Mr Obama Wins Reelection

The Mass Media has won yet again. I do not recommend despair. I do not recommend stoicism. I recommend singing.

Let me explain.

Back when I was a Libertarian, such a ill-starred event would have had me wondering when it was morally permissible to raise the Jolly Roger and begin slitting throats. Fortunately, the Christian religion, which places no faith in Earthly kings and regards no worldly dismay as inconsolable, also commands utter obedience to worldly authorities placed over us.

In a civilized and Constitutional Democracy of our particular nature, when the rival party achieves victory, the proper thing to do is bow in graceful submission to the will of the Electoral College, and not to descend into ungrateful grumbling about the supremacy of the popular vote. That is not how our Republic is instituted.

Therefore, congratulations to the Media, and to the Democrat Party which they have so loyally served lo these many years.

Come now, my fellow conservatives. We would expect the rival party manfully to show faith and fealty to the laws and administration if our party had prevailed, and, as patriots, we can do no less when they prevail.

That is the bargain; that is the deal; that is the social contract. Let them break it and go to the lowest and frozen floor of hell where traitors languish; let us keep it for our honor’s sake, and for the reward of the soft applause of angels.

The laws of civilization have protected our lives and goods, lo, these many years, and we owe the laws that same love and obedience we owe a father and a mother, who protect and sustain us. To break the law is as parricide.

Even to be grim and sulking is uncouth, and stirs the generous heart to laughter. Have we learned no good sportsmanship? Let them be the party known for its ill temper and lack of grace in defeat, as they are known for their ugly and ungainly vaunting and self flattery in victory. Let us bear both the temptation of defeat, the allure of despair and wrath, and the temptation of victory, the allure of pride, with stoic indifference and philosophical detachment.

Are we not men? Indeed, this night has proved we may be the only adults left in the nation. I pray you act it.

Let us shake hands and congratulate the incumbents, and wish them well, and pray for wise counsel to bless their leadership which is also ours, and pray for the enmity born of rivalry to be forgotten.

Let us vow obedience and good will to the regime who rules and reigns over us.

Lest I be accused of mawkishness, or false sunshine, I assure my readers I have no illusions about the meaning of this vote.

The American Republic just voted itself away. The American Dream just voted itself into the comfortable morphine overdose of financial euthanasia.

Life and Death was set before us, and the majority chose death.

We faithful Christians should never have had faith in the wisdom and common sense of the fallen Sons of Adam to begin with: it is in our fallen nature to chose death over life, because life makes demands and requires much of us, painful duties and the wild glory of love, whereas death is hoped to be a dreamless sleep, and a rest from a restless conscience.

(And the wise know that hope of oblivion is vain, that eternity awaits, of shockingly wakeful joy or shockingly wakeful woe. We shall not sleep in death. We sleep now.)

Do I exaggerate when I say America chose death? I have a ferocious poetical heart, which I attempt at all times to keep in check by my cool and rational Houyhnhnm brain, and so I hope this is an example of exaggeration.

I pray to God that I be proven a false prophet, and would be delighted to be the laughingstock of all right thinking and comfortable people, if only, O my Savior, I be proved wrong.  St Isaiah and St Daniel, patrons of true prophecy, let these my words be shown vain and false.

I sincerely hope I have made some grave error in my dark and unlovely prognostications for the years to come.

If not, and if I have made no great error, then expect an appointment or two to the Supreme Court of unqualified radical activist Justices of the Frankfurt School who will enact such changes destructive of the integrity of the Constitution and of the legal system, that it will never recover. Objectivity in law will then be dead beyond resuscitation: the law thereafter be a tool of one faction to oppress another faction, or the instrument of bureaucrats to perform mindless and meaningless acts of malign regulation.

If not, then the new industrial revolution which cheap energy would have ushered in, and the corresponding loss to the Oil Sheiks of petrodollars to fund International Terrorism, shall be strangled in its cradle by environmentalists and microregulation.

If not, expect further American funding, encouragement and applause for Islamic Terrorism, and expect the rise and solidification of further Islamic Republics, further betrayal of Israel, and perhaps the ignition of the first of many Jihadist atom bombs.

If not, expect a twenty percent unemployment rate; and expect it not to be reported in the press.

If not, expect the ruination of the health care system.

If not, expect Catholic charities and institutions to close their doors as they are driven out of public life relentlessly, and woe to the orphans, the poor, the widow, the prisoner in goal. Their suffering shall increase in order that the hideous and Lovecraftian idols of Political Correctness be appeased.

If not, expect more, far more, rule by fiat, where bureaucratic agencies will simply ignore Congress, and enforce regulations for which there is no legal mandate, and ignore the enforcement of laws they are required to enforce.

If not, expect totalitarian anarchy.

If not, expect a law that reaches to every nook and corner of your lives, every jot and tittle, but a law divorced from public weal, precedent, common sense, or due process. It will be a law of utterly arbitrary process. The law will serve the aristocrats of “pull”, a new class of courtiers and donors who find favor in the eyes of the powers that be,  and the law will grind the faces of the poor and dispossessed and nonconformist and the rich who find no favor.

If not, expect that the whining, lying, self-righteous, churlish, and childish spirit of the Socialist shall become the final and permanent spirit of the age.

If not, the idea of an independent man, an independent idea, will be not so much unfashionable as unfathomable. Future conservative victories here in America will be roughly as meaningful as the victories of so called conservative parties in Europe.

If not, the US Dollar will no longer be the world reserve currency.

If not, expect hypertaxation. Expect hyperinflation.

If not, expect no honest elections ever to be held again. The Chicago Way has triumphed.

This is what the Americans voted for.

Gullible, aren’t we?

Despite this, it is not the End of the World, even if it is the end of the American predominance and prosperity.

Life will continue, if not as pleasantly. The American Dream will not continue.

Despite all this, we still live under a better regime and better leadership than the early Christians, who endured Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus, Maximin, Decius, and the various Arian Emperors in the East. Let us utter no complaint.

Christians now, this day, this hour, suffer humiliation and deprivation and death in lands overseas under regimes American administrations of both parties have funded and supported. The count of martyrs is higher in these modern years than any ancient persecutions boasts. Let us utter no complaint.

