Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Of Neanderthals…and shitholes

Interesting take from SteveF:

  1. Homo sapiens sapiens, our species, is widely held to have evolved in Africa several hundred thousand years ago.
  2. Several other near-human species have existed at the same time as H.sap.sap., collectively known as genus Homo or the human clade.
  3. Interbreeding took place between the different species in the clade. Not just mating behavior, but fertile offspring.
  4. Interbreeding between Neanderthals and humans took place around 50,000 years ago, as confirmed by DNA analysis of de-iced corpses. Quite likely earlier, but not much later because Neanderthals went extinct around 40,000 years ago.
  5. Most humans living today have a few percent Neanderthal DNA.
  6. Sub-saharan Africans have little to no Neanderthal DNA, with any that they have being the result of relatively recent mixture from other humans coming to Africa from Arabia or Europe.

If you can’t guess where he’s going with this, read on to find out. It’s a damned intriguing hypothesis, I think, and a concise but thorough presentation of it.

Share

Martin Luther King

Yeah, I know, I’m a day late on this. But it’s worth the wait; some truths can’t be repeated often enough.

Was he a great man? He showed great courage, commitment to his cause, insistence on nonviolence, strong political and leadership skills, patriotism, and became a highly eloquent spokesman for civil rights. “I Have a Dream” is one of the great speeches in the English language. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” more than equals any Thoreau or Gandhi writings, and is not something that today’s civil rights leaders, such as they are, could match, nor could the typical graduate of almost any university in the world today. (The letter’s pacing, erudition, and, above all, the surgical preciseness with which it takes down opposing arguments bring to mind General Sherman’s letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.) King’s life made a difference to millions of people. The answer, therefore, to this paragraph’s question is yes, he was a great man.

That said, serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died–we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their “progressive” media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assume a Republican killed King–today’s college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family–his father, a prominent leader in his own right–openly endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election. The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on.

Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limitations on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats–let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer–along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

I’ll honor fair use for once and let you click over for the rest. For my own part, I’ll profess my long-standing irritation with the “yes, he was a flawed man” disclaimer almost always trotted out when discussing King, both from the Right and Left, albeit with different motivations. I mean, come ON, people! A “flawed man”? Seriously? Would you maybe care to try naming me one who wasn’t? OF COURSE he was a flawed man, ferchrissakes! I can’t think of anyone besides King for whom it’s ever even brought into play. Beyond that, I’ll heartily endorse everything Dip says above, most especially this:

In sum, he was a great man with a great vision. His successors, many of them frauds of the first rank, largely have not been faithful to that vision of liberty and color-blindness, and we all have suffered for it.

Don’t see how anybody can argue with that.

Share

Everything old is new again!

An interesting take on things.

The original civil war was fought by farmhands and factory workers, freed slaves and young boys turned soldiers; the new civil war is being fought by lawyers in blue or gray suits not with bullets, but with bullet points.

From the Mueller investigation to Federal judges declaring that President Trump doesn’t have the right to control immigration policy or command the military, from political sabotage at the DOJ by Obama appointees like Sally Yates to Patagonia’s lawsuit over national monuments, the cold civil war set off by the left’s rejection of the 2016 election results has been a paper war largely waged by lawyers.

The loss of the two elected branches of government has forced the left to default to the unelected third. Like AG Schneiderman, the left’s legal civil war appears to reject the authority of the Federal government. But despite the posturing, blue staters aren’t serious about seceding. Nor have they become newfound converts to the rights of states to go their own way when they disagree with D.C. 

New York and California’s #resistance apparatchiks aren’t rejecting the authority of Federal judges. They’re turning to them and relying on them. Instead they’re rejecting the authority of elected Federal officials. Their secession isn’t Federal, it’s democratic. They want a strong central government. They just aren’t willing to allow the American people to decide who gets to run it. 

That’s what the civil war is about. 

It most certainly is. Worse, they’re perfectly willing to go to incredible lengths to brazenly disenfranchise a very damned large (one would think, umm, daunting) number of normal Americans in order to ensure that the people have no say in running it. Normal Americans, that is, who have gone to great lengths themselves to make it abundantly clear just how fed up they really are with liberal nonchalance about their concerns, and expressed their clear intention not to continue serving as a docile, passive cash cow there for the milking to feed liberal fool’s-errands—a veritable no-limit ATM for Superstate folly.

If anyone needed evidence of the boundless arrogance of the modern Progressivist, well, consider that Exhibit A.

To pile irony on top of irony on top of irony here, the Democrat Socialist Party, the party of slavery back in the days of the Civil War and of Jim Crow and segregation in the 20th century, has insisted for the past several decades on A) an unrestrained and ever-expanding federal government with no meaningful limits on its scope and power, and B) no real recognition of anything at all in the way of what they most scornfully refer to as “states’ rights,” which they’ve heretofore regarded as merely an unpleasant anachronism.

Yet here they are, dusting off all the old shibboleths once more—not just shouting their fervor for states’ rights from the very rooftops, but actually giving secession a serious second look too. The crowning irony: the party pimping all these shopworn ideas—none of them any more recent than six or seven decades, some of them more than a century and a half old—is still pleased, incomprehensibly, to congratulate itself on being the party of “new ideas.”

In other words, they’re now using the exact same “principles” they once deployed as arguments AGAINST the threat of a too-powerful central government to argue in FAVOR of a too-powerful central government. They manage all of this, mind, without for a moment evincing the slightest hint of self-awareness: of just how ridiculous and incoherent it makes them all look…or how desperate.

And they’re doing it all with a straight face, too. If we weren’t already very familiar with their consistent inconsistency, it would all be quite confusing. But in this, the terminal stage of their decay, they can’t help themselves. Having lost most state governorships and legislatures, both houses of Congress, the Presidency—they’re even seeing federal judgeships stripped from their weakening grasp in job lots—chaos is all they have left to hold onto.

Anybody still wondering why their hatred for Trump is so fierce and implacable? Breathes there a man with soul so dead as to be able to resist laughing right out loud at them?

Update! Another irony:

States’ rights is an important concept – it’s sure nice to see some Democrats joining in on supporting it now for the first time since they last asserted states’ rights to enforce Jim Crow – but see, the federal government gets to control interstate commerce. Thanks to the liberals, the concept of “interstate commerce” is pretty much interchangeable with “any commerce.” Leaving aside the interstate movement of pot, the feds have a right, under the current understanding of the regulation of interstate commerce, to outlaw dope everywhere. But hey, if the vocal corps of hemp enthusiasts out there wants to advocate for the Supreme Court to overrule the expansive reading of the commerce clause in Wickard v. Filburn, I’ll totally inhale.

Another contradiction: the same Einsteins demanding their “right” to spark up a fattie are pretty much the same ones who worked so diligently to get cigarette smoking banned pretty much everywhere. Go figure, right?

You’d think that it might finally be dawning on at least some of them that maybe giving the federal goobermint so much power over us, directly contravening everything the Founders ever said, was maybe not the best idea anybody ever had.

And yet.

I don’t see any way to argue with this part, though:

…science has established that marijuana is a gateway drug that inevitably leads to reggae – a musical genre whose listeners are too high to even notice that there is actually only one reggae song and that the musicians simply give it different titles to fool the fans.

He’s right, and you know it.

Share

Tired of all the WINNING!™

You and I might not be, but Schlichter can name you plenty of folks who are.

Slowly, it’s dawning on Trump’s enemies – on our enemies – that this isn’t just an unfortunate, temporary bump in the road to the Californiaization of America, but a U-turn. The people who elected Donald Trump were something his allegedly conservative Never Trump opponents never were: serious about being conservative. It’s easy to grift the donors with big talk about culture wars and policy initiatives when you never expect to be in a position to actually pull them off. But the Normals finally got sick of election year bomb-throwers morphing into pliable puffboys once their reps crossed into the Beltway. And that’s how you got Trump.

Suddenly, the fake hardcore facade of Conservative, Inc., was revealed for what it was – a pose, an act, tiresome political voguing. When someone finally showed up who actually wanted to act on all the things the pro-cons had been talking and writing about for decades, well, that didn’t leave a lot of room for those who only wanted to talk and write and luxuriate in being insiders. Never Trumpism spends a lot of time whining about how Trump is “vulgar” and “unfit,” but what these guys really resent is that he has embarrassed them. He showed them up. He did what they had been yakking endlessly about doing, and they hate him for it. They much prefer the quiet dignity of losing under a Bush or a Romney to obscurity under a Trump.

It’s crisis time for Conservative, Inc. The Eagle Liberty Forum of Conservative Freedom and Liberty can’t fill its annual dinner tables anymore, even with a keynote speech by Ben Sasse on how “True Conservatism™ Morally Obligates Us To Lose And Not Offend The Elite Rather Than Win And Displease Our Betters.”

That’s why they hate Trump. He didn’t make them irrelevant; he just showed the world that they were irrelevant. And that’s unforgiveable.

Trump’s kickin’ it old school in his enemies’ heads, chillin’ in their cerebral crib. His foes defined themselves by not being him. The Democrats’ tax policy? Not Trump. Their regulatory policy? Not Trump. Their foreign policy? Not Trump. And it’s the same with the allegedly conservative Never Trumpers. How do you get an alleged conservative to oppose moving our embassy to Israel’s capital? Get Trump to finally do it.

