be summarized as “the constitution doesn’t give the Democrats what they want”.

The impudence of the Left in this incident comes as no surprise to the savvy observer. Nancy Pelosi was unconcerned about the Constitution as she threatened that a future Democrat President might use his emergency powers to infringe on the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans. There is nothing in Article 1 Section 8 that would empower the Congress to ban fossil fuels, or any of the other lunacy contemplated in the “Green New Deal” nor for that matter, any power to enact the Affordable Care Act, or 90% of the other crap that gets crammed through each legislative session, by both parties. That, dear listener, is the real constitutional crisis.

Once upon a time, Congress understood limits on their powers. To enact alcohol prohibition, as the easiest example, Congress was well aware they had no such power, and thus the 18th amendment to the Constitution was necessary to send booze underground. Likewise, to end prohibition, Congress knew they lacked the authority to repeal a constitutional amendment on their own, and thus the 21st amendment was passed. Since then, Congressional restraint has been in steady decline.

I am not making a defense of drugs or advocating their legalization to say, that the example of alcohol prohibition makes it plain to see that Congress lacked the authority to ban drugs. This of course did not stop them from doing so. Nor did it stop them from empowering the Drug Enforcement Agency to ban substances at their discretion, without even Congressional say so, under the “Emergency Scheduling” powers in the Comprehensive Crime Control act of 1984.

Indeed, it would take an eternity to list the many examples of Congress exceeding their authority, so it might make more sense to address some landmark Supreme Court Decisions.

Take for example the incident historians sometimes refer to as the “switch in time that saved nine“. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom even conservative Americans foolishly and universally hail as a great President for defeating the Nazis, was on quite the run trying to convert our Nation to communism with his New Deal programs. Fortunately for you and I, the Supreme Court had the good sense to strike down most of these measures as unconstitutional.

Roosevelt and his Democrat controlled Congress saw this impedance of their coercive powers as its own constitutional crisis. In response, they formulated the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. This was to alter the Judiciary Act of 1869, in which Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the Chief Justice and eight associate justices. Roosevelt intended to pack the court with judges who would overlook the constitutional challenges to his programs, a measure Democrats openly contemplate on the Presidential campaign trail even today.

This resulted in a sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts, in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The Court’s majority opinion was rightly seen as a strategic political move, to undermine the court packing plan. It worked, and thus you still see a Supreme Court of 9 Justices, at least until Democrats regain control over Congress and the White House. Unfortunately, this is also how you ended up with a federal minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all manner of other redistributive schemes as the Lochner era came to an abrupt and unjustifiable end.

It likewise paved the way another notable case known as Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, supposedly to stabilize wheat prices. Filburn grew more than the limits that he was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone “interstate” commerce, referencing the “interstate commerce clause” which grants congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

The Supreme Court disagreed, stating in the majority decision “even if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect.'”

This dramatically expanded the regulatory powers of the federal government to intervene in basically any matter that might impact the economy in any imaginable way.

You might be saying to yourself “But that would remove all limits on federal powers” and you would be exactly right.

Thomas Jefferson had expressed a similar concern in the earliest days of our then young Constitution.

The interstate commerce clause was one of the congressional power that Congress purported to exercise in creating our first central bank.

In his Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank in 1791, Jefferson was very concerned that the creation of a National Bank would open the floodgates for increased spending by the Federal government. His wisdom seems notably prescient in the current year, does it not? As a national bank was not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government in the constitution, Jefferson was opposed to its formation.

With regard to the interstate commerce clause, Jefferson wrote rather specifically, that to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes.” did not extend to all economic matters. “To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates a subject of commerce in its bills, so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trace, but as `’ productive of considerable advantages to trade.

He likewise was skeptical of the excessive reliance on the “general welfare clause” which states that the Congress shall have Power “To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

Of this Jefferson wrote that “To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

The “Bank Bill” was signed into law by George Washington on February 25, 1791, beginning the neverending cascade of constitutional crises we’ve seen ever since, less than two years after the Constitution went into effect.