Christians must yield to the will of heaven, and obey lawful authority, and Americans must abide lawfully and faithfully by the will of the majority.

In this case, it is akin to the duty of the Captain of the Titanic to go down with his ship without complain or undue expressions of emotional excess. We must stay at our posts, loyal Americans, while the decks are awash.

For I believe in miracles. The sunken ship of civilization after the Fall of Rome rose again. Our civilization has not even fallen, albeit I, at least, hear the timbers creaking. She may not yet fall: for perhaps Heaven has decreed otherwise.

Let us still be grateful that we live in a freer nation than our neighbors, and some mechanism still exists to correct and amend our nation without the need for bloody revolution.

I can see no way, once a people is corrupted by government dependency, of recovering our ancient liberties. The majority will vote themselves bread and circuses until the funds run out, and vote themselves ever deeper into debt until the credulity of lenders runs out. It is an addiction which relaxes the nerve of discipline, and a moral disease that leads to mental blindness.

But with God, all things are possible.

Perhaps I grossly overestimate the damage that has been done and will yet be done. Perhaps some new economic activity able to escape the Lilliputian cords and bindings of our enviro-hyperregulatory anticapitalist state will bloom where no man looks to see it, and produce such a blinding abundance of wealth as to enable us in, say, only ninety years rather than nine hundred, to pay down the national debt. Perhaps the horse will learn to sing hymns.

Let us be grateful for all the blessings the gracious Lord has bestowed upon our unworthy heads; the His blessings are still many and deep.

The Lord of Heaven did not turn His face away from Israel, even while He permitted her, for the sake of her sins, to fall into captivity.

We have become strangers in our own land. Our fate is more generous than theirs, and, all all accounts, they were a more pious and righteous people. God is gracious.

Let us sing a song:

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.

For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.

How shall we sing the LORD’S song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.


  1. Comment by Sean Michael:

    Dear Mr. Wright:

    As so often, your words are wise and noble, and I agree with them! I admit to finding it difficult to feel anything better than stoic endurance when I expect nothing but folly and ruin from the policies preferred by Mr. Obama and his Democrats and media enablers.

    One small quibble. is it right to include Marcus Aurelius in your list of bad Roman Emperors?

    Sean M. Brooks

    • Comment by jtherry:

      Marcus Aurelius persecuted the Christians by issuing a decree for universal sacrifice.

      • Comment by Sean Michael:

        Hi, jtherry:

        What you said about Marcus Aurelius is true. But he was still an upright and conscientious Emperor devoted to his duty and to what light was granted him to see.

        The vexed matter of “sacrifices” goes back to the Roman belief that patriotic loyalty to the Empire meant citizens sacrificing to the Roman gods and the “genius” of the Emperor. It took a long weary time before the idea arose that loyalty to the state does not have to mean adherence to gods or religion sponsored by the state.

        Sean M. Brooks

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          Nonetheless, no matter how good Marcus Aurelius was as a man, and no matter how justly he deserves the admiration of philosophers for the Stoic wisdom in his MEDITATIONS, the brutal fact of the matter was that this man, history’s only real philosopher king, persecuted the Christians cruelly.

          That the Romans deemed it a matter of patriotic duty to burn incense to the divine Imperator means as much, or as little, as the fact that the Americans regard it as a matter of legal duty to provide employees of Catholic institutions with health plans paying for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, contraception.

          It is, in other words, irrelevant.

          I included the name of this Emperor on the list because he persecuted us, just a jtherry said. His Empire was more cruel and vicious than the current happy circumstances here in America, even with the appalling recent victories of the Politically Correctors and their creatures.

          • Comment by Sean Michael:

            Dear Mr. Wright:

            I agree that Marcus Aurelius being a good man does not change the fact he enforced the laws persecuting Christians. The only mention of Chrstians in his MEDITATIONS is to decry the “obstinacy” of the early Catholics. Which itself shows how little even good and upright pagans of Marcus’ time understood them.

            And, yes, the Roman Empire, like all other societies of that time, was cruel and vicious. All the advances we have made since then has been slow and gradual, built on the work of small as well as giants. Largely because of Christianity and the idea of the limited state and scientific method it fostered.

            Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

            • Comment by John C Wright:

              Marcus Aurelius also killed Saint Valentine in whose name lovers pen each other letters hung on trees, and so on.


              Noted evangelist, miracle worker and healer, he was much loved by his flock. Imprisoned, tortured, and beheaded by order of the prefect Placid Furius during the persecution of Aurelius. He was murdered in secret and at night to avoid riots and revenge by the people of Terni.

              So while I am sure that Rommel the Desert Fox was nice to dogs and children and never cheated at cards, he was still a general of the Nazi regime and served it, in the same way Marcus Aurelius Imperator served the Prince of Darkness and persecuted the body of Christ.

              • Comment by Sean Michael:

                Dear Mr. Wright:

                I did some quick checking, and there seems to be some confusion about which St. Valentine was martyred. Catholic Answers said St. Valentine was martyred by command of Claudius II in 269. And that was long after Marcus Aurelius died in 180. Another, less well known St. Valentine seems to have been the one who suffered under Marcus.

                And I still think Marcus Aurelius was a good man who was true to such light as was granted to him. We should pray for his soul despite his share in persecuting Christians.

                Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

                • Comment by John C Wright:

                  And some people hold that Valentine of Terni was the same as Valentine of Rome.

                  What does it matter? Aurelian persecuted the Christians. Mr Obama and the Politically Correctoids of which he is the end result and apotheosis do not, in America, persecute the Christians, they merely mock and slight us, and interfere with the free exercise of our religion. Therefore Aurelian is worse than Obama and we should be grateful.

                  That was what my comment was, and I am a little puzzled that you seem to want to argue the point. After I see a man kick my daughter’s puppy to death, and then gouges out her eyes, and then buries her alive while she cries and clutches her doll, it does not really matter to me that this man is kind to his slaves, has punctual habits, enjoys good books, and it a teetotaler.

                  Aurelian was a Stoic, as was I, and if he was like me, he was proud and cold and good only in that he eschewed vice and kept his self control. It is a rather intellectual and dispassionate philosophy, and it is not “good” in the sense a Christian should use this word. Aurelian might have been brave, prudent, temperate and just, but he was not faithful, charitable, and hopeful. Stoicism is a doctrine of grim and lofty despair. Take it from one who knows.