They are all about Trump, 24/7. CNN, and its silly Don Lemons and Tater Stelters, need Trump. They obsess over him, for without Trump they are nothing. The Resistance? They have nothing but Trump to fill their empty lives, getting giddy every time some media outlet reports that someone who knows somebody who heard somebody say that maybe Mueller is investigating someone who met Trump once for felony jaywalking. The Supreme Poo-Bah of the HIPAA Court is readying his Grand Warrants of Arresting – it’s gotta be true cuz I read it on the interwebs!

Trump owns his foes. They are mere satellites orbiting around him, and his gravity is all that keeps them from spinning off into space. They have willingly submitted to the reality of a Trumpocentric political universe. It’s hilarious.

Ain’t it, though. Ain’t it just. This is probably the most important part of all, though:

Their impeachment fever dreams are fading, so they look at popularity polls and take solace at the numbers. They took solace in them on November 8, 2016, too.

It amazes me that some of us to this day are baffled and/or fretting over Trump’s supposed “unpopularity” according to the very same polls which have never yet been right about him, not even once. The feeble guesswork of the polling apparatchiki—part and parcel of Ruling Class manipulation, most of it—is another thing that stands exposed by the Trump Awakening, but some folks still haven’t realized it for some reason.

But come on: can anybody out there seriously claim to expect honest, reliable truth from any poll done by ABCBMSNBCNN, the NYT, or the WaPo? And if you do, can I please request that you share whatever the hell it is you’re smoking with the rest of us?

Share

Interesting times

Taking a peep into the ol’ crystal ball.

Those of you in tax-haven Red State heaven may find you have one helluva lot more pension teat-sucking fifth columnists than you imagined, all of whom have, as their first interest, the maintenance of the entire status quo, who won’t be subscribing to your newsletter, marching in your parade, and will likely dime you out given half a chance and any enticement from TPTB.

And they’re in your AO, and they all get a vote too; either at the ballot box, or via Rule 308. You have a limited option-set for accommodating them or exterminating them, and every choice has its pros and cons.

Functional society lives in a very narrow pH range between totalitarianism and anarchy; anyone who thinks they’re going to yank the lever very far in either direction and fix everything by killing everyone who disagrees with them will pull the walls of the trench onto their own head, whether we’re talking political power, legitimacy, or getting zipped into body bags. Which all tend to be fairly correlative, especially in sportier times.

There ain’t gonna be no Grand Strategy where you carve out a Redoubt, a New South, or a Flyover Paradise.

Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

Ask a Milosevic what happens when you try.

If you’re very lucky, you may have a coherent state (as in One of the Fifty), and one that has your best interests at heart. Worst case, it’ll be coherent, and want you dead, gulaged, re-educated, or whatever term of art applies come the day.

Most folks will have a county, or a few counties, with roughly similar interests. Large counties, with geographic barriers, may devolve to civilizational outposts, surrounded by No Man’s Land areas or varying functionality.

In short, things are liable to look more like the Wild West than the Walking Dead.

Things will become better, and worse. Rougher, simpler, meaner, and more focused on your choices and day-to-day existence. There will be bandits, savages, and brigands in the wastelands. They’ll all want to come to the bright lights of the city for all the reasons folks do now, and did then.

But there aren’t likely to be front lines; scores will be settled far more personally, in back alleys or bar room brawls. Some people will try and build industry and commerce, and the order of civilization and prosperity.

Others will try to burn it out, rob it, and subjugate it. Like always, everywhere.

This, boys and girls, is why we study history: lessons from Deadwood, Tombstone, or the South Side of Chicago circa 1930 will have as much to do with reality then as now.

Expect devolution, not revolution.

Yep, I think he sees things pretty clearly. It’s a WRSA comment from our friend Aesop, so that should come as no surprise.

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Instead of set-piece clashes between large armies fielded in the old Napoleonic fashion*, Civil War v2.0 is way more likely to be fought with guerilla-style, hit-and-run tactics—quick, small-scale bloodlettings, raids, or sniper attacks followed immediately by a hasty, surreptitious retreat: the very embodiment of what is now referred to in military circles as Fourth Generation Warfare, or 4GW. Such an open-ended conflict could and very probably would drag on for a long time indeed; with resounding, decisive victory a practical near-impossibility almost by definition, such a war would end up a long, bitter, and brutal slog, ended not by victory or conquest but by sheer exhaustion.

The federal government, naturally, would attempt to intervene, but on which side and with what ultimate intent being difficult to predict. In Bracken’s Enemies trilogy, as well as Max Velocity’s excellent Patriot Dawn and many others, federal intervention in a Civil War/rebellion provides the State its justification for instituting true tyrannical oppression, taken to its practical limits, at last…which still winds up being largely ineffective except in the limited geographical areas it controls.

All of which is certainly chilling enough. This, though, might well be the most chilling observation of all:

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

The odds of civil war here, no matter how low-intensity or limited in terms of scale, inflicting chaos on other parts of the world seem to me to be pretty high. The question is whether such a looming threat, which would come to toxic fruition pretty quickly, would motivate some sort of direct intervention—necessarily involving foreign boots on American ground, of course—on the part of those other nations. Assuming any of them were even capable of any such intervention in the first place, of course, which is by no means a given. It’s safe to assume that the UN would regard the opportunity to take over and administer the US itself as heaven-sent, a dream come true—a chance to demonstrate both its might and its indispensability for all the world to see.

At first they would, anyway. They’d learn different pretty damned quick.

From an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

And if there could possibly be a reason to actually wish for another Civil War, right there it is. A pretty powerful one it is too, I must admit.

Read the rest of it. WRSA holds that it’s “More than a bit optimistic,” and recommends perusing Bracken’s several comments too, which begin with this interesting thought:

A civil war will not be intentionally started by left or right. It will be an unavoidable downstream consequence of a disruption of our modern technological infrastructure. The disruption could be triggered by many vectors, but the consequences will all be the same. Once the lights go out in a major U.S. city, even for a week, chaos will ensue, and every supermarket will be looted to bare shelves. The Genie will then be out of the bottle, and it won’t be put back in.

This, too, seems right enough to me. Matt then links to one of his several WRSA posts on the topic, starting off with this preface:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain. 

Yep. As I keep saying myself, nobody but nobody among decent, well-meaning people ought to be seriously wishing for such a thing, and I very much doubt any significant number are. But the Left, incredibly, seems absolutely determined to force this horror on us, one way or another. Unless they somehow are brought to senses they don’t appear to possess in any measure, sooner or later they will leave Americans desirous of nothing more than their right to be left alone with no choice but to defend themselves. Again I say it: Lefty should be very, very careful what he wishes for…lest he wind up getting it.

The scenario wherein a tech or infrastructure disaster sparks such a conflict is even more alarming, the more so for being the more likely case. As Matt says, once urban grocery store shelves have been stripped, people trapped in the big cities will start to get hungry, with no recourse other than dispersing en masse into the surrounding countryside to forage for food. They won’t be content to just sit back and starve. And the folks they’ll be looking to loot aren’t very likely to just sit passively back and let themselves be looted, either.

Either way, Civil War v2.0 ain’t something anybody ought to be looking forward to with anything other than dread. Then again though, as unavoidable as it’s beginning to appear, maybe Grant had the right of the whole thing after all when he said, “If we have to fight I wish we could do it all at once and then make friends.”

* Ironically, the Civil War—and most especially the new weapons used to fight it—is generally regarded as having rendered Napoleon’s tactics obsolete—or more accurately, to have revealed them as such.

Share

Heroes of Suffering

An old but evergreen and eternally-relevant VDare post from Sailer:

For more than forty years, the teaching business has been completely dominated by the prejudices of the Sixties People, whose Gramscian “long march through the institutions“ has left them in control of the schools.

What is striking to somebody like me, who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s, is the subsequent lack of generational rebellion. Kids these days tend toward intellectual conformism. They trust anyone over 30 who tells them what everybody else is telling them.

Why have the Sixties People proven so enduring in molding young people’s minds? My theory: The Sixties mindset—aggrieved, resentful, and unrealistic—is perfectly attuned to appeal permanently to the worst instincts of adolescents.

And yet young people do have a finer side—their hunger for heroes—that history books once tried to fulfill rather than exploit. For example, I was galvanized in 1975 when I read Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison’s tribute in his Oxford History of the American People to Orville and Wilbur Wright:

“Few things in our history are more admirable than the skill, the pluck, the quiet self-confidence, the alertness to reject fixed ideas and to work out new ones, and the absence of pose and publicity, with which these Wright brothers made the dream of ages—man’s conquest of the air—come true.”

But the Wright brothers aren’t the kind of heroes we like anymore. In our Age of Oprah, rather than Heroes of Accomplishment, we are addicted to Heroes of Suffering.

This Heroes of Suffering fetish is exacerbated in modern history textbooks by the “diversity“ imperative.

Take, for example, one US history textbook widely used in high school Advanced Placement courses and in college courses: Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic (McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition).

It’s in many ways an impressive book. The amount of labor that went into it is enormous. And, as you notice the political mandates under which the five historian co-authors labored, you begin to feel sorry for them.

You feel even sorrier for the students, however. The need to include a huge amount of material celebrating each politically organized diversity group has bloated the textbook to 1277 oversized pages. It costs $108.78 on Amazon, and weighs in at a vertebrae-compressing 5.4 pounds.

Celebrating diversity just take a lot of space. Even with a tome this immense, diversity awareness means that there isn’t room in all 1277 pages to mention…the Wright brothers.

Not even once? REALLY? Ummm…wow. But incredibly, it actually gets worse.