Thus, it is absurd on its face to see conservatives today fretting over the constitutionality of one matter or another, which would otherwise be to their political advantage. The lid was blown off the whole thing by the first Congress and the first President. The savior they hail for defeating the Germans in World War II, put the final nails in its coffin, and the rapid expansion of federal powers since has been little more than the predictable result of democratic elections.

We have many crises, but they are in no way rooted in the Constitution, no more than most of the laws passed by our Congress. The trouble lies in the quality of our citizenry, and the leaders they subsequently elect.

 

There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls…

Join us this and every Monday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at  323-9-AGENDA

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

 

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

Hippy vs. Nazi – Round 1

At the end of April I had the pleasure of being back in the LRN.fm studio, this time to sit down with an old friend of mine, Rich Paul.

Like most people, Rich had been left with a cartoonish and misguided notion of the ideas I espouse, by the media. By the end of our talk, we sure didn’t agree, but we better understood each other, and that is exactly what the monsters who censor us are trying to prevent.

This was a great talk, and definitely worth listening to.

I hereby challenge any libertarian with sufficient name recognition to have a similar talk.

 

Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com

Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

 

Outlaw Conservative S01E017 – Disarm The Democrats

Another day, another addition to the Democrat death toll. No wonder these monsters want felons to be able to vote from prison. So many of their constituents reside there.

Devon Erickson, a registered Democrat who had expressed hatred for Christians, and attacked President Trump on social media, painted “F*** SOCIETY” on his car as he left his house for the final time. He got together with his transgender sidekick, and they walked into a suburban Denver school, armed to the teeth. The two allegedly had guns in a guitar case as they walked “deep” into the school, and finally set upon a classroom to unload those weapons into unsuspecting students.

At least one is dead and eight more were also shot.

Now ensues the familiar post shooting debate. Republicans will say we need mental health programs, Democrats will say we need gun control. The libertarians will say we need more guns and less mental health care, so the stupid people will die off and we can become what Darwin intended more quickly, which everyone kinda knows is true, but we won’t do it anyway because nobody listens to the libertarians.

But the real solution to this problem is far simpler. We just have to accept that voting Democrat is a symptom of severe mental illness, and thus cross reference voter registration data with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). If somebody is a registered Democrat, they should be turned away for gun purchases and carry permits on account of their condition.

But who are we kidding? Democrats don’t obey laws anyway…

Perhaps we could also launch a Democrat gun buy back program from the private sector. Like, we could buy TV Commercials with me as the spokesperson. I could come out and tell the Democrats, “Hey, those guns are only making your home unsafe. Sell them to me, and I’ll be happy to put them to good use.”

Ah, but how many Hi Points can a guy own, right?

 

I’m looking forward to hearing from you at 808-4-Outlaw, and the more you talk the less I have to, so please do give us a call.

Join us, this and every Wednesday from 5-7pm US Eastern time for another exciting episode of Outlaw Conservative!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!

Donate to the production of Outlaw Conservative using your credit or debit card at TipTheHost.com

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

 

Radical Agenda S05E033 – Overestimated

Venezuela’s Juan Guaidó says he overestimated military support, as his hopes for a coup d’état were dashed against the rocks. To put it mildly, that’s one of those things one would be better off not “overestimating”. When you play the game of thrones, you win, or you die. There is no middle ground.

Radical Agenda S05E033 - Overestimated

Radical Agenda S05E033 – Overestimated

Luckily for Guaidó, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neocon psychopaths who consistently insinuate that the United States will intervene militarily on his behalf, rather than allow Maduro to remain in power. How this benefits Americans in any sense remains to be explained by the administration which ran on an America first foreign policy, but I suppose most right thinking people figured that went out the window as soon as John Bolton obtained the title of National Security Advisor.

Humorously, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this weekend, to, among other things, insist that “We want the Venezuelan people not to have interference from any country” when pressed on Russian interference in the conflict. He went on to say “The United States wants all other countries out of this nation, and allow the Venezuelan people to restore their own democracy”. He concluded by noting, with a straight face, that he would be meeting with Germany and the United Kingdom, to achieve this objective.