                  Pray for him if you wish, but pray first for his victims, who are members of the same body as all baptized Christians.

                  Marcus Aurelius also abolished fire companies throughout the empire, because allowing young men to meet in groups large enough to extinguish fires carried an unacceptable risk of sedition; and so he ordered every household merely to keep buckets of water near the door.

                  He may have been the nicest and wisest tyrant of all history, but he was still a tyrant, and since my brothers in Christ were the once on the receiving end of his tyranny, don’t expect me to exclude him from the list of persecuting Emperors, on the grounds that he wrote a good book.

  2. Comment by CPE Gaebler:

    “If not, expect a twenty percent unemployment rate; and expect it not to be reported in the press.”
    Ah, that one’s already true, as the numbers for unemployment they quote are only for those who have sought work in the past four weeks.
    Apparently, the real number of people without jobs is closer to 22%.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Ironically, this is a misprint. I meant to write “expect a fifty percent unemployment rate.”

      Maybe the typing fairies were trying to send me a sign that the unemployment rate will not reach the levels I fear once hyperinflation hits.

      Although, how one can run a service economy, whose major export is expert advice on how to negotiate the labyrinths of legal red tape of the hyperregulatory state, when all the basics of the economy, mining, farming, heavy industry and such are gutted or outsourced overseas, and when the banking system collapses, without reaching unimaginably high levels of unemployment, that I do not know.

      • Comment by Sean Michael:

        Dear Mr. Wright:

        And I don’t think fifty percent unemployment is an impossibility. What that means it will be impossible for the US gov’t to keep on doing things like issuing SS checks, food stamps, Medicare (never mind Barrycare!), etc., etc. Even if recourse is taken to desperate means like Weimar style inflation, you will still be buying less and less with the sacks of cash you will have to carry around. The political and social consequences will, to put it mildly, be less than beneficial.

        Sincerely, Sean M. Brooks

    • Comment by Alan Silverman:

      My wife is not gainfully employed. Instead, she stays home and manages the household, corrals the kids, and spends time with other non-working mothers. Should she be considered unemployed?

  3. Comment by ErisGuy:

    “a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.”

    Which time is our own?

    The (somewhat) American people have voted for the death and destruction of America. The land will not be depopulated. The 1960s were the birth of a new people; this is their triumph.

  4. Comment by The Deuce:

    Perhaps some new economic activity able to escape the Lilliputian cords and bindings of our enviro-hyperregulatory anticapitalist state will bloom where no man looks to see it

    Might I suggest that people look into BitCoins? I haven’t thus far, but I’m seriously considering it now: unprintable, untraceable, and untaxable.

    • Comment by Gigalith:

      I wondered if bitcoins would ever come up here. Studying Bitcoin myself, mostly out of curiosity. I have come to a grudging respect for the protocol. All the potential attacks I have thought of are already countered. That said, theoretical security and practical plausibility are two different things.

      (On the gripping hand, there is something like one bitcoin transaction/second going on right now; it is genuinely being used as a currency. )

      I would be wary of investing any serious money for at least a month, namely because:

      1. The first generation ASICs are scheduled to come online around the end of this month, making most non-ASIC or FPGA mining unprofitable.

      2. The block reward will halve around the same time, halving the theoretical profit of any miners.

      Of course, bitcoin is more than bitmining. However, the exchange rate may be swing either way because of the disruption to the mining industry. It’s possible the value of bitcoins will collapse. It’s possible that the price will double. There’s no way of knowing.

    • Comment by joeclark77:

      Do they work if the power or the internet connection goes out? Can you eat them when you’re starving? Can you trade them to your neighbor for the last of his medicine when there’s no more supply coming from the factory?

      • Comment by The Deuce:

        Do they work if the power or the internet connection goes out?

        No, you need the Internet to make a BitCoin transaction. But as long as you have your password, you can’t lose possession of them.

        Can you eat them when you’re starving?

        No more than you can do so with the dollars in your bank account.

        Can you trade them to your neighbor for the last of his medicine when there’s no more supply coming from the factory?

        That depends on them gaining increased popularity as a currency. Of course, in a complete economic meltdown sort of scenario you’re describing here, dollars wouldn’t help you either.

        My interest in BitCoins is that 1) They’re scarce, and nobody, not even their inventors, can increase their supply beyond the scheduled rollout, and 2) BitCoin transactions can’t be traced, perhaps giving people a way to do transactions while escaping regulatory overhead, and perhaps giving churches the ability to fund their missions while avoiding Caesar’s attempts to force them to participate in the funding of murder.

        • Comment by joeclark77:

          It sounds like a good system as far as it goes. My own little area of philosophy is thinking about systems in terms of their vulnerability to “black swan” events (i.e., disasters that we can’t or don’t anticipate). So when I think about a system, I don’t think about the “probability” that it will break down, or the expectation/average of how it performs, but rather I ask: what things have to be assumed to go right in order for this to work? I think about dependencies. So when I read about the BitCoin (and today is the first day I’ve heard of it) my immediate reaction is to wonder what can this do that gold or silver can’t do better. I find the dependency especially on the Internet to be highly troubling. Government can’t regulate it? Maybe not, but they can certainly block it or shut it down if they have to.

          I suppose the advantage over precious metals is immunity to random bodily searches, but somehow I think the government’s ability to control the Internet will come sooner than its ability to effectively control our bodies and find the mayonnaise jars buried in our gardens.

          • Comment by Gigalith:

            The main selling point of Bitcoin is its decentralization. Anyone — even you or I — can set up a Bitcoin node, hook it into the network, and theoretically be peers to every other node. To make a transaction permanent requires enormous amounts of number-crunching, usually requiring special equipment, but merely to send and verify transactions does not. There isn’t to one server to block, there are, theoretically thousands. This doesn’t stop the government from finding each of those servers and beating their admins with heavy sticks, but this direct system attack wouldn’t be the most efficient.

            Instead, the much easier target is the exchanges. Shutting them down would make all dollar-bitcoin traffic black market. And unless there’s a sufficient number of users who will accept bitcoin directly, they’ll be about as useful as a bank that allows neither deposit or withdrawal, and whose account is in an alien currency. I suppose if there’s a nation that DOES accept bitcoin as legal, one could store one’s earnings in bitcoin, and hope the value remains when the dust clears.

