Robert Mueller sat before two congressional committees to answer questions about his so called Russia investigation. Democrats, still counting on the stupidity of the American electorate, hoped to obtain soundbites for their media propagandist friends to run with, in order to paint the President of the United States as a criminal.
And of course, they found it. Within the first 5 minutes of questioning, committee chairman Jerry Nadler asked Mueller if his report had exonerated of obstructing justice. Mueller predictably responded in the negative, as it is not the role of a prosecutor to exonerate suspects. Before the next 5 minute round of questioning had completed, I saw a news alert on my phone from the SmartNews app, about story from ABC News, headlined “Mueller contradicts Trump, says report did not exonerate him“.
This was in no way news, of course. Mueller never reported to exonerate anyone. It was never his job. His report nonetheless exceeded expectations in this regard, handing congressional Democrats the gift they sought, in stating that they did not clear the President of obstruction. He further called a press conference, and there stated, yet again, that he did not exonerate the President. The “News Alert” thus, was yet more propaganda.
Were anything newsworthy, it would have been the reversal of the burden of proof which has ensued in the course of this ruse, but then again, that particular perversion of our justice system is perhaps as old as the republic itself.
Of course, if the President were, in fact, a criminal, those same talking heads and legislators would be assuring us that all was right with the world.
If criminals were in any way held in the disfavor of the Democrat Party, Christine Pelosi never would have lamented that it is “quite likely that some of our faves are implicated” in the Jeffrey Epstein child molestation scandal. Corey Booker would not be calling for reparations for drug dealers. Bernie Sanders would not be championing the supposed right of convicted murderers to vote from their prison cells. Trump’s criminal justice reform efforts, which we were recently made aware has set violent criminals loose on our streets, and will surely release countless more in the coming years, would have been condemned as loudly and as hysterically as his immigration policies. And of course, speaking of immigration enforcement, this would be wholly uncontroversial.
Were Democrats opposed to the criminal element, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley would have unhesitatingly condemned Willem Van Spronsen, the Antifa terrorist who was recently shot while trying to firebomb an ICE detention center in Tacoma, Washington. Trump’s “fine people on both sides” remarks about Charlottesville would have been met with equally hysterical condemnation as they were, but only because of the implication that Antifa terrorists could possibly have been “very fine people”.
Tucker Carlson recently had a segment where he played clips of Democrats out on the campaign trail, repeating the popular slogan that “nobody is above the law,” in their attacks on the President. A phrase often repeated today. He and Victor David Hanson, made quick work of eviscerating this foolishness. Not that of the slogan, of course, which is quite sound, but that of the people saying it, since their entire philosophy rests on some people, most notably illegal immigrants, and their fellow party members, being precisely that. Above the law.
But perhaps it is not so clear as Carlson and Hansen make it out to be. I was made to recall some commentary in this vein by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago. After a lengthy description of upright people who had been tormented by the State apparatus in the post revolution Soviet Union, Solzhenitsyn explains the theory under which this sort of thing was justified.
Should we wrap it all up and simply say that they arrested the innocent? But we omitted saying that the very concept of guilt had been repealed by the proletarian revolution and, at the beginning of the thirties, was defined as rightist opportunism! So we can’t even discuss these out-of-date concepts, guilt and innocence.
We have once more gone astray with this rightist opportunism—this concept of “guilt,” and of the guilty or innocent. It has, after all, been explained to us that the heart of the matter is not personal guilt, but social danger. One can imprison an innocent person if he is socially hostile. And one can release a guilty man if he is socially friendly.
And in this, the framework of the Democrat sense of justice is revealed. Trump, with all his so called “racist tweets” and unwillingness to sacrifice the interests of his constituency to that of his political opponents, is not socially friendly. He is not, as is often said, a “threat to our Democracy” but rather, a social danger.
Attempts to portray him as having violated some statute, are mere efforts to reconcile their certainty of his guilt in the Soviet sense, with the framework of the modern bourgeois justice system, which they of course mean to do away with entirely, upon presentation of the chance.
On the prior episode of the Radical Agenda, I talked about how the far Right would be well served to maintain good relationships with law enforcement, despite the hazards that this poses in the current environment. In support of that position, I illustrated a combination of stories in which law enforcement had proven sympathetic to the injustice we face, or in which our enemies had proven hostile to law enforcement.
In the subsequent 48 hours, the world rushed to further illustrate my point.
Two police officers in Gretna, Louisiana were fired. One for social media commentary critical of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, and another, for simply clicking “like” on said commentary.
Video emerged of two separate incidents in Brooklyn and Harlem, in which police were set upon by urban residents who doused them with water as they attempted to arrest criminal suspects. In one incident, an assailant hurled a bucket of water at the officers, and it struck him in the head. Rather than set their sights on the unruly youths who had attacked them, officers walked away in silence, no doubt for fear of being slandered as racists. The offenders and onlookers laughed, and taunted the officers as they slunk away. In the Brooklyn incident, one of the attackers was identified to be a gang member.
Another video emerged of a subway rider telling police to, well, we can’t say what he told them to do on the Outlaw Conservative, but suffice it to say it involved the use of a mouth and the removal of a belt, or at least, the undoing of a zipper. Similar silence from the Leftist press.
Most conservatives sum this sort of thing up to a misguided attempt at helping the less fortunate, or an almost Christian sense of forgiveness. They foolishly take Leftists at their word, when they assert their noble intentions, and debate only the outcome of policies and attitudes which further the chaos.