I don’t have to tell regular listeners that I have no sympathy for communists like Maduro, but I’ll note here for the sake of newcomers and hostiles, that I’m all for regime change in Venezuela. I’m just sick and tired of this idiotic Jewish neocon foreign policy agenda, which has the United States in the middle of every idiotic conflict that arises in the world. One wonders how long it will be before we “overestimate” our own capacities, and find ourselves on the losing side of a game of thrones.

It’s worth noting that the United States gained her independence from Britain in no small part due to the fact that the crown was stretched thin at the time of our revolution. Britain was in conflict with France and Spain at the time, and this in part motivated those governments to finance and provide other support to the American revolution. Given the polarized and dangerous political climate in the United States, the ongoing flood of left leaning third world migrants over our insecure border, the official and unofficial suppression of patriotic movements, and the unmitigated and ongoing surge of Leftist terrorism, the threat of a new revolution with far less noble intent, is very real.

I try hard not to be a conspiracy theorist, but let us toy with this idea a bit.

Suppose you were a group of elite internationalists, who found certain aspects of the United States Constitution, such as the first and second amendments, to be a severe inconvenience to your designs of a global government. Suppose you had managed to subvert nearly all other aspects of that nation’s way of life, but those two pesky hurdles stubbornly inhibited your endgame. How might you go about doing away with these most unwelcome obstacles?

Supporting revolutionary movements inside the country would surely be at the top of your agenda, much like the United States has done to numerous countries prior to invading them. Antifa and Black Lives Matter surely fit such a description, and we’ve all watched their violence be excused and celebrated by just these sort of internationalists (yes, I’m talking about Jews). We’re not sure exactly who is financing these things, but they are definitely being financed. Not only through whatever covert methods are surely taking place out of public view, but the unmitigated access of these violent groups to crowdfunding sites which patriotic groups have been banned from, surely provides a convenient cover for this financing.

But these groups are in no danger of overestimating military support for their aims, since they are openly hostile to our armed forces and police. So the classic military coup would be out of the question. In fact, you would want the military to be as weary and depleted as possible, which conveniently happens to be the case after nearly two decades of carrying out Israeli foreign policy in the middle east. So much so that one might be shocked to find the country still standing after such a lengthy and wasteful expenditure of blood and treasure.

To finish them off, a brand new series of conflicts in a wholly different region of the world might be in order. Just convince the short sighted dupes that they would only be going in to squish a tiny communist bug, and tell them it would lessen the immigration crisis at the forefront of their minds. Conveniently fail to mention that such conflicts are never so tidy as imagined at the outset, and before long one can reliably expect matters to spiral out of control into a South American repeat of the quagmire their prior series of adventures had become.

As money, men, and munitions steadily flow out of the country, and migrants from the regions in which they are fighting steadily and in greater numbers flow in, little would remain to stand against the aforementioned revolutionary forces. What little remained of the patriotic movements could easily be deprived of resources through your control of their financial system, and sabotaged with bad advice through anonymous sources, like suicide missions resulting in bad public relations.

This wouldn’t have to be an intentional conspiracy to be a recipe for disaster, mind you. What I’ve just described is happening, whether by happenstance or by intent. It’s just hard for me to believe that any reasonable person thinks this state of affairs could possibly be in the best interests of the United States, which makes the coincidence angle seem further fetched than a complex plot by malicious actors to overthrow the government.

I’d end on a positive note, if I could. I’m finding it difficult though. To that angle, I’d just say that it is entirely possible that I’m simply blackpilling for the sake of blackpilling.

I sure do hope that’s the case.

There’s a lot more to get to, plus your calls…

Join us this and every Monday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at  323-9-AGENDA

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Donate cryptocurrency, or by postal mail

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

Radical Agenda S05E032 – Inevitable

A listener notified me of my name being brought up on Dave Smith’s podcast, Part of the Problem. We’ve had Dave on the show before, and I’ve been on his. Dave is a libertarian of Jewish ancestry, and a stand up comic, but other than that, he’s a pretty good guy. 🙂

They were talking about my being featured in Joe Biden’s campaign announcement ad, which led to a broader discussion on the race baiting politics of the Left, and the state of what was the Alt Right. It’s too bad Dave doesn’t respond to my emails anymore, as their talk touched on a subject I’ve been contemplating myself, and I would have liked to discuss this subject with him. Instead, I’ll talk a bit about it here.