            The biggest weakness of Bitcoin is that if more than %50 of the network is controlled by a single entity, then that entity can prevent transactions from occurring. To do so, however, would require super-computer levels of processing power–not a problem for a government, but not cheap, either.

  5. Comment by robertjwizard:

    Nice post, Mr. Wright,

    Luckily I have my own little cadre of loyal customers that I was blessed to have with me tonight at work as we looked on at the celebratory tables. My bosses were dismayed as well.

    But on top of the insult of Obama winning, and yet another democratic sap for Washington governor, we, all indications say, voted in same sex marriage. I am terribly against this, it is an insolent slap in the face of the institution of marriage. A view, in my experience, that is not shared by most Christians that I know.

    They can have their victory – all of it. But for now my mood will be quite black.

  6. Comment by Christopher:

    What about the Ohio provisional votes? There is no victor yet.

    God Bless.

    • Comment by Christopher:

      ‘What about the Ohio provisional votes? There is no victor yet.’

      Sorry Mr. Wright, I meant ignore this comment as quoted, it turns out the vote isn’t great enough.

      As to America,

      Kyrie Eleison

      God Bless.

  7. Comment by Mary:

    Let nothing disturb thee;
    Let nothing dismay thee:
    All thing pass;
    God never changes.
    Patience attains
    All that it strives for.
    He who has God
    Finds he lacks nothing:
    God alone suffices.

    Teresa of Avila

  8. Comment by joeclark77:

    I keep thinking of those quotes I read from the real-life Cristero rebels in Mexico. I think I read them on your blog or another Catholic blog around the time that movie “For Greater Glory” came out. Some of the quotes positively celebrated the fact that all masks were off and they could face the devil in the open. One was something like “Oh, how our grandfathers would have loved to live in these times when you could have a good chance of becoming a martyr” and another was “Let’s buy heaven while it’s cheap”.

    Of course I pray for peace and prosperity and civilization. But there’s a silver lining to the dark cloud of the impending dark age. Among other things, the line between good and evil is much clearer. Our hopes in man have been disappointed and we have nowhere else to turn but to God. It may be easier to be holy.

  9. Comment by Gigalith:

    In the end, I voted for Romney, for the repeal of the HHS mandate if no other reason. I believe I would vote the same, had I known Romney would lose.

    In any case, the popular vote totals were not that far apart–only a few million. I do not believe it is any of Romney’s failings that brought this defeat, though we may wish otherwise. I believe Obama was simply more popular.

    It is also my belief that America will not become a dictatorship.

    Montesquieu holds that the defining principle of a despotism is fear. The people fear the soldiers, the soldiers fear their officers, the officers fear the general, the general fears the vizir, the vizir fears the emperor, and the emperor, in the end, fears the people. This cycle of fear prevents the despotism from finally sliding into anarchy.

    Does the modern culture fear? Hardly. It drinks all night and complains of the hangover. It embezzles and then expects others to pay to put the money back. It votes multiple times–impersonating others and stealing their votes–and brags about it on twitter. It has sex with everything that moves, and then complains that its previous partners are jealous. It cheats on the test and wants to be congratulated for its cunning. It cannot stand one moment of an unpleasant activity, yet demands others drop everything and serve its every whim. The only difference between this culture and a whining baby is that a baby is small, cute, and generally harmless. They have all the willpower, wants, and ethics of a toddler and none of its innocence.

    In short, this will not be the state that will with drone strike and police raid clamp down on every dissident thought. This will be the state where drunken drone operators crash their machines, cover it up, and expect to get a medal for it. This will be the state where the only place the police will “raid” is the brothel. The only method of controlling this “army” is waving shiny things, ideology, or vengeance, and hoping that their attention span lasts long enough.

    This is not to say that the Church will not be persecuted. It always has been, and always will be until the end of the world. Hatred of the Church is motive sufficient for any number of churches to be sacked. But what of afterwards? When all the charities have been robbed, who will feed them when there is no more food? When all the monks are dead and all the nuns raped, who will be left to care for them when their livers finally fails? If they drive love out, no matter how we hard we attempt to give it, we will see how long they will survive without it.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      I also do not believe America will become a hard dictatorship of the type you describe. I believe it will simply and softly choke on her own regulations, lose all sense of initiative, all sense of purpose, and yield economic influence and military power in the world stage to fall off a fiscal cliff to a second rate or third rate nation, unfortunately dragging Europe and the Pacific Rim with her.

      For better or worse, I do not think China a sufficient power to maintain peace and order on the high seas, so I suspect the era of postwar international trade will be severely curtailed, becoming uncertain and impoverished.

  10. Comment by Mrmandias:

    Well, it may not be as bad as we fear, and more likely the evils we fear would have come to pass regardless of the outcome of the election. So take sensible precautions, including making strong local ties with reliable friends, and play for the culture using the long game. You, Mr. Wright, are very valuable in the long game, but not because of your unflinching argument on this blog, but because of your fiction writing. True heroism, virtue, and love, are self-evident once one is exposed to them. And some who are so exposed will not be able to maintain the cognitive dissonance with their other beliefs.

  11. Comment by Curubethion:

    Professor Bob Rice had a really good perspective on this, actually. Here’s to learning how to stand up over these next four years.

  12. Comment by David Meyer:

    Bill Whittle has a very calm, reasonable, and positive approach to the new era we entered today:

  13. Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

    On the subject of hyperinflation, I wonder if you would care to place a small bet?

    I propose that I give you, as soon as you assent, 10 dollars; on the condition that, after the election of 2016, you pay me back 15 dollars. If hyperinflation has occurred, 15 dollars will of course be worthless, and I will quite likely tell you “Never mind, keep it, you were right”. So I will have given you ten dollars when they were worth something, and you will presumably have exchanged them for goods of value. On the other hand, if hyperinflation has not occurred, then 50% increase over four years works out to an interest rate somewhat in excess of 10%; so I will have made a reasonable profit, even relative to putting the same ten dollars into stocks or bonds.