How hard did the textbook authors have to work to make Midway dull?

Answer: Nation of Nations‘ section entitled “The Naval War in the Pacific,” which covers the turning point years of 1942 and 1943, gets all of two pro forma paragraphs.

In contrast, eight paragraphs are devoted to the internment of Japanese, seven to women and the war, and five to “Minorities on the Job.”

Hilariously, the naval war gets the same amount of text as the 1943 Zoot Suit riot in East LA!

Steve goes on to offer example after disheartening example of the Dismal Tide of educational malpractice, not one of which is either accident or coincidence. This one, though, just might top them all:

At one point, I went looking in this textbook’s index for the Civil War hero, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, colonel of the XXth Maine Volunteers. By repelling repeated assaults on crucial Little Round Top hill on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Chamberlain more or less saved the Union. (He’s played by Jeff Daniels in Ron Maxwell’s movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals.)

I suspect teenage boys might find him, you know, interesting. Maybe?

Well, needless to say, Joshua Chamberlain isn’t in the Nation of Nations’ index. I did find, however:

Chanax, Juan, 1096—1098, 1103, 1124, 1125

Who, exactly, is Chanax and why does he appear on six pages when Chamberlain can’t be squeezed in anywhere?

It turns out Chanax is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who works in a supermarket in Houston. This hero’s accomplishment is that he brought in 1,000 other illegal aliens from his home village. (The link Sailer included here is broken, but the supporting article can be found here—M)

Wow. I mean, just…wow. Right when you think they can’t possibly surprise you anymore, they go and pull a real brain-buster like this. Hats off to the warped bastards for sheer brazen gall, I suppose.

The task of undoing this deeply-embedded, depraved rot is beyond daunting, beyond Herculean, maybe even Sisyphian. It is the work not of years, but of decades. But it is also vital; there is no hope whatever of reclaiming our nation and our culture without it. Personally, I’m careful to point out to my daughter now and then that her teachers don’t necessarily know everything, that they aren’t always going to be right; as a second-grader, the insidious process of indoctrination hasn’t really begun for her yet at least as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, and her teachers have all been decent, well-intentioned people so far.

But start it will—at least by junior high, I figure, if not before. My small effort may not seem like much when it comes to undermining and loosening the grip the Left has maintained for far too long on education, admittedly. But it’s a start, and I intend to encourage skepticism and independent thought in my child for as long as I’m able.

Or, y’know, allowed.

Share

A consummation devoutly to be etc

We can only hope Lifson is onto something here.

When Rod Rosenstein evaded the answers being sought in a congressional hearing and deferred to the inspector general investigation underway, I thought it a reasonable response, even though Rosenstein is now a hate-object for having appointed Robert Mueller as special counsel. The I.G., Michael E. Horowitz, is no political stooge. (For background on the inspectors general, see Ed Lasky here and here. There are unsung heroes of our constitutional republic among them, hero-federal bureaucrats.)

And letting any of the I.G.’s cats out of the bag early could have serious consequences.

He then points us over to another of Sundance’s thoroughly researched and insightful posts, to wit:

The text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strozk and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, have been released to both Fox News and CBS.

The messages reflect a strong bias against President Trump. However, the bigger story is not the anti-Trump bias within the text communication, the BIGGER story is why the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General (OIG), began even looking at Agent Peter Strozk’s communication in the first place.

Remember, the original mandate by the Inspector General’s office was initiated to review and discover any politicization of the FBI and/or DOJ officials.

After news broke of Strzok’s removal from investigative duty within the FBI counterintelligence unit, what the OIG responding statement said was for 11 months the Dept of Justice OIG office has been investigating the politicization within the DOJ and FBI and deciding if the actions, or lack of action, was driven by the political ideology of the participants therein…

Getting caught as a leaker is likely the reason Strzok was removed and reassigned to the HR post; not the bias. The bias, writ large, is essentially a snipe hunt; it makes good media clicks, it feeds a good headline, but ultimately it’s a nothingburger. The reports on this angle are flak and countermeasures.

However, Agent Strzok leaking information to the media; his changing the outcome of an FBI investigation into a political ally, Hillary Clinton; and his investigative involvement in the Trump Russia Conspiracy, via the Steele Dossier and FISA warrant, well, that’s the real issue evident here.

Interesting indeed. Without falling into the old wishful-thinking trap of assuming that Trump is some sort of 3D chess-playing wizard here, I will note that he’s shown himself to have patience enough to be capable of playing a longer game than people often assume, in both business and politics. This is convoluted, twisty, tangly stuff for sure; also, Occam’s Razor still makes for an excellent guide in most circumstances, and should perhaps be carefully borne in mind in this case, too.

All that said, though, I wouldn’t bet against Trump playing a pretty Machiavellian game here himself: one of his most under-acknowledged and useful skills throughout his career has been his ability to get adversaries to underestimate him to their own great detriment, as we’ve seen demonstrated again and again since the beginning of the Republican primary campaign. And Sundance himself has been adept enough at seeing forests instead of trees for long enough now that I ain’t willing to bet against his having the right of things here, either. Not quite yet, I ain’t. I seem to recollect seeing somewhere or other that Horowitz’s final report is scheduled to drop in April of next year; all will come clear by then, I guess. Back to Lifson:

We should be hearing from the I.G. in the early part of next year, in time for this to start to unfold in TV prior to the November midterm elections.

Sundance looks ahead the next couple of steps, toward prosecution, and follows the potential chain upward. Momentum, and consequently timing, is critical because of the expected all-out resistance. Watergate was nothing compared to this.

Well, no, it wouldn’t be, would it? I mean, Watergate was a bungled coverup of a penny-ante burglary—which, I think, hardly rises to the level of a soft coup aimed at nullifying the results of a legitimate presidential election and removing a duly-sworn-in chief executive from office without real justification. Not to even mention the revelation of partisan corruption from top to bottom of entire federal agencies, with arguably treasonous treachery and manipulation at the very highest levels.

Update! Steyn on the big picture:

Politically, America is a bitterly divided 50/50 nation, where a few hundred thousand votes in a dwindling number of swing states determines control of the national (it’s no longer really “federal”) government. That places an ever greater burden on the professional civil service to behave professionally, and to be perceived as behaving professionally. Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page and the rest have engineered a situation that ensures half the country will never accept the legitimacy of whatever their “investigation” concludes. If they indict Trump, one half will regard it as a coup by Deep Staters in the bag for Hillary. If they exonerate Trump, the other half of the country will blame Trump for discrediting these fine upstanding career public servants.

So Mueller and his team have made things worse. Thanks a lot, corruptocrats.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that this pseudo-investigation is an elaborate bit of FBI dinner theatre to obscure Strzok and others’ attempt to subvert the election. What Strzok and Ohr have done is far worse than anything Flynn and Papadopoulos did: why should only the latter face jail time?

Why, because Stroke and Ohr are liberals, see. That makes it diff’runt.

Until we reach the heads-on-pikes stage, I mean. At which point I will eagerly look forward to Obama, Hillary!™, and the rest of the dirty gang sharing the same fate.

Share

There they go again

Now the Lyin’ Left is hoping to hang Charles Manson around the Right’s neck.

At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”

The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath bullshit phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”

Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:

Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.

Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.

Oh, really?

Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?

What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?

First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.

To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism.

Pretty much, yep. Which isn’t to say that Manson’s own political beliefs (if any) were Leftist, mind. As with so many of these mass-murdering nuts, his political leanings—to the extent he had any at all; if he ever stated them in any great depth I’m not aware of it—were a chaotic, nonsensical melange of disparate and even contradictory bits of this and that. Manson’s primary motivation was never politics at all, but his demented obsession with sparking a race war (Goad has further examination of that, and proposes a much more mundane and pragmatic alternative idea behind the Tate/LaBianca murders). Bottom line:

Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.

MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.

If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.

None of which will dissuade the contemptible, self-loathing Progtards from trying to make political hay out of him themselves, naturally. In fact, if the Manson Family murders had happened last week, they’d probably be trying to gin up a way to call for another gun ban in the wake of it, and blaming Trump and Fox News for the whole thing. Which only means they’re damned near as loony, incoherent, and manipulative as Manson was.

Share

Ruminations on Civil War v2.0

So TR sends an e-mail, to wit:

Let’s suppose, for a moment, that the Dems are successful in stealing the Alabama seat, and perhaps winning control of Congress back in 2018. Then they immediately impeach Trump. For what? Doesn’t matter – the Constitution doesn’t matter to them. Then the Senate, with a cabal of Dems and NeverTrump “Republicans,” convicts and removes him from office.

Do they really think that it’s over? That Pence will be inaugurated as President and that Trump supporters will go gentle into that good night? If they think that, I do believe that they are sadly mistaken. I think that is the moment when the “cold Civil War” becomes a hot Civil War. I think that’s the final straw for those of us who have tried to do things the right way, in accordance with the Constitution and our political system, and that we will realize that we are under a dictatorship by another name.

I’m sure the Romanovs felt quite secure, too, on November 6, 1917.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this finally shakes enough of us out of our stupor, or do we continue down the road to serfdom?

Good questions, and weighty ones. I sat down intending to dash something pithy and concise off in response. But since these days I just can’t seem to limit myself to pithy and concise anymore, the whole thing sort of ran away with me, and I ended up with the following extended peroration instead, which I’ll tuck below the fold to spare those of you whose interest in meandering speculation from me is, shall we say, constrained.
Continue reading “Ruminations on Civil War v2.0”

Share

The Long March

How we got here, and where it’s all leading.