Radical Agenda S05E032 - Inevitable

Radical Agenda S05E032 – Inevitable

Dave and his cohost remarked about the seeming insanity of bringing up a relatively obscure podcaster, such as your humble correspondant, as a presidential campaign issue. Why would the top Democratic presidential candidate be harping on Charlottesville so long after the fact? Especially given that Trump had literally nothing to do with the event. Even Bernie Sanders has the good sense to realize that the Democrat Party will lose if they have nothing to run on but Trump.

White Nationalism, they observed, is not exactly the most popular thing in politics today. So it would seem like the Left has just completely lost their minds by beating that drum non-stop, and perpetually expanding the definition of that term to include everyone who strays from their insane narratives, similarly to how they had done with the term “racist” a long time ago. Dave expressed the very legitimate concern that drawing attention to us was normalizing our cause, and might actually make it more popular. It would seem that if one wanted to stop Christopher Cantwell and the Radical Agenda from gaining traction, putting my face and the logo of my show all over TV in a presidential campaign ad, would be ill advised.

When one has a deeper understanding of the Left however, their antics are not so easily dismissed.

For your average American, White Nationalism is most certainly a non-issue. For all the media insanity about us being some kind of looming terrorism threat, and the handful of unhinged nutcases parroting our lines between fedposts to help aid that narrative, you’re far more likely to be murdered by black gangs than you are White Nationalists, even if you’re a Jew. Everybody knows it is Muslims committing the terrorist attacks, and no amount of nonsense published by the ADL is going to convince a sane American otherwise.

Moreover, life would certainly improve for pretty much everybody if White Nationalists were to obtain political power. We would stop the Leftist nonsense destroying this country, we would stop wasting military resources on Israeli foreign policy, we would stop the immigration crisis, and we wouldn’t pull the rug out from people who rely on the government for help. For people who really do think “racism” is a huge problem in society, we’ll be happy to arrange for a peaceful and amicable separation, so they can live under the boot of Jewish power separately from us, and never again will those people have to worry about having a White Nationalist for their president. It’s really a pretty sweet deal for everybody.

Of course, that reality is why we have to be censored. If anybody found out what White Nationalists were really aiming for, most White Americans, and a surprising number of non-whites, would be White Nationalists. We have to be painted as some kind of bloodthirsty threat with no reason or truth on our side, otherwise we will win in very short order. That’s also why more and more people who are not White Nationalists are being censored as well, such as Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Laura Loomer, and others. Anybody who brings up the legitimate issues we are trying to address, will necessarily bring people closer to understanding our aims, and for our opponents to remain in control, this cannot be permitted.

Of course, the censorship won’t work forever, and the people in power know this. So they have to ultimately resort to more drastic measures. This is why Joe Biden’s campaign advertisement referred to the communist terrorists who attacked our permitted demonstration in Charlottesville as “A courageous group of Americans,” and even went so far as to tacitly acknowledge that they were the aggressors, by saying “a violent clash ensued” without telling the oft repeated lie that we started the fight. Joe Biden wasn’t just using Charlottesville as a campaign issue, he was literally calling for violence.

Tucker Carlson has made similar remarks to the apparent confusion expressed by Dave and his cohost. “Trump is easy to beat” he recently said to one guest, as he pondered why the Democrats would be throwing away an easy win with insane proposals like the green new deal, open borders, and non stop hatred for the White majority in the leadup to a popularity contest.

So what’s the point of all this?

I have become convinced that the Democrats are just as certain of a violent clash between the extreme Right and the extreme Left, as are the propertarians.

The power of the extremes on either end of the spectrum drags the overton window toward the more powerful side, altering the dialogue in the almighty center, to favor their moderate counterparts. Understanding this has given the Left dominion over the country, even during Republican administrations, for as long as I’ve been alive. It is absolutely vital to them that White Nationalists be crushed before we can become a real issue, because even if one of us never holds an elected office, our impact on the discourse will deprive them of power.

