Trumpzilla Draws Support From New Nationalists

 

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Let’s ponder that for a moment, more freedom and less government.  That would then mean — if we could delve into this just a little bit, how would you get more freedom?  More freedom to do what?  Is freedom something that you get or that is earned and then retained?  Or is freedom something that is fiat, meaning at will?  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  He writes about how everyone is meandering about dissatisfied and not happy about the current state of affairs.  Then we get into this:

[reading]

At its best, these frustrations would be articulated by the Republican Party in ways that lead to more freedom and less government.

[end reading]

Mike:  Let’s ponder that for a moment, more freedom and less government.  That would then mean — if we could delve into this just a little bit, how would you get more freedom?  More freedom to do what?  Is freedom something that you get or that is earned and then retained?  Or is freedom something that is fiat, meaning at will?  To use another Latin term, ad hoc, meaning it

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

works good now and I’m free to do it so maybe I should.  How is freedom guaranteed or earned in a society or civilization of men is another way to ask the question.  Does my definition of freedom comport with yours?  Is there a definition of freedom that would comport with most peoples?  Back to the story:

[reading]

At its worst, these frustrations cast aside Constitutional principles, encourage dictatorial behavior, and become the toxic political equivalent of the two Southie brothers who claimed Trump inspired them to beat up a Hispanic homeless man.

Dismiss Donald Trump if you will, but tonight in Alabama he is expected to draw 35,000 people. [Mike: This was written on Saturday last.] Try to do that with any other presidential candidate. The phenomenon is real, and the danger Trump presents for the Republican Party is real.

[end reading]

Mike:  The Republican Party presents its own danger to itself.  It’s inflicted its own damages and wounds upon itself.  That’s how you explain the popularity of Donald Trump inside the Republican Party.  It doesn’t even know what it’s supposed to stand for.

[reading]

Even without winning the GOP nomination, which is still a remote possibility at best . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  I don’t know why it’s remote.  The lead doesn’t seem to be shrinking, although I think that third party is far more likely.  You see, folks, ultimately what will happen is, they say, [mocking] “Trump could almost self-finance himself.  He probably could.  Here’s the problem.  There are 35 to 40 more Trumps out there who don’t want Trump and have all sorts of interest in the four-trillion-headed pie that gets divvied up every year.  Thus the threat of the third party Ross Perot scenario becomes very real.  The longer this goes on, the longer this continues, the more real and likely the Perot scenario or the Buchanan scenario becomes.  Look, I don’t have any problem with it.  I don’t want to live under Mrs. Clinton, which I think that’s what it will produce.  But if that’s what the people want, Mike, we should give them what they want.

[reading]

Ultimately, Trump presents a choice for the Republican Party about which path to follow: a path toward a coalition that is broad, classically liberal, and consistent with the party’s history, or a path toward a coalition that is reduced to the narrow interests of identity politics for white people.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s quite a statement, isn’t it?  How did the white guy get thrown in there?  How many of you people are old enough to remember AWM, angry white males?  Remember this?  This is what we were called back in the 1990s when the Clintons were first elected, and when Hillarycare got its first hearing and was resoundingly defeated, and so were many of the other initiatives by the Clintons, but certainly not enough.  Bill figured out how to play the game just in time to save himself a second term.  The rest, as they say, is sordid, unfortunate history.  If you were in opposition to the Clintons riding into town to save us on the backs of the alleged leadership of the Democrat leadership conference, the DLC as it was called — of course, that group is gone.  They killed that thing.  They had too many pro-life Democrats in there who are now Republicans and not Democrats anymore.  If you’re old enough to remember this, then you remember being called an angry white male.  First of all, is an angry white male to be distinguished from an angry colored male?  If both of them have guns in their hands and they’re both angry and they both are becoming violent, does it matter what color the guy is that intends to shoot you?  Back to the story:

[reading]

For decades, Republicans have held to the idea that they are unified by a fusionist ideological coalition with a shared belief in limited government, while the Democratic Party was animated by identity politics for the various member groups of its coalition. This belief has been bolstered in the era of President Obama, which has seen the Democratic Party stress identity politics narratives about the war on this or that group of Americans, even as they adopted a more corporatist attitude toward Wall Street and big business . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  You can say that again.  See Obamacare as an example.  If you need any example of the corporatism of the Dumbocrat Party now today, meaning they basically sold out to big business interests.  What they used to accuse the Republicans of doing is now bipartisan folly.  It’s very lucrative folly as well.  Of course, it’s folly because it’s presented as something other than what it is.  It’s lucrative because you and I finance it and they don’t.

[reading]

“Identity politics for white people” is not the same thing as “racism”, nor are the people who advocate for it necessarily racist, though of course the categories overlap. In fact, white identity politics was at one point the underlying trend for the majoritarian American cultural mainstream. But since the late 1960s, it has been transitioning in fits and starts into something more insular and distinct . . .

Trump’s appeal to these narrow interests is understandable and smart, given the tenor of the times. Among members of the American right and disaffected independents, voices of outrage railing against the collapse of the rule of law have increased steadily throughout Obama’s second term. Their opinion of the Supreme Court has fallen steadily . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  I have to ask a question.  Who and at what point in time had a high opinion of the Supreme Court?  When?  What sane individual has had a lofty opinion of a nine-member court that purports to be able to write and then enforce law for 310 million people without ever being elected, without ever having to run the risk of being unelected?  [mocking] “Well, he’s a Supreme Court justice.”  Guess what?  I bet you I can tell you which college he went to.  It’s one out of two.  I have a 50/50 chance here even if I don’t know.  For you, you look like a Yale guy.

[reading]

For those who believe Barack Obama has ruled like an Emperor, Trump offers them their own replacement who has the appeal of a traitor to his class . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  By the bye, here’s a little point of historic correction here.  The term emperor is originally — this is fascinating — is originally a military term.  It was not a term of divinity or of divinity of kingship.  It’s a military term.  It was a term of endearment for a Greek who was the equivalent of a general today, maybe a four-star general as we would call them. [/private]

[reading]

. . . Trump offers them their own replacement who has the appeal of a traitor to his class, dispensing entirely with the politeness of the politically correct elites and telling it always and forever like it is. If the president is to be an autocrat, let him be our kind of autocrat, these supporters say.

[end reading]

Mike:  That’s the reason I brought this piece, because I think that is principally correct.  Just based on the very animated, dissatisfied emails that I get on this subject, I’d say that that’s not only correct but I can demonstrate this in writing.  [mocking] “So what?  He may be like that but he’s not one of them.  We’ll have our king in there.”  That’s great.  We’re not against kings, we’re not against emperors, we just want an emperor that looks like us.  Genius.  What could possibly go wrong?

[reading]

If the president is to be an autocrat, let him be our kind of autocrat, these supporters say. It’s our turn now, and we want a golden-headed billionaire with the restraint of the bar fly and the tastes of Caligula, gliding his helicopter down to the Iowa cornfields like a boss. He’ll show Putin what for.

[end reading]

End Mike Church Show Transcript