    Betting on inflation is the best sort of economic bet: There’s no need to agree on how to adjudicate it, or argue about government statistics, or find a third party to judge who won. We need merely agree on a nominal repayment, and the inflation itself will be our judge. If there is, say, ten percent inflation yearly between now and 2016, not hyperinflation but rather more than I expect, then the bet will be a wash: I will get back the purchasing power I put in. (Well, actually you would win since you’d have the use of the money for those four years; so really the break-even point is rather below ten percent.)

    So, will you put future money where your present mouth is?

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      This is the second time someone asked me to wager on a conclusion of economics. As I explained to the other gambler, I still believe in human free will, and still believe they can change their fate, if they act. Are you asking me to bet that my fellow men will be stupid, will not react to an obvious danger, will not take steps?

      Also, economics is not physics, is not an empirical science. It does not say when hyperinflation will hit, because that depends on how people in the money lending business react, and how the Federal Reserve Board reacts. My conclusion is that, since ‘quantitative easing’ was embarked upon in large part to allow one arm of the bureaucracy to buy up bonds issued by another, that this creates a very powerful incentive to hyperinflation.

      • Comment by ERaskob:

        I, on the other hand, would be glad to take you up on your wager. Would you care to make it $100, to be returned as $150?

        Though I would add a condition that I not be in prison for “hate crimes” at the time the return is due. Any real crime would not remove the obligation.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          “First, a willingness to wager actual hard-earned money demonstrates that one’s position is not cheap talk and loose prattle. “

          Does this actually need demonstration? I should be offended, if I thought your talk was not cheap prattle itself.

          • Comment by John C Wright:

            Actually, looking back over the thread, I am offended, because you called me a coward. I cannot answer you as you deserve, but I can throw your worthless comments in the trash. It falls under the same rule I have about maintaining insults to my family on my blog.

            • Comment by Nostreculsus:

              5 year treasury yields dropped to .67% yesterday. Some corporate yields are even lower, presumably because these corporations are more creditworthy than the federal treasury.

              So Dr Andreassen is simply offering to lend money at about 10% which he can presumably borrow at about 1%. This is how banks make a profit – they borrow cheap and lend dear.

              But the scheme depends on Mr Wright’s good credit. So actually, Dr Andreassen’s bet attests to his faith in Mr Wright’s probity and honour.

              • Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

                I believe he would not welch on a bet, yes.

                Banks make a profit by lending at a rate greater than inflation. If you genuinely believe that hyperinflation is coming, why not borrow at the 0.67% you mention, and pay it back in worthless paper?

                • Comment by Nostreculsus:

                  Banks make a profit by lending at a rate greater than inflation.

                  That is a desirable policy for any lender. Anyone who buys treasury bills these days is violating this simple principle, and so will lose principal.

                  [W]hy not borrow at the 0.67% you mention, and pay it back in worthless paper?

                  I wonder if Timothy Geithner has thought of this? I almost feel a bit sorry for the Chinese.

              • Comment by John C Wright:

                No one who knew the state of my finances would extend me credit, or, for that matter, invite me to wager.

      • Comment by Gigalith:

        I believe the bet is in reverse. HE gives YOU ten dollars now, and four years from now, you give him back fifteen, whatever that would be worth. The only trust is whether you will indeed give him back fifteen dollars in the future.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          What does it matter? If he does not know enough economics to be alarmed by the prospect of printing up fiat money for the purpose of paying interest on national debt by buying our own bonds from ourselves, what would a ten or fifteen dollar bet persuade him? Why is he trying to find out how convinced I am of what I am saying, instead of LOOKING at what I am saying?

          Has he no ability whatever to reason therefore he must take my word for it?

    • Comment by robertjwizard:

      Rolf – as in the case of the free will discussion, you have a fixation on irrelevancies.

  14. Comment by Darth Imperius:

    John, I think religious traditionalists need to do three things:

    1) Engage in “rightist Gramscianism”. That is, you need to memetically dismantle liberal and leftist ideology by infiltrating the educational and cultural institutions of the West just as the leftists have. The root of your problems is your retreat from cultural institutions, which has enabled the takeover by leftist and liberal ideologues. There has been no strong voice of religious traditionalism in Western civilization for a very long time, and the chickens have come home to roost.

    2) Form an alliance with Muslims and other non-Westerners whose worldviews are much closer to yours than yours are to the leftists. Many Traditionalists have concluded that Islam is the strongest counter-force to modernity and have converted, but this isn’t necessary. Most Muslims are *not* hostile to Christians and agree with you on most issues. In Paris, Catholics and Salafists march together for a religious renewal, and I expect to see much more of this. This is a global ideological struggle between religious conservatism and secular liberalism, and you can’t afford to alienate so many people who could be your most passionate allies.

    3) Continue having more children than the secularists, whose very ideology works against them demographically. In the pro-death modern West, having many children is a potent statement of dissent and will to power.

    • Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

      The root of your problems is your retreat from cultural institutions, which has enabled the takeover by leftist and liberal ideologues.

      It is not unreasonable to say that the problems of the right are caused partly or largely by their absence from academia, yes. But why assume that it is something that can be corrected as a point of conscious strategy? In calling it a ‘retreat’ you accidentally put your finger on the problem: Armies retreat when they have to because they lost a battle or because they would lose one if they fought. Your advice is a bit like that of a general who notices that the enemy artillery, which dominates the countryside for miles around and interferes with his every maneuver, is all concentrated on a hill. “Ah-hah,” he says, “all we have to do is retake that hill”. Well yes; but firstly it’s in the middle of the enemy army, and secondly you lost it, back in the day, for a reason.

      In short, you should offer a strategy for retaking academia, not merely point out that it needs to be done.

      • Comment by Darth Imperius:

        My strategy is to found alternative academies, and to secede from the mundane world until the current order has collapsed and/or my power is sufficient to overthrow it. Following the defeat of the Axis, Julius Evola wrote some insightful books for those who are in revolt against the modern world, which Catholics may want to read now. It took the Sith of Star Wars a thousand years to overthrow the Jedi regime and regain power, and perhaps it will be the same for us.

        Peter Carroll wrote insightfully about the future when he said:

        “Decades, possibly centuries, of warfare lie ahead. The remnants of monotheism are collapsing fast, despite the odd revival, before secular humanism and consumerism. The technological, atheist super-states are trying for a stranglehold on human consciousness. We are entering a phase which may become as oppressive to the spirit as medieval monotheism.”