Likewise in the arena of economics. Be it welfare statism, reparations, taxes, wage and price formation, or the issuance of money and credit, we are similarly met with a near total upending of all the wisdom on the subject that man has collected to date. We are repeatedly assured that an influx of unskilled labor applies no downward pressure on wages. That increases in the minimum wage, no doubt applied to correct the prior accounting error, be it to $15 or $20 per hour, has no impact on unemployment. That the State’s provision of a “living wage” regardless of employment status, will in no way diminish the incentives to find employment. That tariffs are paid by consumers, and this somehow stands in contrast to taxes on wealth or corporate profits. And finally, perhaps the most laughable of all, that the money supply, and inflation, are entirely different subjects of discussion.
And likewise, conservatives sheepishly recite the familiar consequences of the many failed attempts to implement these ideas, and speak with confused astonishment when their political opponents feign ignorance of the obvious.
Even in matters seemingly too ridiculous to take seriously, our fellow conservatives find themselves arguing breathlessly in circles. Can a man become a woman? Well, no, of course not. What if one’s opponent persists that they can? Well, we’ll explain DNA, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive biology, as though one would need to be a geneticist or biologist or medical professional to understand this most basic building block of the human condition and indeed all non-hermaphrodite life. Even with the entirety of scientific wisdom on the matter readily available, the debate is never won, and the Leftist opponent only insists that his Rightist opponent is an ignorant religious zealot for believing the obvious.
Whatever the subject matter, Leftists are almost singularly devoted to tearing down, or, deconstructing, our norms and institutions.
It would be worth returning to the subject of deconstruction in a future episode as a singular focus, but sadly I did not have time to put that together today before showtime, due in part to its inherent and perhaps intentional difficulty in describing, and in part due to my divided attentions watching the Mueller hearings. For our immediate purposes, a superficial, and heavily borrowed, description will have to suffice, as I attempt to bring the previously mentioned events into focus.
Deconstruction was founded by a Sephardic Jew named Jacques Derrida at Yale University between the 1960s and 1980s. Briefly summarizing, it is a theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth, particularly those of Western origin. Its methods are incorporated into a school of thought known as postmodernism, which the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy describes as “a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.” Both are central to “critical theory” better known as Cultural Marxism.
Suffice it to say for our purposes today, that conservatives keep getting their teeth kicked in because they are competing in a wholly different arena than their leftist counterparts. While you attack the factual accuracy of a statement, Leftists attack the concept that factual accuracy is even possible to determine. While you attack whether or not a thing is known, Leftists attack whether or not it is knowable. While you attack the predictable outcomes of a proposal, Leftists attack the notion that outcomes can be predicted.
Applied to the news of the day, much fuss has been made about the presumption of innocence apparently subverted by the Mueller report’s use of the word “exonerate”. In the intelligence committee, one representative made a point to illustrate that the Department of Justice is not in the business of exonerating people, that there is no office of exoneration, and that in fact there is no legal process to exonerate a person. For Mueller to say that he did not exonerate the President is a truism, he could not have done so if he wanted to, anymore than he could declare an individual guilty. Less so, in fact, as at least a judge or jury could determine guilty, whereas neither can formally exonerate. As a prosecutor, his only purview is to determine whether or not sufficient evidence exists to prosecute a crime, and whether or not to pursue the prosecution thereof.
The careful observer would notice that this was of little interest to congressional Democrats. Our underlying assumptions about guilt or innocence were the target of the attack. The current occupant of the White House is an inconvenience to them, and they want him removed. The most expedient means of doing so is to paint him as a criminal, and so despite their affinity for the criminal class, they lump their rival in with them to undermine the legitimacy of his rule, in the minds of those watching the proceedings.
But even to sum this up to political thirst for power would be to give too much credit to the charade. It is not so much that they want the presidency for themselves, so much as they want the presidency and all the assumptions it entails, to be torn down. Of course, so long as there is to be a president, they want to wield the power of the office, but even their exercise of those powers is wholly subversive to the institution.
Themselves and their constituents being actual criminals in the traditional sense, all law enforcement personnel acting in accordance with the traditional obligations of their profession, are likewise to be subverted and undermined. If police harm or kill a criminal, they are the socially hostile element, not the criminal. If they are assaulted, and disrespected, they deserve it, and this is hardly newsworthy.
But again, we would give them too much credit to sum this up as a rational self preservation instinct. The institution of law enforcement necessarily operates under the assumption that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and that such a delineation can be determined, concepts they would surely contest, were they not so busy convincing us of “White Supremacy’s” inherent wickedness.
The very conception of economics as a science is to be undermined. Yes, of course so they can appropriate resources for themselves and their constituents, but more as a means by which to undermine attempts to rationalize the economy, or rather, to use the economy as proof of rationalism.
They undermine the very foundations of our existence, with the best example being gender. Though paraded under the guise of pursuing equality, though that itself would be sufficiently subversive to earn our derision, it is again more an attack on the concept of unchangeability.
The very idea of certainty is, to them, a form of domination, oppression, even slavery. They tear apart everything that purports to be an authority on anything, until no authority is strong enough to stand.
Then they usurp the authority for themselves, and havoc ensues.
Join us, this and every Wednesday from 5-7pm US Eastern time for another exciting episode of Outlaw Conservative! 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.
The players on this site now have 24/7/365 streaming content!
You can always listen to live Radical Agenda episodes at
Become an Outlaw Conservative premium member today to support this production, and get access to members only perks!
This production is made possible by the financial support of listeners and readers like you. I literally cannot do this without you.