In Defense of Bobby Jindal

I support Bobby Jindal, and I’m going to put what little influence I can muster to support his campaign.  I have very little faith in the electoral process*, and even less in the Federal government, but I do think that Bobby Jindal is the best man for the job for a few reasons, but here are the biggest:

1. He’s against common core curriculum.

2. He’s the only Republican candidate who I have heard say something about Islam.  The other Republicans are too PC to address Islam, which is a terrorist death cult and one of the main threats to humanity.  I don’t want to live next to ISIS and since I have never, and would never, invite those savages to live in my country I shouldn’t have to live next to them.  We don’t need to have our women getting raped or having acid thrown on their faces because they went to school or didn’t wear a stupid rag on their heads.

3. Seems to be a sincere Christian.

4. Is pro 1st and 2nd Amendment.  That may seem basic but there is a concerted effort to undermine freedom of speech and gun ownership by the left.

5. Opposes illegal immigration.

6. Liberals seem to hate him the most.  If the left has their panties in a bunch over something then it’s probably a good indicator that something is right.  Where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Now when it comes to the detractors, Bobby Jindal has really dealt with them in an efficient and logical fashion.  He doesn’t pander to them, or react with emotional outbursts, but still manages to put them in their place.  The criticism boils down to racial attacks, and attempts to pin the negative consequences of Democrats being in charge of Louisiana on him.  I will also be responding to the #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite foolishness.  I know that Mr. Jindal is above responding to such foolishness, but I’m not.

Since I’m a reactionary rather than a traditional conservative, I can and will take things to the next level, and beyond the pale of PC.  Consider this a trigger warning.

So why is it that Bush is STILL responsible for the moribund economy and the state of the Middle East, but Bobby Jindal’s predecessor is not responsible for any of the economic issues in Louisiana?  Bobby Jindal is like a guy who was assigned to clean up after a drunken frat party with nothing but his bare hands.  There is only so much that can be done in the time allotted.  If there is one thing Democraps are good at, it’s jacking things up and then blaming others.  Democrats don’t believe in letting any good catastrophe go to waste, even if it’s one they caused.  Just in case we aren’t sure who really did the greater damage (Bush or Obama, Jindal or Blanco), one need only look at Chicago, which is an excellent control specimen for what happens when Democrats have an unlimited free reign.

Everyone who has been following reality knows that leftists have severe issues with race, and hold a variety of conflicting notions to be equally true.  The left is generally schizophrenic when it comes to race, but they are solid in their hatred for white people, men, Christians, Jews/Israel, America, and non-whites who are supportive of western civilization.  The latter they attack with extreme vitriol, which is part of the reason they hate Bobby Jindal.

The left (ostensibly) hates the Confederate Battle Flag because it’s “racist.”  The Confederacy was “racist” because they had black slaves.  The Cherokee nation also had black slaves, but they can’t be racist because they’re not white (according to the left).  To the left racism is (ostensibly) deplorable, and the Confederacy was bad because it was racist, but because Bobby Jindal said that it ought to be up to the states whether or not they fly the CBF, it’s suddenly OK to racially abuse him.  So in other words, racism is only bad if it’s directed towards people liberals like, otherwise it’s a tool as far as they are concerned.

Liberals are like Muslims, who will say anything for the cause, and who will lie to further the cause (taqqiya).  They are great at talking out of both sides of their mouth, and to normal people they look like dribbling morons, because they are.

And here we go: #BobbyJindalIsSoWhite

NEW DELHI (Reuters) – Louisiana Governor and U.S. presidential candidate Bobby Jindal caused a Twitter storm of jokes and insults in India on Thursday after he said he dislikes being called an Indian-American.

Republican Jindal is the first person of Indian origin to join the U.S. presidential race. During his campaign launch on Wednesday, Jindal said he was “done with” descriptions that identified Americans by their origin, ethnicity or wealth.

“We are not Indian-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, rich Americans, or poor Americans. We are all Americans,” the two-term governor said to loud cheers at the event in a suburb of New Orleans.

The comment, however, was interpreted by some people on Twitter as an attempt to distance himself from India.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/u-presidential-hopefuls-done-indian-american-remark-prompts-110954719.html

The fact that he doesn’t want to be called “Indian-American” shows that his cultural identity is stronger than the circumstances of his race.  He said that if his parents had wanted to be Indian they would have stayed in India.  What is the problem here exactly?  How is that worse than the Mexicans who come here illegally and insist on staying Mexican and flying their Mexican flag everywhere while eating up welfare?  I don’t see how what he said is a bad thing, or really what relevance it has to any important issues, like stopping illegal immigration or trimming the fat off the government.  Would it be better if he wanted to make the US like India?

“If we wanted to be Indians, we would have stayed in India,” Jindal said.

As a person on the right (former conservative, now reactionary), I can tell you that it doesn’t matter at all how far away from India he is, what matters is how close he is to the issues we care about.  We don’t share the left’s monomania about race.  The leftist thinks a room full of white people is racist, and they think that every person in the world ought to be present everywhere at every time.  White liberals want to have a friend in every race that they can show off, like Pokemon, gotto catch ’em all.  They think that somehow this makes them non-racist, and excuses the racial abuse the heap on people like Jindal.  To people on the right this such behavior is pointless, because we don’t really live our lives based around what other people might think about us.  Our main concern is to be left alone, and to be free to do what we want, not to have everyone like us.