        Welcome to the Kali Yuga…

        • Comment by Rolf Andreassen:

          My strategy is to found alternative academies, and to secede from the mundane world until the current order has collapsed and/or my power is sufficient to overthrow it.

          So… you intend to found a monastery? (Or, dare I say it, a commune?) Each initiate and novice, perhaps, copying one of the works of Hayek or Mises by hand, with a feather pen on fine parchment, to inscribe the words on his heart as much as on the scroll. In the afternoons they will practice their martial arts, gaining the discipline and self-command that will enable them to overthrow the moocher hordes when at last the time is ripe to sally forth from their bastions of learning. Until the Day arrives, they make a living by teaching some of their lesser arts to the curious or ambitious, who, facing only the competition of mind-deadened looter drones trained in the chanting of slogans rather than actual thought, will enjoy great success even with the minor disciplines.

          I speak jestingly, but the strategy is not without merit. Indeed I have occasionally thought of founding my own university, which would not have a department offering X Studies, nor an athletics program (at least, not one to compete with other universities in football leagues and the like; encouraging the students to stay healthy, perhaps by requiring them to pass physicals in order to graduate, is a different question), nor a speech code.

          Indeed, it does rather seem that if a classical education is indeed superior, if there’s such a thing as being trained in thought which modern colleges are failing to do, then it should be possible to set up an educational institution offering that training, and let the success of the graduates be one’s argument. This is still a capitalist society, after all. If Harvard is no longer offering the genuine product, then let creative destruction do its work; prestige is a fine thing, but a picket don’t last forever, you know.

      • Comment by Mary:

        It is perfectly possible to lose positions and then regain them even when you have lost them through faults of your own.

        What you presuppose is that we are flawed to the heart, intrinsically. This is a foolish assumption for anyone to make about anyone else, and a wicked one to make about yourself.

    • Comment by Darth Imperius:

      I probably should have added a fourth item:

      4) Reclaim the Future. Offer visions of the future in which religion is central, rather than obsolete. The ability of secular liberals to own the future in the popular imagination has been their most potent black magical weapon.

      In fact, Mr. Wright might be a good candidate to lead this new cultural revolution. Right Gramscianism = Wrightism?

    • Comment by Manwe King of the Valar:

      Darth, having long been used to the sort of strange comments you like to make, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but…your right.

  15. Comment by Stephen J.:

    I’ve been consoling myself (for lack of a better word) with something I thought of last night. (Warning: this is a rather grim comment in some lights, and you may wish to skip it; alternately, righteous denunciations may well fit too.)

    Somewhere out there, there is a person who is absolutely overjoyed, or at the very least smugly pleased, with this election result (as would be the case had things gone the other way). He or she is looking forward to things improving, or going back to how they “should be”; he or she is relaxing, feeling happy, optimistic. As would be the case had things gone the other way.

    And within the week, that overjoyed or happy person will be dead.

    He or she will die of something that has nothing to do with politics or elections. A car accident, or a random violent crime, or an unsuspected time-bomb health issue. His or her loved ones will be devastated. Those who depend on him or her will be left adrift, terrified and struggling. Those who invested their future in him or her will be left empty, despairing and anguished. For all of them, the utter irrelevance of everything invested in elections and nations and governments will suddenly become stunningly, horribly clear, as the Lord comes like a thief in the night to those who know not the hour or the day.

    I do not paint this picture to rejoice in schadenfreude; this may well (dear God please forbid) happen to me myself, or to someone I love, or to anyone known or loved by readers here. I contemplate this truth (for statistically I think the above hypothesis is little short of inevitable) to try to remember what matters most in a life which for all of us leads to the Last Things. The Lord maketh the sun to rise on the just and the unjust alike, and we are judged not on how well we regulate others’ use of their talents but on what we do with our own, with the matters beneath our own hands. If there is to be persecution, loss and sacrifice, we were told by our own Saviour there always would be; let us think of the Copts in Egypt, and count the evils of the day sufficient thereto.

    God bless, everyone.

  16. Comment by frankweathers:

    Sing with me John! But first, a wee prayer passed down by our Fathers. Then we sing. ;)

  17. Ping from After the Election, What Really Matters…UPDATED:

    […] UPDATES:More thoughts and prayers for the journey.Trust in the Lord!Revenge of the Lady Parts…John C. Wright recommends singing too.   /* /* Filed Under: Living, Prayer, Working Tagged With: Catechism, Clarity, LOTR, […]

  18. Comment by gray mouser:

    “Despite this, it is not the End of the World, even if it is the end of the American predominance and prosperity.”

    If there is one thing I have been critical of American conservatives about it is the idea that we,a s a country, are “a shining city on a hill.” America may be the only country founded on a creed, as Chesterton pointed out, but the particular brand of Protestantism that has come of age here has a problematic conflation of ecclesiology (and eschatology) with the country itself. I think there can be a certain subscritption to this idea, so long as we realize that it is yet more different from what God means by that shining city than it is similar to it. If the U.S. is in any way a “shining city on a hill” it is as a pale reflection of the glory that is the Church.

    The members of the CHURCH are a light to the world and a city on a hill which cannot be hidden. This country, like all purely human institutions, WILL pass away. And while it is a sad thing to see the Republic I love implode on itself, victim of a citizenry acting like so many crabs in a bucket rushing to pull down any individual fortunate to pull itself up from the masses, it was inevitable. As De Tocqueville pointed out, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”

    By that standard we have outlived many other civilizations. My only sadness, apart from a certain selfishness (I have no wish to live out my days as a recusant, though I will), is that I wish it were not during my children’s life times. They will never know how great this country once was. God willing, they will be some of the ones who make it great again.

  19. Ping from American’s Deserve to Get What They Want « Free Northerner:

    […] Rollo and Mark Minter Private Man Freedom 25 Empathological CMD-N Sunshine Mary Ian Ironwood John Wright White Sepulchre The Captain The Captain Again Vox Vox Again GLP Neanderpundit Apocalypse Nowish An […]

  20. Comment by Dystopia Max:

    Everyone is using words that mean very little to those with a little experience.