Luckily for them, Republicans panic over appearances. For fear of the Leftist (Jewish) press, they attack their extremist elements as viciously as the enemy does. Democrats are more savvy, and condone even the most violent criminal behavior, so long as it acts in their favor.

Republicans can in some sense be forgiven for this, since the extreme Right has no more learned to cooperate with their moderate counterparts, as they have learned to cooperate with us. It is not as if violence could not be used to favor the Republican Party, as it has been used to benefit Democrats such as with Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Unfortunately, and I suspect we can thank subversives for this, the comparatively miniscule amounts of violence we have seen from the Right in the United States, has been senseless and uncontrolled, and thus of no help to the Party. The looming threat of a permanent Democrat majority in Washington is provoking the violent impulses of White men, but they lack competent leadership, and thus the power of those impulses goes unharnessed. Without direction, that energy inevitably finds some other outlet, and when those outlets are street brawls in Democrat controlled cities, or shootings at houses of worship, this is profoundly unhelpful to our moderate counterparts, who need to win popularity contests on a regular schedule.

One of these days, somebody on the Right is going to figure out the correct way to do this, and then things are really going to get interesting. When the violence favors the Republican Party, the Party will learn to tolerate it, and when White Nationalists have a fraction of the support from the GOP and Fox News, that Antifa has had from the Democrats and MSNBC, then we’re going to become the problem that they pretend we are now, only worse. A world in which it is more dangerous to be a raving Left wing nut, than it is to wear a MAGA hat, is a world where Democrats cannot bully people into parroting their lies, and thus a world where Democrats cannot win elections.

All of the energy on the Left is being poured into stoking racial tensions and building radicalized echo chambers on mainstream and social media. If they lose the upcoming elections as a result of this madness, that is a worthwhile tradeoff  if it militarizes their extremist element, and deprives White Nationalists of influence. If Trump gets a second term, but immigration and the leftward drift of our discourse continue to go on unabated, he will be the last Republican President anyway. On the other hand, if White Nationalists are able to assert themselves in public, then separatist movements will certainly emerge, and the productive White folks of this country will extricate themselves from the nightmare world the Democrats have in store for us. A mongrelized country of Democrats, without White people to tax, is going to collapse in a matter of days, and they cannot permit this to happen.

Thus, I have come to suspect the Democrats are more than willing to lose the next election. They are far more interested in starting, and winning, a civil war.

The goal of their antics is geared toward stoking violence, and keeping the Republicans wary of optics. Through this they can render the Right impotent until immigration ends our ability to assert ourselves politically, and at the same time prevent us from sufficiently organizing to meet the challenges of the civil war that will inevitably ensue, when the average White guy figures out that this was the plan all along.

 

Join us this and every Monday, and Friday from 5-7pm Eastern, for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about timeless ideas, the news of the day, and whatever is on your mind at  323-9-AGENDA

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

I NEED MONEY!

 

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. 

Become an OutlawConservative.com Premium Member!

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com!

Like my voice? Hire me to read the text of your choice at PennedAndPronounced.com

 

Outlaw Conservative S01E016 – May Day Barr & Grill

Today is May 1st, which means, like every other day, the communists are feeling oppressed. The riots you’ll see take place over the course of today and tonight will be dubbed “May Day Demonstrations” but are more inspired by International Workers’ Day, a yearly celebration by pan Leftist groups throughout the world.

Leftists love to claim the mantle of solidarity with workers. This is sometimes confusing to those who are uninitiated, since communists are generally tax leeches who wouldn’t know work if you put them in a labor camp. Whether they are of the billionaire elite top level government favors type of tax leech, or that of the lowlife welfare recipient, what they have in common is a revulsion toward the very concept of being productive.

The celebration makes more sense when you come to understand them. Leftists celebrate “the worker” not because they are workers, but because workers provide them with the sustenance they require to continue their parasitism. If nobody worked, then there would be no taxes to collect, and without taxes to collect, there would be no food stamps or public housing for the lowlives, and no favors for the wealthy to purchase from the State.

To put things in perspective, Leftists celebrate “the worker” in a similar fashion to how ticks might celebrate deer, or fleas might celebrate dogs, if such creatures had the ability to wear masks and set coffee shops and limousines on fire.