*Not convinced that the people counting the votes will do so honestly, not convinced that the bulk of people casting votes are morally and/or intellectually qualified to make sound decisions when it comes to government.  I’m also not sure the Republican Party is serious about winning or committed to prosperity.  They certainly scuttled themselves with John McCain and Mitt Romney, and failed completely when it came to Obamacare.

Advertisements

Published by:

Radamanthes

I could be described as a libertarian monarchist with religious leanings and sympathies towards anarchy and nationalism. I have realized that a lot of my views are reactionary. Most of the time it's when I see something I don't like that I feel inspired to write. I'm basically like a badger being poked with a stick. I'm fairly ornery when poked, but I don't wish people harm provided that they don't seek to harm me either directly or indirectly. I don't at all care for the left, and I am not at all happy that they are out to destroy my way of life and undermine my freedom. But one of my goals is to spread awareness as much as I can. My Manifesto in Short.: 1. Dejure rights and positive liberty are invalid concepts. Man in his natural state is free. He is free to create what he wants, occupy and defend a territory he exists in, associate with who he wants, wear what he wants, say what he wants, follow whatever religion he wants, and essentially do whatever he pleases. Government is an artificial imposition which requires force both to come into existence and to exist. Therefore, government is not in a position to grant freedom or rights, as those already exist prior to the institution of government. Government can curtail freedoms, but it can never give them. The only fully legitimate function of government is to protect the natural rights of others from being violated by forces which they are incapable of combating, for example, protecting a farmer from the Mongol invasion. Protecting someone from having their feelings hurt is not a legitimate function, as never having hurt feelings is not a natural right. 2. Freedom of association and speech are more important than anyone's feelings. Feelings are subjective, and there is no reason why one person's feelings are any more valid than anyone else's. A law to protect one person's feelings from being hurt is certain to harm another person's, therefore, feelings cannot be a basis for law. My freedoms do not end where another person's feelings begin. 3. Democracy is a failure, and it is predicated on faulty premises. In order for Democracy to work, two criterion must be fulfilled, 1) those who tally the votes must do so honestly, and 2) those who vote must be moral and intelligent enough to make wise and proper decisions. The first premise is impossible to prove, and the second is not true of most people, therefore, Democracy is a questionable endeavor at best, and ultimately doomed to failure. In fact, under the best of circumstances Democracy is mob rule, but aside from that it also opens the door to demagoguery, tribal politics, and lobbying. 4. Communism and Islam are no less evil than Nazism. Communism has killed more people than Nazism, and in fact Stalin alone killed more people than Hitler. Islam has killed, and continues to kill more people than Communism and Nazism together. The only reason why communism and Islam are given a free pass is because Cultural Marxists are in charge of education, the media, and entertainment. Cultural Marxists have decided to institute communism by attacking the culture, and they have recognized Islam as something which they can use as an ally (for the time being). That is why both of those toxic ideologies get a free pass, but really they should not. Hitler worked with both Communists AND Muslims before the allies entered the war, and during the war he continued to work with Muslims. If some guy were to go around in a Nazi uniform and goose-step and Sieg hiel as he walked down the street he would never be able to get a job. His life would be over, and he might even be met with physical violence. If a white guy did it then things would be even worse. However, Muslims are able to walk down our streets wearing their terrorist clothing, their robes and hijabs, which represent thousands of years of slaughter, antisemitism, and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities (not to mention violence against women), and people just let them go. I want a complete and indefinite hiatus on Muslim immigration, and I want us to start repatriating the Muslims that are already here. 5. I utterly reject the concept of the "social contract." I did not ask to exist, nor did I have any control over what part of the world I was born in, which people group I was born into, or what other groups might happen to exist around me. Since my existence is entirely involuntary, I cannot be held responsible for the fact that I exist, nor is my existence sufficient grounds to argue that I owe something to someone else. I do not owe anyone money, goods, or services simply on the basis that I exist or that they exist. 6. Collective guild is a rubbish concept. No one can help what group they are born into, and no one is born owing anyone else anything. Debt is the result of borrowing resources on some level, and having just entered in the world one does not have the capacity to borrow, or really do anything beyond the most basic biological functions. Therefore, the notion that one baby is born owing something to another baby is absurd at best. 7. I thoroughly support Israel. I fully admit to supporting Israel for religious reasons, but if those were not in place I would still support Israel out of enlightened self-interest. Israel fulfills the real world equivalent of the function Gondor serves in Tolkien's Middle Earth. By that I mean they are close to the evil army, and draw a lot of it's attention and focus, and in doing so they protect the west. The difference is, that in Tolkien's world the west does not actively seek to import orcs and other members of the evil army, behind Gondor's back, whereas our moron leaders in real life do constantly import the evil army. Also, Jews are not a monolithic group, There are both left wing and right wing Jews. Those who are on the left are not motivated by religion to do what they do, but by the perverse Marxist ideology which they have adopted in place of their religion.

Categories UncategorizedLeave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s