    Stop talking about how your “fellow men” will save you unless you know those men are not already beholden to women, the voting bloc which actually is reliably liberal.

    Stop talking about alliances with Islam. Valerie Jarrett already runs the country’s foreign policy, Hillary relies on Huma Abedin, Obama mostly signs papers, gives speeches, evokes 60’s nostalgia, and plays golf. Do you not think feminists have already infiltrated Islamic fundamentalist groups? Do you think a clique of openly gay hedonists in Hollywood is worse than homosexuality as universal cultural practice on old and young? Do you have any other ropes of straw you want to offer?

    If you’re not willing to stand up to your own women for the sake of abstract truth and common goals you may as well give up now. They are the evolutionary force, the ones who do the work that’s nearest, the practical people, those who see no farther than the end of their nose or the limits of their personal fantasies, those who use all the time and money they have diligently and completely with no thought toward anything but obedience to their feelings, the followers and enforcers of fashion, and the consensus junkies.

    Men, whether as individuals or in groups, are the revolutionary force, the one that does things with an eye toward an ultimate end, sees the big picture, can see the timelines attached to people rather than just how they present themselves, the artists, the romantics, the ones who can be counted on to hold to their faith to the end and die for it, and who actually take individual responsibility for actions, rather than force collective responsibility for their complaints.

    Also, the trusting, altruistic, inventive, and open nature of white men can make just about any half-cocked system work for a time, whether it be Communism, socialism, or Apple products. (This is also how they managed to make Christian marriage work as well as it did in times past-creativity as a public habit bleeds down into private practice.) Worry about uniting them first, and the rest of the female-selected races will fall into line according to their nature.

    In short, WAKE UP WHITE MAN. You will have to become a leader, soldier, and public institution unto yourself or your local community for a short time, but new experiences are what following truth is all about. Professionalism is a luxury of prosperity; only dilettantes can move freely in a time of crisis.

    • Comment by John C Wright:

      Joanna K McPortland writes (

      Because here‘s the HuffPost giving credit for the Obama win to a bunch of voting vaginas. And the vaginas (along with some uteri sistahs) are gleefully applauding themselves. Just a sample (all sic) from the, pardon the pun, combox:

      Don’t mess with people with vaginas.

      As a woman, I don’t care to have OLD WHITE GUY’s on Viagra telling me what to do with my Vajaja!!

      I woke up this morning and didn’t find a republican in my vagina.

      For the bible thumpin’ political holier than thou’s…when we collectively said “get your mitts off my uterus” we MEANT it!

      WOOT WOOT! Ladies, show ‘em your uterus! And slap their head for even looking!

      Yes, I voted with my lady parts. I don’t really agree with much of what Obama has done—drones in war, no public option in health care, etc. etc. But no way were the outspoken misgynists getting my vote.

      I think it’s time to stop using the sexist gender “gap”. It’s a vagina, ok? Do you hear us talking about the gender woodie, or gender Dick, when we are talking about you?


      I’d give you more, but I don’t like morning sickness unless there’s going to be a baby at the end of it.

      This is merely by way of comparison and contrast, to show that misandry and misogyny are twin madnesses sent into the world from Hell in order to deceive the faithful, that a man fleeing from one madness will pass the midpoint of moderation, and slide down the farther slope into the arms of the opposite madness.

      Chivalry is the middle point between feminist misandry and the new and ugly phenomenon of hypermasculine misogyny. Myself, I am very pleased to be a member of the Catholic Church, which can with equal bigotry from opposite sides be condemned for being too soft and feminine while being condemned for being too genderophobic and phallocratic.

      Myself, I suggest we say nothing in public about women which we would be ashamed to have Our Lady, the Virgin Mother of God and Queen of Heaven to overhear us say, and to think nothing in private which we do not what He who reads the hearts of men to read there.

      • Comment by joeclark77:

        Following your last sentiment, I would not say (because it would be shameful and untrue) that I agree with the sentiment Max expresses, however, like many rants it does point to a kernel of truth: that a major contributor to our national failure has been the abandonment by men of their duty to leadership. Giving the vote to women in 1920, and children in the 1971, has transformed the vote from something that a man did with the understanding of his responsibility, to a form of “personal expression” or communication with the cool crowd.

        Ann Barnhardt once made on her blog a strong case against women’s suffrage (her blog posts aren’t searchable or linkable, so you’d have to email her for it). One of the points she made was that when it was one man, one vote, it was really “one family, one vote”. Back then it was normal to be more-or-less an adult by age 21, and typically a voter was thinking about how his vote would affect the future for his family. A major reason the Democrats supported women’s suffrage was to reduce the power of families. With men usually voting for the intellectual reasons of the conservative and women usually voting for the emotional appeals of the liberal, families canceled each other out and an enormous amount of political power was transferred to the young, single, and stupid. The 26th amendment just made this worse.

        Perhaps it is silly to be talking about suffrage two days after our republic has had its final election, but this is food for thought when we re-build new civilization(s) out of the rubble. Men (adult men) (who are married to women) (and are fathers) have a duty (not an unfair “privilege”) to take the lead in our families and in the nation.

        • Comment by John C Wright:

          If so worthy a fellow as GK Chesterton was against female suffrage as he was against capitalism, I, for one, am willing seriously to revisit both issues and rethink my loyalties.

          As a student of economics, normally I would laugh at the Christian and Jewish (and Aristotelian) prohibition on usury. The practice of lending money at interest is both beneficial and productive and benefits all and harms none.

          And then I see my entire nation vote itself into permanent debt-slavery to the loan sharks of the world. So maybe Chesterton is right on this?

          Making women into men and men into eunuchs is a central part of the HG Wellsian evolution of the West into the land of soft and gender-neutral Eloi. If female suffrage is a major contributor to that, no matter its obvious merits in the name of justice, it the name of prudence it seems a bad idea.

          If (and I speak only hypothetically) it were proven to me that female suffrage must inevitably lead to the culture we see around us, where Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old law student, becomes the patron saint of forcing we Catholics to trample the crucifix and spit on images of the Virgin and pay for her fornication and harlotry and abominations, and if I were a woman of good character and stern moral fiber, I would like to think that I would be willing to forswear the vote as an act of sacrifice merely to prevent that future, a world where women like Fluke were allowed to represent womanhood, from coming into being.