Disabling of independent thought. Nothing is more threatening to petty dictators than a citizenry’s widespread ability to think clearly and independently. Radical education reformers have sought for generations to drum the capacity for independent thought out of students. “Critical thinking” has been made into a garbage term for fads that have students doing anything but gain content knowledge.

Most college students today probably could not answer even a fraction of the questions on an eighth grade general knowledge exam from 1912. Without core knowledge, people have a difficult time putting any knowledge into its proper context. After decades of such politicizing reforms, you can end up with college students so muddled in their thinking that they need “trigger warnings” before reading anything that might conflict with the social and emotional programming they’ve experienced. In the propaganda phase, we’ll see how political correctness compounds this problem by cultivating the fear of rejection for expressing one’s thoughts.

Ever more bureaucratization. Human freedom is inversely proportional to the bloat of the administrative state. I’m not sure who should be credited with first making this observation. It resounds in the work of the American Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, and even the psychiatrist Carl Jung, among many others. But the piles of regulations that put businesses, as well as personal lives, into straitjackets attest to this destabilizing trend for human freedom.

You can trace this back quite a ways, particularly with President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs put into place to address the Great Depression. But it certainly helped put into high gear the bloat we see today. Compounding the problem is the notion that immigration should be limitless and the nation borderless, despite a national debt of $20 trillion. The metastasis of bureaucracy is a huge indicator we’ve been on the path to centralized power that feeds corruption and lays groundwork for communism.

Erasure of collective memory. Another crime of radical education reform is its attack on the study of history, civics, and the classics of literature. Today we can see the bitter fruits of such 1960s radical education reform, which has roots going back to 1920s with John Dewey. If we are no longer able to place ourselves and society into the context of historical events, our vision going forward will be blurred at best.

It gets even worse if we don’t learn how our form of government functions. Today fewer and fewer college students have the capacity to understand that the First Amendment serves as a buffer against totalitarianism, not something to be abolished under the pretext of “hate speech.” And depriving students exposure to literary classics like Shakespeare (based on the charge that such works are “Western” and therefore ethnocentric) prevents them from discussing the universal human condition and our common humanity.

Instead, students are increasingly fed grievance studies and identity politics. As universities go this route, it trickles down to K-12 education. As a result, we are losing the social glue of our common traditions and heritage—not just as a nation, but as human beings. This cultivation of ignorance by the education establishment over the years compounds the isolating effect on people. It makes youth especially vulnerable to becoming fodder for power elites.

That’s from part two of a truly monumental work, a near-comprehensive primer on the mechanisms by which communism has infiltrated our society. I excerpted that bit because it underlines what I’ve always believed is the single most important step of the early stages: the infiltration and takeover of the educational system, and its subsequent use to not only promote communism, but also erode respect for American values, distort historical fact, erase knowledge of our Founding and our civic structure, and diminish the very idea of the value of liberty and the concept of unalienable, God-given rights themselves. From part three:

Once communism gained a foothold in Russia, it doomed its citizens to lives of scarcity, misery, social distrust, terror, and mass murder. The same goes for China. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Castros, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, the Kims of North Korea—all of them were brutal dictators enabled by a system that always places too much power into the hands of too few people. It’s a corrupt and cruel system that allows an elite oligarchy—which Lenin called a “vanguard”—to enslave the entire population.

But what about a nation like America, which was built on the idea that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? We have a Constitution that guarantees these rights and separates the branches of government, placing restraints on government so individuals may live freely. Furthermore, this document intentionally contained the seeds of slavery’s destruction. Americans shed a lot of blood to protect the freedoms enshrined in that document for us and for our posterity.

So is it possible that we, a free people, could ever throw it all away? Could we sell ourselves into the slavery called communism? Sadly, of course we could. Anyone who forgets his birthright is more likely to squander it. And there has been a lot of forgetting. As Ronald Reagan warned, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Chillingly prophetic words, those. And then there’s this:

Nearly 100 years ago, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci declared that the key to achieving global communism was through culture, not promoting socialist economic policies that had little appeal in the West. This would require a “long march through the institutions” of society, destroying them from within so communism could fill the vacuum.

Radicals of the 1960s like Saul Alinksy picked up on this theme, noting that “the system” (i.e., American freedom) could only be destroyed once radical operatives had secured control over society’s institutions. The deep state is one example of institutional takeover that’s been building through decades of bureaucratic bloat, with operatives embedded in the military and intelligence agencies. The cultural takeover of media outlets, academia, and entertainment is both broad and deep today, after decades of creep.

But it is the mediating institutions have been most relentlessly attacked—family, church, and voluntary organizations—because they serve as buffer zones of influence that help shield individuals from abuses by the state. Today they are more vulnerable than ever to total absorption by the Mass State, a prerequisite for communism.

Such has been their success that to even take note of this sinister “progress,” much less suggest that it should be seriously pondered or examined, is to hazard getting oneself labeled as a deluded headcase, an irrational, conspiracy-theorizing lunatic. Which in turns suggests just how difficult a struggle lies ahead of us, and how long it might take us to turn the tide—assuming that’s even possible at this late date.

Like I keep saying: not by accident, no coincidence. Once you acknowledge that, the rest follows as surely as dawn follows dark. These articles make an ironclad case for the proposition, and specific as they are, backed up by plenty of supporting links, amount to damned useful support for any good-faith discussion of the matter you might happen to find yourself involved in. From part one:

Although communist and socialist governments murdered well more than 100 million people in the course of the twentieth century, that number spikes even further when you include the practical bedfellows of communism, like Nazism and fascism, for example. According to the calculations of Professor R. J. Rummel, author of “Death by Government,” totalitarian regimes snuffed out approximately 169 million lives in the twentieth century alone. That number is more than four times higher than the 38 million deaths—civilian as well as military—caused by all of the twentieth century wars combined.

As Rummel states: “Power kills. Absolute power kills absolutely.” The common thread that runs through communist and fascist ideologies is their totalitarian nature, which means they control people by breeding scarcity, ignorance, human misery, social distrust, the constant threat of social isolation, and death to dissenters. All in the name of justice and equality.

They cannot abide any checks or balances, particularly checks on government power as reflected in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They fight de-centralization of power, which allows localities and states true self-governance. Such restraints on the centralized power of the state stand in the way of achieving the goal of communism: absolute state power over every single human being.

Which is why they’ve worked so diligently to neuter the Constitution, to dismiss it as a document of only historical interest with merely notional, glancing relevance to life in America today—”how could they have foreseen” etc and blah blah blah—or, alternatively, to promote it as a “living document” infinitely malleable to more comfortably suit the whims and fads of the moment.

It has become fashionable in some quarters on the Right to bash the Constitution as a failed document, a near-useless, poorly-conceived, slapdash botch doomed to said failure by its own in-built flaws right from the start. I never have subscribed to that theory myself; it has admittedly failed as the primary guardian of our rights, sure enough. But it’s my belief that the failure, just as Adams warned, was ours. Had we demanded strict adherence to its policies and prescriptions as we should have, and raised a real howl every time it was traduced or ignored by maleficent politicians with barely-clandestine designs on our natural rights, it would still be functioning perfectly well as the blueprint for proper governance of a free people.

The Constitution didn’t break down on its own; because of a soft complacency going back many, many years, it was broken. I have serious doubts as to the possibility of putting it back together again; I consider civil war or partition or both to be far more likely, sobering as it is to anticipate. But if repair and restoration is ever to happen, a clear understanding of who and what broke it, and why, would have to be a vital first step.

Share

Clueless about communism

A grim portent.

A recent poll found that fifty percent of millennials say they would rather live in a communist or socialist country than in a capitalist democracy. These numbers can’t be laughed off — they should frighten you. Maybe they don’t know what communism means.

I do. I lived in Communist Poland.

Perhaps those fifty percent of millennials were not properly taught about communism in school. That’s too bad, and dangerous.

Certainly is. But it’s more than that. It’s on purpose, and done with malign intent. As such, it graduates from merely deplorable to outright criminal.

Do you millennials enjoy having electricity on demand to charge your devices? Then you would hate Action “O.” Action “O” stood for “Oszczednosc,” which translates to “Savings.” Poland’s communist government would notoriously turn off electricity to various areas of the city to “save” energy.

They had an interesting system which they described as “customer oriented”: they would turn the electricity off for one minute and turn it back on for five minutes as a warning that a shutoff was coming. You had exactly five minutes to find your matches and candles, because after that electricity would shut off for several hours.

If that wasn’t bad enough, we suffered under a shortage of matches.

Follows, a very long litany of the usual commie “success” stories, none of which will or should surprise any of you. As TB has so pithily and perceptively said: “North Korea isn’t a failed socialist state, it’s a perfected one.

Far as I’m concerned, a state that uses mass starvation as a tool of government can’t reasonably be considered by any decent, knowledgeable person as anything but purest evil. Full stop, end of story, no elaboration necessary. But hey, THIS TIME we’ll get it right, eh, Leftards?

This also seems like a good time to repeat a favorite idea of mine: that every Left-leaning college student should be required—no ifs, ands, or buts—to spend a year after graduation in the commie or Moslem shithole of their choosing; it is self-evident that, should they ever get a real taste of the genuine article, they would be MOST unhappy about it, and the lesson learned would last their whole lives long. Every one of their seditious professors should have to do two years upon hiring, then a year at regular intervals, just as a refresher. That would be the end of this sort of nonsense, guaranteed.