Aside from their own aversion to productive efforts, their contempt for the hosts of their parasitism is displayed by the products of their advocacy.

Leftists scream incoherently for the raising of minimum wages. To hear them tell it, compelling employers to pay an ever increasing hourly rate for even the most menial of tasks, is some kind of economic panacea which will bring the whole of mankind to full employment and eternal prosperity.

Outwardly, it would appear lost on them that driving up the cost of labor to what in many cases becomes prohibitively expensive for entry level positions and unskilled workers, drives the push toward automation of those tasks, as machines become less expensive than human labor. They would feign ignorance of the fact, that this drives up unemployment, which itself puts downward pressure on wages. They pretend not to know, that this makes it nearly impossible for young people to enter the workforce, as employers show preference toward more experienced workers who can actually produce at the rate now prescribed by law.

Of course, none of this is lost on them. They know exactly what they are doing. Like everything else they advocate for, the goal is not the one they purport, but rather the polar opposite.

But fear not. When their minimum wage policies make it impossible for their countrymen to get a job, they simply advocate that the government guarantee everyone a job at the prescribed rate, or higher. That job might be to dig a ditch one day, and fill it in the next. It might be to go around preaching the wisdom of the prior failed policy. It might be to shuffle needless paperwork created by the increased regulatory burdens they likewise advocate. Whatever the case, it will not be productive, and will consequently be payed for by extracting resources from the productive efforts of… You guessed it, actual workers.

These patron saints of the worker likewise cheer loudly for a basic income guarantee, or as Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang calls it, the Freedom Dividend. This of course would be in addition to the public housing subsidies, food stamps, WIC checks, and other goodies already in existence for the unproductive. Their newest pushes include free health care, and free college, and by the next election, surely some other freebie will be up for auction to the greatest number of voters. These subsidies are of course to be provided regardless of employment, and even citizenship status, at the expense of, you guessed it, actual workers.

But nothing quite spells out their hostility toward the productive members of our society than their wanton lust for uncontrolled immigration. Nothing harms workers more than an abundance of surplus labor, especially that of the cheap variety. You don’t have to be an economist to understand this, and so their simultaneous “solidarity” with “workers” and illegal immigrants, displays not only a hostility towards the workers they claim to celebrate, but an insult to their intelligence.

Their labor and economic policies are like everything else about Left wing advocacy, based in wickedness and deception. They mean to make the worker as abused and miserable as possible, because they are foundationally driven by a hatred for humanity and all of its works. They express their solidarity with the worker, while making his life impossible. They simultaneously express contempt for the State, while ceaselessly advocating its reckless and perpetual expansion of powers both in scope and in territory, with the ultimate aim of a borderless world with a planetary government devoid of restraints on its power to coerce.

From there, we will all be workers, or rather, slaves, under the boot of a planetary empire. Your food, housing, medical care, and education will all be provided to you at no cost, the same way such life essentials were provided to the chattel of days long passed. You will have a job, whether you want one or not.

What you won’t have are choices, despite their professed devotion to the “pro choice” cause, which is just another euphemism to disguise their contempt for motherhood and the family. You will work, and you will have what you require to survive while doing so, but you will not have the option of rising above your station. You will never own the means of production, as they are now owned by “the collective” which is to say, the ruling class.

Through this, mankind will finally arrive at the equality they scream so loudly for. The man who cures cancer, and the woman who digs a ditch one day to fill it in the next, will have the same material resources, and the same grey, uniform, genderless, raceless, joyless existence.

 

I’m looking forward to hearing from you at 808-4-Outlaw, and the more you talk the less I have to, so please do give us a call.

Join us, this and every Wednesday from 5-7pm US Eastern time for another exciting episode of Outlaw Conservative!

You can listen live on the Radical Agendas Radio Network. Catch video on demand on our Bitchute channel!

The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!

You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at

https://ChristopherCantwell.com/live

Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!

Donate to the production of Outlaw Conservative using your credit or debit card at TipTheHost.com

Shop At EdgyGoodies.com

This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you. I sell shirts, hats, mousepads, and other cool stuff, though sadly, we can only accept cryptocurrency. Or you can just fork over money by donating.