          Of course, since women voters outnumber men these days, too loud a discussion along these lines might have the fairer sex vote merely to remove the vote from us. Aha!

        • Comment by Alan Silverman:

          Please tell me more about why my widowed grandmother should not be allowed to vote on increases on her property taxes.

          • Comment by ERaskob:

            Speaking as a 63-year-old widow, I would be fine with not being allowed to vote, if the other conditions are met.

            It reminds me of Ephesians. “Wives, submit to your husbands” sounds harsh until you recognize it is immediately followed by “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for it”.

            I did not always find that easy (due to my pride) – but it was blessed.

            • Comment by Alan Silverman:

              So you would be fine with being in a situation where a proposition to raise your property tax is on the ballot, but you are unallowed to have a formal say in whether or not it passes?

              • Comment by ERaskob:

                Yes. Of course, it may be relevant that I live in a neighborhood where people actually do consistently look out for each other. Not everyone, of course, but probably the majority.

                • Comment by Alan Silverman:

                  My grandmother (who has been a widow for my entire life) would not. And she was very glad to be able to vote against the proposition to raise her property taxes (to fund a local park), because she opposed the building of the park. But that was also not at a neighborhood level; it was at a township level, and even though the people may be neighborly, that doesn’t mean they don’t disagree over how to run the township.

              • Comment by John C Wright:

                She said that, qualifying the statement with “if the other conditions were met.”

                Why ask her to repeat herself? At 63, she is in a better position than any younger citizen to assess the degree of benefit it has brought her. Perhaps she thinks a world of manlier men and more feminine women would be preferable to a world of suffragettes and feminists, if it indeed were shown (which I doubt) that the two alternatives were mutually incompatible.

                • Comment by Alan Silverman:

                  I was confirming what I understood “the other conditions” to be, which was “a proposition that would increase [my] property taxes”.

                • Comment by ERaskob:

                  Perhaps she thinks a world of manlier men and more feminine women would be preferable to a world of suffragettes and feminists

                  I do, indeed. I was a charter subscriber to Ms Magazine (for one year only), and learned a great deal from them – mostly what I did not want to imitate.

                  • Comment by Alan Silverman:

                    Are you also of the mind that women should not be allowed to get a formal education at e.g. a university in fields such as physics, civil engineering, and mathematics?

                    • Comment by ERaskob:

                      Are you also of the mind that women should not be allowed to get a formal education at e.g. a university in fields such as physics, civil engineering, and mathematics?

                      No. I did so myself:
                      MIT 1973, SB & SM in Mechanical Engineering,
                      Bentley 2005, MS in Human Factors

                      I am not, BTW, saying women’s suffrage is evil. I am saying it is not the only way a just society can function.

                    • Comment by Alan Silverman:

                      I am saying [women’s suffrage] is not the only way a just society can function.

                      I don’t think I would disagree with this statement. However, I do think there are particular other preconditions necessary for a just society sans women’s suffrage, and the fact that those preconditions aren’t true in modern society means that the lack of women’s suffrage today is infeasible.

  21. Comment by The Ubiquitous:

    A Hymn

    G.K. Chesterton

    O God of earth and altar,
    Bow down and hear our cry,
    Our earthly rulers falter,
    Our people drift and die;
    The walls of gold entomb us,
    The swords of scorn divide,
    Take not thy thunder from us,
    But take away our pride.

    From all that terror teaches,
    From lies of tongue and pen,
    From all the easy speeches
    That comfort cruel men,
    From sale and profanation
    Of honour and the sword,
    From sleep and from damnation,
    Deliver us, good Lord.

    Tie in a living tether
    The prince and priest and thrall,
    Bind all our lives together,
    Smite us and save us all;
    In ire and exultation
    Aflame with faith, and free,
    Lift up a living nation,
    A single sword to thee.

    76.76.D, sung to KING’S LYNN.

  22. Comment by Nostreculsus:

    Mr Obama is a slim, elegant man. Although he is a vain narcissist, he performs well at photo opportunities, appearances at disaster scenes, political fundraisers and dinner parties. He can deliver speeches well, as long as he reads a prepared text and does not need to improvise.

    The American Presidency combines these ceremonial functions at which Mr Obama excels with chief executive functions; the outline of policy, the choice of officials, and the preparation of a budget. Mr Obama seems mostly bored or baffled by this aspect of the presidency.

    Therefore, the happiest solution would be to split the responsibilities of the presidency into two. Yes, I am proposing that Mr Obama should be our beloved Queen, and Mr John Boehner should be the Queen’s Prime Minister.

  23. Comment by Nostreculsus:

    It is interesting to look at the religious breakdown of the vote.
    Evangelical protestants are more hostile to Mormonism than either Catholics or mainline protestant sects. But their turnout and vote preference remained strongly Republican.

    Catholics are traditionally a key Democratic constituency. White Catholics supported Obama in his 2008 run, but shifted significantly to Romney (59% Romney vs 40% Obama). This was undercut by a shift to Obama by Hispanic Catholics (21% Romney vs 75% Obama). This Hispanic shift lost a series of swing states, and probably lost the election for Romney.

    Mistakes? During the Republican debates, Romney took positions that alienated Hispanics. His wealthy white guy persona (the 47% thing) was also unsympathetic to a hard-working and struggling group. The American bishops were ineffective at persuading these Catholics of the threat to their traditional family values. Would a Marco Rubio as vice-presidential pick have changed the race?

    Jews are another core Democratic constituency. Although numerically small, they are active and culturally influential. They remained mostly pro-Obama, but there is a significant shift under way. The president’s obvious disdain for Israel will likely accelerate this trend.

    Black churchgoers remain loyal to a man they mistakenly perceive as one of their own, in spite of his policy choices on abortion and homosexuality, that are contrary to their beliefs.

  24. Comment by daveon:

    I do have to ask. I came to this via a link which linked, itself, to your 2008 predictions…

    Given not a single one of those was correct, why on Earth do you believe that you’re correct this time?

    As a non-American, I find the panic over a centrist politician who would be considered moderately right wing in pretty much any European Country including the UK, to be more than a little… well… odd.

    Leave a Reply