As for that fifty percent of millennials, their cluelessness is their only defense as an explanation for their fondness for communism, albeit a mighty weak and unflattering one. They need to get themselves a real schooling before they do any more damage to the country than their equally witless parents have.

I think I’m gonna have to bookmark this piece, if not just download it entire. It makes for a highly useful primer course, seems to me, and ought to be spread around as widely as possible; my cap is duly doffed to Ryszard for writing it. Nobody is ever more horrified by the prospect of creeping communism here than those who have escaped it themselves, nor makes a more convincing case against it…and there’s a reason for that.

Update! Yet another commie “success” story…and another example of media propagandizing, too.

You know how Dem politicians who get in trouble suddenly become party-less. While GOP pols are always identified as such. Front and center.

Here’s a similar phenomenon when it comes to countries.

At the very bottom of a CNN story about Venezuela’s default and economic collapse is this correction. “This story has been updated to characterize Venezuela’s government as socialist.”

It’s right below the line, “The International Monetary Fund predicts that inflation in Venezuela will hit 650% this year and 2,300% in 2018.”

Why did that happen?

Boy, talk about a question that answers itself. Argentina, Brazil, and Bolivia all come in for dishonorable mention in Daniel’s post, too. As well they might, and should. But not in our Praetorian Media. Such inconvenient truth is Not Helpful, don’tchaknow.

Share

Ta Nahisi Coates is a damned idiot

But when he goes attacking Shelby Foote, he’s putting himself on the fightin’ side of me.

Specifically, Kelly has been excoriated for daring to call Robert E. Lee an “honorable man” and expressing the same view of the Civil War put forward in Burns’ enormously popular 1990 Civil War documentary. Up until this week, Burns’ series had been a celebrated work—a restored version of the series aired on PBS just two years ago. But now, at least according to Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, Burns’ masterpiece is a “disaster,” mostly because it relied heavily on interviews with Foote.

Foote is, of course, the author of his own celebrated Civil War masterpiece, a three-volume narrative history of the war, each about a thousand pages long, that stands as a triumph of American history and literature. The trilogy, which began as a contract with Random House to write a short one-volume history to mark the war’s approaching centennial, took Foote 20 years to write.

The volumes, published between 1958 and 1974, were almost immediately hailed as a seminal contribution to American letters. Writing in The New Republic, literary scholar and critic Louis D. Rubin Jr. said Foote’s trilogy “is a model of what military history can be.” The New York Times Book Review called it “a remarkable achievement, prodigiously researched, vigorous, detailed, absorbing.” (Presumably by today’s standards these reviewers would be upbraided for praising Foote.)

All of which is true. Now watch as a real mental pygmy crawls up on a better man’s shoulders and starts thumping his scrawny chest.

But because we live in an ignorant age, Foote’s reputation is getting dragged through the mud. In an article noting that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Kelly’s comments by citing the Burns documentary, Chait writes that Burns relies heavily on Foote, and “Foote presented Lee and other Confederate fighters as largely driven by motives other than preserving human property, and bemoaned the failure of the North and South to compromise (a compromise that would inevitably have preserved slavery).”

This should be dismissed as a simple case of historical ignorance, especially since it’s been repeated so often by a Wikipedia-reliant press corps over the past few days. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of the Civil War should know that the war came about, as all wars do, because of a failure to compromise.

In our case, the entire history of the United States prior to outbreak of war in 1861 was full of compromises on the question of slavery. It began with the Three-Fifths Compromise written into the U.S. Constitution and was followed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which prohibited slavery north of the 36°30’ parallel, excluding Missouri), the Compromise of 1850, then the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and eventually led to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the subsequent secession of the southern states. Through all this, we inched toward emancipation, albeit slowly.

In other words, the breakdown of all those decades of compromise did indeed lead to the Civil War. This is a point that Foote and other historians have made many times and that Kelly tried his best to paraphrase. Compromising on slavery had been part of how America stayed together, and staved off war, from the beginning. No historian disputes this. But for writers like Chait and The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, compromise was a bad thing because it preserved slavery. That such compromises limited slavery’s spread and put it on the path to extinction carries no weight with them.

That’s because Coates, like all too many black Americans, suffers from complete tunnel vision when it comes to slavery, especially as it intersects with and vivifies their default hatred for America. Our historical experience with slavery is shared by plenty of other nations and cultures stretching back to antiquity…except for the part where we fought a most hideous and bloody war to put an end to it. In that, we’re unique.

To put the cherry on all this pluperfect dumbassery, Coates conveniently ignores—as all his fellow Leftard America-haters do—the inconvenient fact that slavery is still practiced in plenty of African and Moslem nations to this very day. Not that you’ll ever hear one word of protest uttered by them over that inconvenient little fact. The only instance of the “peculiar institution” that seems to matter to them is the one that happened here, and was abolished going on two centuries ago.

All of which means Coates and his contemptible ilk can and should be fairly ignored—not just on this issue, but every other one too. Anybody so willfully blinded by their own over-emotional dimwittedness on any one issue is not to be trusted to have a remotely intelligent take on anything else. Thankfully, Foote’s legacy will far outshine and outlast whatever meager, noisome droppings will end up having to serve Coates as a pitiful excuse for one.

Share

Image problem

Zman on white nationalism and its future. If any, that is.

The term is not a new one. That means it comes with baggage and that baggage is not easily overcome. When most Americans hear “white nationalism” they think of snaggle-toothed rustics, wearing wife beaters and jorts, complaining about the coloreds. Getting modern whites to overcome the cult of anti-racism is hard under ideal conditions. Having Cletus as your sales rep makes it impossible.

That’s something the white identity people need to accept. For generations, Progressives have tightly associated racism with the South. The good white/bad white thing that John Derbyshire discusses is based entirely on this image. Bad whites shop at Walmart, like domestic beer and hate black people. Despite the fact that blacks have been moving back to the Old Confederacy for decades, black culture holds that the South is still aggressively racist. It’s at the core of the statue toppling and confederate flag burning manias.

Even if you can somehow get past the image problem, white nationalism is not some new concept developed by the alt-right. It has a history and it has a lot of veterans of its prior iterations. Those people are still kicking around. The web site Storm Front, in addition to being an FBI honey trap, is the home of the old White Nationalist guys, who used to follow guys like David Duke. If you borrow the language and symbols of these guys, you are inviting them and their ideas into your new version of white nationalism.

There are two problems with this. One is many of these guys were not the best people or the most stable people. Stepping way outside the moral framework is never easy, but it is a lot easier if you’re crazy. It’s also easier if you have nutty ideas that no one takes too seriously. Even the most generous evaluation of White Nationalism 1.0 says it was mostly a reaction to the cultural revolution of the 1960’s. It never came up with a plausible way forward politically or culturally. It was mostly old racists who just liked to complain.

Again, even if you manage to rehabilitate the language and symbols, you can’t get past the fact that prior efforts were a failure. A pretty good rule of life is that failure is assured if you follow in the footsteps of previous failures. It’s why adopting Nazi symbols is stupid. The Third Reich was most notable for being a disastrous failure. Associating your thing with failure is just bad marketing. It also tends to attract people who find some sort of satisfaction in losing. New Movements need need language and new symbols.

Putting all of that aside, prior iterations of white nationalism always suffered from the fact they were reactionary. At their very best, they could only offer a critique of the prevailing order. They had nothing to offer as an alternative, beyond demands to wind the clock backwards. Reactionary movements always fail in the long run for the simple reason that yesterday can never follow tomorrow. Even if everyone agrees the current arrangements are not working, what comes next is never a return to the old order.

That’s a problem not just for the white nationalists, but for everyone eager to see a second civil war in this country. Sure, you may successfully fight that war, you may see your enemies vanquished in it; you may even see the Leviathan State dismantled, its malign, suffocating influence destroyed for good. But there’s no guarantee that what will follow will be a restoration of the Constitutional order. In fact, if history is any guide, there’s every chance in the world that we’ll wind up with something much worse than what we now have, at least for a while.

Although it must be admitted that there would be much satisfaction in seeing our enemies vanquished just by itself, sure enough.

Share

“Paglia: The Dumbing Down of America Began in Public Schools”

And that was neither accident nor coincidence.

In the last several years, Americans have been sensing that something is seriously wrong with the current crop of young people. True, they are likely to have the most education credentials any generation has ever received. They also are technically-savvy, and as such, have a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips.

But in spite of these factors, today’s students seem to exhibit a character that is high in sensitivity and low in knowledge. What gives? Why are our students turning out like this?

Camille Paglia recently revealed the answer to that question. Paglia, a long-time Democrat, feminist, and college professor, believes the problem started in the earliest stages of education in the nation’s public schools:

“It’s really started at the level of public school education. I’ve been teaching now for 46 years as a classroom teacher, and I have felt the slow devolution of the quality of public school education in the classroom.”

According to Paglia, teachers at elite institutions are unable to see this decline in knowledge because their students often come from private schools and wealthy homes, which presumably still retain some elements of rigorous education. The great majority of students, however, can be described in the following way:

“What has happened is these young people now getting to college have no sense of history – of any kind! No sense of history. No world geography. No sense of the violence and the barbarities of history. So, they think that the whole world has always been like this, a kind of nice, comfortable world where you can go to the store and get orange juice and milk, and you can turn on the water and the hot water comes out. They have no sense whatever of the destruction, of the great civilizations that rose and fell, and so on – and how arrogant people get when they’re in a comfortable civilization. They now have been taught to look around them to see defects in America – which is the freest country in the history of the world – and to feel that somehow America is the source of all evil in the universe, and it’s because they’ve never been exposed to the actual evil of the history of humanity. They know nothing!”

Exactly right…and to paraphrase Reagan, almost everything they think they know isn’t so. “No sense of history” is the crucial bit; in every budding Marxist shitrapy under the sun, the first thing the New Bosses do (apart from ending private ownership of firearms, natch) is to get busy rewriting history to suit their purposes. It’s been no different here—which is how we’ve gone, for instance, from George Washington being the Father of his Country to George Washington, miserable slaveowning bastard. That’s if they deign to even discuss him at all.

As it happens, I’ve been re-reading some old H Beam Piper of late, and there’s a passage from Space Viking that might bear remembering right about now. To wit:

The barbarians are rising; they have a leader, and they’re uniting. The people who don’t understand civilization, and wouldn’t like it if they did. The hitchhikers. The people who create nothing, and who don’t appreciate what others have created for them, and who think civilization is something that just exists and that all they need to do is enjoy what they can understand of it—luxuries, a high living standard, and easy work for high pay. Responsibilities? Phooey! What do they have a government for?

And now, the hitchhikers think they know more about the car than the people who designed it, so they’re going to grab the controls…

It wasn’t the war that put Hitler into power. It was the fact that the ruling class of his nation, the people who kept things running, were discredited. The masses, the homemade barbarians, didn’t have anyone to take their responsibilities for them. What they have on Marduk is a ruling class that has been discrediting itself…And they have a democracy, and they are letting the enemies of democracy shelter themselves behind democratic safeguards.

That’s part of a longer discussion on how civilizations die off, and was written in 1962 or thereabouts. Funny, innit, how the more things change, the more they stay the same?

(Via Insty)

Update! Colleges: part of the problem too.

Are they our betters because of the degrees they hang on the walls of their over-priced, open-floor plan townhouses? Going to college used to mean something more than you had nowhere else to go after high school. It was a training ground for the leadership class. A college student was an invitee to an intellectual banquet where he could sample the best of Western civilization, of art and literature, of civics and philosophy. But today, it’s all gender studies and grade inflation, with whiny social justice warriors drowning out any voice that won’t sing in tune. It is steam table trays heaped with gray, fatty meat and limp asparagus – the Golden Corral of the mind.

Our aspiring leadership class leaves college with an anchor of debt and the itch of chlamydia, poisoned by a politically correct hook-up culture that amazingly manages to combine the most boring and annoying aspects of both leftism and debauchery. Out go these future leaders on their “slut-walks” and the rest of us look at them and think “Hard pass.” We’ve raised a generation of immoral puritans, living their lives in constant fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a normal sex life.

Where are the elite’s achievements? Our betters have been running things and yet they are the ones crying loudest about how awful things are. It’s another scam, of course. Things are awful, but not for them – do you think the Westside Los Angeles folks I dwell among are hurting? No, let the good times roll – on the backs of the people east of I-5. Things are hard out there in actual America (but improving under Donald Trump, the quintessential Anti-Better), and our ruling class is demanding action. That action is to direct more money and power to the ruling class. That’s the answer to every policy question. Yeah, they’ve failed, but if you reward them, well, then they’ll totally start succeeding.

Iraq, the 2008 financial meltdown, health care…the hits keep coming, and the answer for the last failure is always the same. Trust us, and double down. Accountability? That’s for us suckers.

It’s Schlichter again, and it’s dead on the money. I excerpted the latter part of this column a week or so ago, but this bit was apt enough to attach to this post, so you get another chance to go read it if you missed it before.

Share

Getting to the root of the problem

It didn’t start with Obama. Nor Clinton, Carter, JFK, or even FDR.

In 1913, Woodrow Wilson was the newly elected president. Wilson and his fellow progressives scorned the Constitution and the Declaration. They moved swiftly to replace the Founders’ republic with a new regime.

There is widespread agreement that Wilson did not always show good judgment – for example, in his blunders in international relations – but in the project of overturning the Founding, he and the movement he led selected their targets shrewdly. By the time he left office, the American republic was, as they say, history. The fundamentals of the new regime were in place, and the expansion of government under FDR, LBJ, and Obama was made easy, perhaps even inevitable.

Nineteen-thirteen gave us the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. That year also saw the creation of the Federal Reserve. This burst of changes marks the effective beginning of the Progressive Era in American politics, the era in which we now live. Wilson was to do much more that would once have been considered out of bounds, but these three changes were enough to change everything. In 1913, the fundamental agreement the Founders made with the American people about the relation of the states and the federal government was broken.

Here is the Founders’ original bargain, stated by James Madison in Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

It is important to remember that when we speak of the ratification of the Constitution, this is what was ratified. But this is not the government we now have. Today’s central government is not the federal government of the original Constitution.

Boy, he said a mouthful there. He mentions the three pillars of Progressivism that were the first big steps on the road to undoing America as founded; the 17th Amendment, the abomination that allowed for direct popular election of Senators, is mentioned first, as well it ought to be. I’ve certainly railed about it here often enough.

Clearly, the bargain, honorably entered into by the Founders’ generation, was broken. It was broken by the 17th Amendment, which instituted the direct election of U.S. senators. That amendment struck directly at the heart of the Founders’ design.  According to the original Constitution, senators were chosen by the state legislators. Unlike the members of the House, who represent the people of their district, the senators had a special responsibility to represent their states in the deliberations having to do with the those “few and defined” powers the Constitution transferred from the states to the federal government. That is why the states with small populations and the states with larger populations got the same number of senators and the same number of votes in the Senate. It is also why the Constitution gives the Senate power over treaties and over the appointment of the senior officials of the executive, those whose responsibilities include “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.” The 17th Amendment eliminated the fundamental electoral guarantee of the Founders’ vision of a federal government with limited powers.

The system we have today bypasses the state legislatures. The consequences have been many and profound. Probably the most obvious has been the inevitable erosion of the independence of the states and of their ability to counterbalance federal power.  The Senate was a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but senators abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the states no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the central government, the power of the central government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states. The states increasingly are relegated to functioning as administrative units of today’s gargantuan central government.  

To my way of thinking, this was the Big One, the one crucial step to transforming Constitutionally limited government into something the Founders would have abhorred. He goes on to make the case against the 16th and the creation of the Federal Reserve, winding up thusly:

It is perfectly obvious that we are far down the path to a new kind of tyranny by way of endless bureaucratic regulation and confiscation. If we are to recover and secure our liberty, much must be done, and much must be undone. We cannot succeed unless we carefully remove these three pillars of the Progressive State.

Again: he said a mouthful there. But to accomplish that would require the determined and unequivocal insistence of a benighted and historically-ignorant populace well-indoctrinated via a monolith consisting of government schools, the media-entertainment complex, the university system, and the government itself to regard a too-powerful central government as the natural order of things, and the answer to all their problems. Frankly, I don’t see it happening—not now, not ever. The country will break apart long before that ever happens…and I don’t see that as being particularly likely, either.

But at least we all have the satisfaction of knowing that Woodrow Wilson—a hateful, conniving, treacherous, rancidly evil bastard—will burn in Hell for a thousand years.

Update! Related? Oh, you better believe it is.

Yet another Orwellian restatement of the obvious: Marxism isn’t done. It’s alive and well. Every time it fails, it re-brands itself, peddles itself to the next generation of wishful thinkers, and wrecks another country. Venezuela is the most recent, glaring example. The U.S. may be wrecked in time, too, because the proselytizers of Marxism (under various types of shiny Christmas wrapping) infest our university system, the entertainment establishment, the news media, and government.

Think Marxism will never happen here? Upton Sinclair—the ardent socialist intellectual—said: the American people will never accept socialism when it’s labeled as socialism, but they *will* accept socialism under different names.

Which is why modern American Marxists will so hotly and adamantly deny that their brand of socialism, is in any way Marxist, or especially communist. Because they know Marxism and communism have a bad rap. They are depending on their ability to re-brand the same bad ideas (which “sound good” in the words of Thomas Sowell) in order to push those ideas forward.

In the end, every time socialism fails, the Marxists will claim it’s magically not socialism. We have had numerous examples of different interpretations of Marxist theory implemented at the national level, and those examples speak of unprecedented human suffering. Which somehow doesn’t count, we are told, because these countries weren’t doing it right.

So, clearly, we have to try again.

And destroy another nation.

And another. And another. And another.

And now, at long last, they have America itself squarely in their crosshairs—making it a bitter irony indeed to hear people talk about how we “won” the Cold War. But hey, THIS time they’ll get it right for SURE. Right, libtards?

(Via Sarah Hoyt)

Share

Unexpurgated history

Gavin McInnes gets himself a schooling.

Dunkirk starkly portrays the nearly 400,000 British soldiers who were rescued from this coastal French town when the Nazis cornered them on the beaches. It happened in the spring of 1940 and was a major turning point in the war. The Nazis saw it as a victory because they sent England running and the Brits saw it as a victory because they saved hundreds of thousands of men and enabled them to fight another day. In the Time/Life special-edition magazine Dunkirk: One Rescue, Nine Days, 340,000 Lives Saved, they argue that Britain was only able to escape because Hitler blundered and gave the Nazis a three-day break shortly before the evacuation. I don’t think it was a blunder. I believe Hitler allowed the Brits to escape because he saw Churchill as a potential ally at the beginning of the war and hoped they could fight together.

All this is covered beautifully, of course, in Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire. Here we learn of Germany’s affinity with the U.K. (I had no idea the Kaiser was Queen Victoria’s grandson). The book argues that Churchill should have continued England’s “splendid isolation” and let Germany have its way with Europe. The whole thing would have taken a few months and we wouldn’t have had the Holocaust or countless other atrocities. We lost a good 60 million people in that war and most of them starved to death. Worse, Buchanan points out, the war led to the end of Western dominance and begat the proliferation of Leninism, Stalinism, and the oppressive communist ideologies that still plague us today. We may have defeated the Nazis, but using our bravest and brightest left us ill-equipped to handle their ideology. Dinesh D’Souza released The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left this week, in which he makes the claim that the far left are not similar to Nazis—they are Nazis. Where Hillary’s America proved the DNC has no right to use the race card, his new book shows the left has no right to employ the Nazi card, either.

This is what I was hoping my Puerto Rican neighbor and everyone else would glean from the film. We didn’t steal our wealth and privilege from the poor. We had civil war after civil war and eventually figured out the best way to maximize personal freedom. More important, just as Churchill’s hubris enabled communism to flourish after WWII, we are letting the same kind of fascism flourish today. Only, today it’s not just leftist fascism, it’s Islam. The left’s ethnomasochistic war on history has created a vacuum that Sharia is happy to fill. To throw bacon on a mosque is a death sentence in today’s England, but Muslims can rape children with reckless abandon. This happens because of shame. Shame happens because we trivialize our own achievements and assume we don’t deserve what we have. We must have stolen it. We need to be punished.

You could call it a weird societal version of Stockholm Syndrome, maybe.

Share

Winning

How it’s done. And how it isn’t.

The obsession with principle has always been the central defect of what the kids now call “Boomer Conservatism.” The BoomerCons accept, without argument, the principles and moral framework of the Left and then they try to out-righteous the other side in a pointless game of virtue signalling. It is the basis of the DR3 meme. Even if you are able to “prove” that the “Democrats are the real racists,” all you have done is prove they are right and that racism is the worst thing ever. Even if you win, you end up losing.

And yes, I know, not all Boomers think like this and many younger people fall into the same trap. Lots of young people like the Rolling Stones and The Who, but it is still Boomer music. The cultural upheavals going on today are due to the cultural upheavals that went on yesterday, when the Boomers tossed over the culture they inherited and created the prevailing orthodoxy of today. All of us now live in Boomer Land, which means we live in the moral structure created by the Boomer generation.

Now, the folks with the tricorn hats and “heritage not hate” signs can be forgiven for not seeing the folly of their tactics. They came of age when the general consensus said that the goal is a color blind society. If the bad honkies would just open up their hearts to the black man, all the race stuff would melt away. It was all nonsense, but a whole generation was raised on it and now they struggle to let it go. For most Boomers, egalitarianism is their heritage, so it is understandable that they cling to it.

Of course, the libertarian boomers have turned their love of principle into a ready excuse for not getting into a serious fight with the Left. You see it in this post on the American Conservative.

This month, three conservative protesters rushed onto a New York City theatre stage—and briefly into the national spotlight—enraged by the mock-execution of a character dressed to look like Trump. As a New Yorker fond of civilization I was alarmed at this barbaric behavior because this is how cultures unravel.

Well, that’s how culture wars work. Each side tries to impose their cultural preferences on the other. If you are in opposition to the prevailing culture then what you seek, by definition, is an unraveling of the culture. That’s how you win. Otherwise, you confine yourself to tactics that will never work. For guys like Todd Seavey, principle is a coffin they think will give them comfort as the Left lowers them into the grave.

The only way a counter culture gets any traction is if it is indifferent, or even hostile, to the prevailing morality. There are two types of principles a people live by. There are those that precede their demise and those they create after they triumph. The people desperately clinging to their principles, lecturing those willing to do what it takes to win, will be buried with those principles. The winners, meanwhile, will be busy crafting a new morality. That’s the lesson of history. The people with a future get to write the past.

Great line, that last one. As for the rest, I think our real problem isn’t so much principle as it is the fact that we are simply no longer a nation. We no longer have either a shared culture or a common ideology; we’re now bound not by a common high regard for the ideals espoused by the Founders, but by nothing more powerful or abiding than simple inertia.

But I’ll also say this: after years of watching the Vichy GOPe throw fight after fight whilst talking a tough game both before and after, I don’t think the problem is so much with conservative principles as it is with a phony commitment to them being used as a subterfuge by a passel of rent-seeking drones content to accept perpetual second-class status in return for a permanent seat at the DC trough. That’s one of the big reasons why I believed early on in his run that a non-professional-politician like Trump was exactly what we needed—was, in fact, our only hope for even a partial restoration of the freer, stronger America I grew up in.

The Prissy Conservative handwringing over how JUST HORRIBLY AWFULLY AWFUL the disruption of the Left’s nasty, seditious little play was ought to say everything anyone will ever need to know about the likelihood of old-guard conservatives ever successfully conserving anything. From where I sat it looked like a victory, if only a small one, and I was damned heartened to see it. If it was the Left disrupting such an event, you can be sure that not only would the thing have been shut down completely, but there would have been some skulls cracked along the way too. Then the media would have buried the story right away, and the PC Poindexters supposedly on our side would have themselves a good cry over how unfair the double standard is, that they’d never do it if the party affiliations were reversed.

And then we’d all limp on off to the next dispiriting defeat, dribbling a steady stream of deserters who found themselves sick and tired of the futility—refusing to spend their effort on a cause none of its ersatz defenders really think worth mussing their hair or alienating their “friends and colleagues across the aisle” over.

Well, screw all that. If some Progtard skulls have to be well and truly cracked to get them off our necks at last, well, best to get a-crackin’; it may already be too late to do much real good. If that makes the Polite Right cry and National Review print a black cover on their next issue mourning the Death Of Civility, hey, I hate it for ’em, I truly do. The Polite Right had their chance to lead; they chose to follow instead. Now all that’s left to them is to get the hell out of the way.

Share

True conservatism

What’s not to like?

I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut, which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government’s most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures.

When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.

Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions. And any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

Now, guess who said it? Go on, guess. The answer is as revealing about the totalitarian abomination the Democrat Socialist Party has now become as anything I can think of.

Share

Doubling down on dumb

Steyn on the lesson unlearned.

The lesson of Tuesday night for Democrats should have been the thought Rush Limbaugh left his listeners with just before he signed off on Election Day back in 2000: “Maybe there are fewer of us than I thought…” The people who think like Andrew Sullivan and Sally Kohn and Emma Watson and John Oliver and Lena Dunham are, if not few in number, concentrated in relatively few corners of a sprawling country: one third of the Democrats’ representation in the House now comes from just three states – New York, Massachusetts and California. That’s one reason why they’re calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.

But, absent the upending of the constitution, they have a problem.

John Oliver and Stephen Colbert and Trevor Noah have sportingly decided, to judge from their ratings, to prioritize their politics over their comedy. But, whether or not “Love Trumps Hate”, condescension doesn’t trump anything. For a year-and-a-half they shoveled industrial-strength coastal sneering into the path of the Trump train on a scale that would have derailed any other candidate before he got to Iowa. Instead, Trump just bulldozed through it. If elite condescension failed to deny him the presidency, is it likely to be any more effective now that he is the president?

It’s been little short of amazing to see the liberal media continuing to try to entrap Trump with lies just as they have all along, even after as resounding a repudiation as they got on election day. They’re just skating along as if they’re unaware a historic landslide just took place in spite of their best efforts to forestall it. Can it be possible that they don’t actually realize that their manipulation and deceit is a huge part of why he won in the first place? Can anybody really be that stupid?

Share

Sad!

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

In 2004, with the left in the grip of anti-Bush fever, 48 percent of Democrats nonetheless said they were “very confident” that their votes would be counted accurately. Today, among Republicans, it’s 38 percent. That’s not all Trump’s doing. Some of it is a partisan effect of the out-party’s voters always having less faith that the party in power will play fairly, some of it is Clinton-specific in fearing that Bill and Hillary will find some nefarious way to tilt the board towards them, and part of it is the general decline of public faith in American institutions over the last 10 years.

And “some of it” is the incredible corruption and megalomania of the Democrat Socialist Party and its obvious willingness to rig or steal elections, brazenly on display now since at least the mid-1800s, if not before.

It may be that we’d be seeing unusual high fears of vote-rigging this year regardless of who the GOP nominee is. Even so, though — just 11 percent of Trump supporters are “very confident” in the national vote count and a bare majority of 50 percent are either “not too confident” or “not confident at all.” Some of that is Trump. If you believe that the national books can be cooked on Election Day, you’re probably also a hard sell on the idea that Hillary’s winning right now nationally. Why, if anything, the pollsters are probably coordinating with Hillary to prepare public expectations in anticipation of the Big Rigging in November. Just look at her crowd sizes compared to Trump’s, after all.

Yeah, it’s just ridiculous to suggest that elections could ever be rigged in this country…and just never mind Tammany Hall, and the precincts in Philadelphia in 2012 that showed not one single vote for Romney, and the 108 percent of voters who went for Ogabe in some Ohio county or other (those are just from memory, mind; it’s by no means an inclusive list). All perfectly legit and aboveboard, natch.

And while we’re at this debunking of silly, paranoid conspiracy theories, let’s dispense with the whole idea of a liberal media/entertainment/academic monolith working relentlessly at inculcating the notion that socialism is a system vastly superior to Constitutional government and economic liberty, why don’t we? Why, according to AP’s line of reasoning above, that would be just stupid, you stupid, stupid Trumpkin. So stop being so paranoid and help us restore conservatism by supporting Hillary. It’s the only True Conservative option.

See, the sad “truth” is that the election is over, and Trump, who never had a chance of winning, was defeated soundly. In fact, he never had a chance at the nomination, which was proved overwhelmingly when The Right Reverend Holy of Holies, the oily Ted Cruz, coasted to the nomination with a record number of votes. It’s August, for Cruz’s sake, and polls three months away from voting day have always proven absolutely, positively correct. Just ask president Mike Dukakis about that. Or look at Jimmy Carter’s successful re-election campaign in 1980, for that matter.

Might as well give up now, Trumptards. All the liberal-leaning polling organizations like Pew, Gallup, and Brookings have spoken, and their premature word is holy writ. If you don’t believe it, hell, just ask ’em. Or ask a frothing NeverTrumper/I’mWithHer type, they’ll be glad to set you straight.

Sheesh.

Share

“Mic…consider yourself dropped”

It’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s that so much of what they know isn’t so.

I did my bit today. I sat with the OR resident leftists- a couple of hearts on their sleeves white folks who keep telling me how horrible Republicans are and why I should agree with them that religious people are the source of every problem in the world, and that American police love to kill black people.

Well, this black man let them have it. I walked them through the history of the Republican party, the speeches and writings of Frederick Douglas…and I was just getting started. I told them who founded the KKK, and which states in the South were for segregation and which party their governments belonged to. I kept going, indices of economy, family stability, education of black people in America and how that has declined since welfare. Some idiot in the corner piped up about how blacks in WW2 were not educated and welfare and the 60’s had changed all that. Well, I happen to have a picture of a Tuskegee P51 Mustang as my laptop wallpaper…

They probably had no clue that the Tuskegee Airmen even existed, much less what a P-51 is.

On a side note, I’m still trying to fight off the worst summer cold in history, so posting will continue to be, shall we say, spotty and inconsistent. In fact, I might lapse into downright incoherence if I finally get desperate enough to take a Benadryl for it. That stuff works great and all, but it does tend to knock me for a loop, I do admit it.

(Via Ed)

Share

The truth about slavery

As with just about everything else, it’s a lot more complicated than most would like to think.

Nearly all modern historians agree that the scenario depicted by Alex Haley in Roots—that of white raiders penetrating the African interior to rout African villages for slaves—is fraudulent. Instead, European slave traders nearly always bought slaves from African vendors at coastal markets. We hear much about the brutal “Middle Passage” across the Atlantic Ocean, but almost never about the estimated 10 million or so indigenous Africans who perished while being marched to the sea in chains and yokes by their African captors.

We don’t hear that according to Boston University’s Linda Heywood and John Thornton, about 90% of Africans transported to the New World had initially been enslaved by other Africans. We don’t hear about Tippu Tip, who was once a world-famous black slave trader in Zanzibar. And we certainly don’t hear much about how Barack Obama—who has no ancestral ties to African slaves in America—is descended from the Luo peoples, who routinely captured other Africans in war and sold them into slavery.

But when the Transatlantic Slave Trade was still active, what did African blacks and their American descendants have to say? Glad you asked…

Go read the rest. His conclusion is right on the money.

Share

Preview of coming, uhh, attractions

Brace yourselves.

On January 20, 2017, President Bernie Sanders was sworn into office. The elderly Vermont politician, who had always made waves, refused to use a bible, instead taking his oath on a smudged copy of his own economic five-year plan. He also unilaterally modified the presidential oath from “preserve, protect and defend” to “enhance, enrich and humanize the Constitution of the United States”.

The unlikely candidacy of Bernie Sanders had shocked and divided a party and then a nation.

President Sanders won the Democratic Party nomination by going far to the left and then, defying conventional wisdom, he moved even further to the left in the general election. Unable to retain the minority portion of the Obama coalition, many of whose leaders had been allied with Hillary Clinton and were still bitter over her loss and did little to help him, his victory relied heavily on youth voter turnout.

Voter turnout in America had been falling since the sixties. But in 2016, it fell below the 50% mark for the first time in history. When Bernie Sanders won a three-way election, only 43% of a weary nation came out to vote. And barely a fifth of the country voted for the first Socialist president.

The Sanders campaign had eschewed a slogan; instead it listed all the things that would be given away for free. Free health care, free college, free homes, free phones, free internet, free cars and free money for everyone. In the last week of the campaign, President Sanders had unveiled a guaranteed minimum income that would be paid to every individual in this country making Welfare-for-All into a reality.

The disappointment did not take long to arrive.

It never does. Anybody think that this time, at long last and after who even knows how many object examples all over the world, they’ll learn a damned thing from it?

Daniel’s Bernie campaign posters are pretty good, too.

Share

Plaster saint

Correcting the liberal rewrite of history, one chapter at a time. This one’s from the wayback machine for sure (1983), but still worth a look if you don’t know much about the subject.

I had the singular honor of attending an early private screening of Gandhi with an audience of invited guests from the National Council of Churches. At the end of the three-hour movie there was hardly, as they say, a dry eye in the house. When the lights came up I fell into conversation with a young woman who observed, reverently, that Gandhi’s last words were “Oh, God,” causing me to remark regretfully that the real Gandhi had not spoken in English, but had cried, Hai Rama! (“Oh, Rama”). Well, Rama was just Indian for God, she replied, at which I felt compelled to explain that, alas, Rama, collectively with his three half-brothers, represented the seventh reincarnation of Vishnu. The young woman, who seemed to have been under the impression that Hinduism was Christianity under another name, sensed somehow that she had fallen on an uncongenial spirit, and the conversation ended.

At a dinner party shortly afterward, a friend of mine, who had visited India many times and even gone to the trouble of learning Hindi, objected strenuously that the picture of Gandhi that emerges in the movie is grossly inaccurate, omitting, as one of many examples, that when Gandhi’s wife lay dying of pneumonia and British doctors insisted that a shot of penicillin would save her, Gandhi refused to have this alien medicine injected in her body and simply let her die. (It must be noted that when Gandhi contracted malaria shortly afterward he accepted for himself the alien medicine quinine, and that when he had appendicitis he allowed British doctors to perform on him the alien outrage of an appendectomy.) All of this produced a wistful mooing from an editor of a major newspaper and a recalcitrant, “But still. . . .” I would prefer to explicate things more substantial than a wistful mooing, but there is little doubt it meant the editor in question felt that even if the real Mohandas K. Gandhi had been different from the Gandhi of the movie it would have been nice if he had been like the movie-Gandhi, and that presenting him in this admittedly false manner was beautiful, stirring, and perhaps socially beneficial.

Well, of course–there was a Valuable Lesson to teach us, and libtards are always seeking to “educate” the rest of us benighted swine in this fashion. Thus:

Gandhi, therefore, the film, this paid political advertisement for the government of India, is organized around three axes: (1) Anti-racism—all men are equal regardless of race, color, creed, etc.; (2) anti-colonialism, which in present terms translates as support for the Third World, including, most eminently, India; (3) nonviolence, presented as an absolutist pacifism. There are other, secondary precepts and subheadings. Gandhi is portrayed as the quintessence of tolerance (“I am a Hindu and a Muslim and a Christian and a Jew”), of basic friendliness to Britain (“The British have been with us for a long time and when they leave we want them to leave as friends”), of devotion to his wife and family. His vow of chastity is represented as something selfless and holy, rather like the celibacy of the Catholic clergy. But, above all, Gandhi’s life and teachings are presented as having great import for us today. We must learn from Gandhi.

I propose to demonstrate that the film grotesquely distorts both Gandhi’s life and character to the point that it is nothing more than a pious fraud, and a fraud of the most egregious kind. Hackneyed Indian falsehoods such as that “the British keep trying to break India up” (as if Britain didn’t give India a unity it had never enjoyed in history), or that the British created Indian poverty (a poverty which had not only existed since time immemorial but had been considered holy), almost pass unnoticed in the tide of adulation for our fictional saint. Gandhi, admittedly, being a devout Hindu, was far more self-contradictory than most public men. Sanskrit scholars tell me that flat self-contradiction is even considered an element of “Sanskrit rhetoric.” Perhaps it is thought to show profundity.

Read all of it, if you’re at all interested in the nuts and bolts of how the Long March Through The Institutions manipulates and deceives those who allow themselves to be hoodwinked by it. It’s about as good a demonstration as you’ll find of the folly of taking Hollywood movies as a reliable source of historical information–even ones that purport to be “historical.” Maybe especially those. It’s a long one, but it’s damned good.

And as far as I’m concerned, it’s yet another demonstration of the overall superiority of Western culture over all others, even–again, especially–those inexplicably revered by the ass-backwards Left. The money quote, and the bottom line? This:

As almost always with historical films, even those more honest than Gandhi, the historical personage on which the movie is based is not only more complex but more interesting than the character shown on the screen.

Seeing as how such rewrites of history are based entirely on the shibboleths of a vacuous, trite, and dull ideology promulgated by people who simply aren’t nearly as bright as they think they are, how could it ever be otherwise?

(Via Ed)

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix