Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Labor Day

Then, now, and future.

Happy Labo(u)r Day! That’s what the day used to be about: putting the “u” in Labor. You can’t spell labour without you, and without you and your labour this planet would be a primitive state of nature, red in tooth and claw. Consider the words of Peter J McGuire, General Secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, proposing the very first Labor Day a mere century-and-a-third ago. The new day would be an occasion, he said, to honor those “who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold”.

What a crazy! All the grandeur we behold comes from man and his work? What fossil fuel is he inhaling? Today, rude nature is the state we aspire to, and you can’t even delve and carve a Keystone pipeline underneath it, out of sight. Labor itself, in the sense Mr McGuire used the term, is morally dubious among our elites, and, down at the other end, simply unknown.

By 2012, one tenth of the adult population had done not a day’s work since Tony Blair took office on May 1st 1997 – a decade and a half earlier. In such households, the weekday ritual of rising, dressing, and leaving for gainful employment is entirely unknown. In many parts of America, the “conversation”, as they say on MSNBC, is between the dependent class and the governing class that ministers to them and keeps them (more or less) in line. If you’re a convenience store owner in, say, Ferguson, Missouri, your low-skilled service jobs are the only labor on offer, and, for your pains, you get burned and looted by the dependent class while your 911 calls go unanswered by the governing class, both of which you fund.

Now there’s a glimpse of the world to come, for those who wish to ponder it.

If you want to see what “the masses” are meant to look like, you can’t do better than Metropolis, Fritz Lang’s 1926 expressionist masterpiece.

It’s a magnificent film, and a lot of its assumptions – the big surveillance state – remain highly relevant. But its conception of work isn’t exactly the way it panned out: The workers are slaves, living underground, chained to the levers, wheels, cranks and cogs of a vast machine, dehumanized by the crushing anonymity of their servitude, etc, etc.

Alas, nothing dates faster than a futuristic vision: Today, the nightmare that beckons is quite the opposite. Instead of a world in which the workers are forced to operate huge, clanking machines below the earth all day long, the machines are small and silent and so computerized no manpower is required and the masses have to be sedated by shallow, shiny distractions that enable you to watch Metropolis on a pocket gizmo an-inch-and-a-half wide.

What comes after the Labor Day cook-out? Big Government decreases social mobility, which has spent the new millennium declining remorselessly in America. Dependency ultimately leads to a society as rigid as that of Metropolis. The elites, as Michelle Obama did, do a little light diversity outreach for 350 grand a year; the middle classes man the Department of Paperwork; and beneath them is a vast dysfunctional underclass that, if you’re lucky, is too torpid to riot too often. It’s a subtler vision of hell than Fritz Lang’s, but just as hellish.

Labor Day is an appropriate occasion on which to reflect upon the dignity of work and self-sufficiency and its indispensability to a civilized society. There may be something down the pike that can replace it, but, on the evidence so far, welfare, minimum-wage service jobs, heroin and meth aren’t it. Which is why Donald Trump won the election.

And then, y’know, this happened.

Share

Stolen glory

They stepped in it. They splattered it all over themselves. Now they’re frantically trying to clean up the mess.

Legendary Apollo 11 astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin took a swipe at the upcoming movie “First Man” late Sunday for its director’s decision not to show the planting of the American flag on the moon during the historic 1969 mission.

Aldrin, 88, who was the second man to step on the moon, behind crewmate Neil Armstrong, posted historical photos of the flag-planting and added the hashtag “Proud to be an American.”

In previous posts Saturday, Aldrin shared photos of himself wearing a T-shirt with the tagline “Buzz Aldrin, Future Martian” that shows an astronaut planting the American flag on the Red Planet.

Chazelle himself also released a statement, insisting the omitting of the planting of the US flag had nothing to do with politics.

“The flag being physically planted into the surface is one of several moments of the Apollo 11 lunar EVA [extravehicular activity] that I chose not to focus upon,” he said on Friday.

“To address the question of whether this was a political statement, the answer is no. My goal with this movie was to share with audiences the unseen, unknown aspects of America’s mission to the moon — particularly Neil Armstrong’s personal saga and what he may have been thinking and feeling during those famous few hours,” the director added.

When he was, y’know, planting the American flag on the fucking moon. In celebration of a wholly American achievement. The Soviets got to low orbit before petering out. Nobody else has managed to do even that much. Hell, even we can’t manage it anymore. It might be a past glory, now long behind us. But it’s still OUR glory, no matter how much that indisputable fact disrupts the feel-goods of globalist shitlibs.

The article quotes Armstrong’s kids as saying they actually agree with the shitlibs on its being a “human” achievement, but who gives a stinking damn what they think? None of them have been to the moon yet either. Anytime they want to go plant themselves a UN flag up there, they’re welcome to try. Maybe Once-Great Britain, Turkmenistan, Sierra Leone, and Burkina Faso can help out.

Share

Cheap talk

This has been bothering me for a while now.

I am nowhere near as confident as Kurt Schlichter that the right wing could trounce the left wing in battle. We can’t even unite to keep Alex Jones on Facebook. It is true that conservatives have more guns and are probably better street fighters. But conservatives also cave in large numbers even when their most sacred cows are in danger – such as the First Amendment or Christian principles. The two latter issues sit at the core of academic bias and debates on sexuality, respectively. I have the war wounds from both battles and can attest to the repeating scenario: conservatives talk and talk about what they believe and how bad the left is. Then they give up (in) droves when it comes time to fight.

They also talk a lot about how their 2A rights are an infallible guarantee that the Left can never really win in their perennial quest to establish tyranny…and just you never mind the 20 or 30 thousand restrictions on guns on the books already; the more like them surely to come, eroding our rights bit by little bit; and the simple fact that as long as those guns stay disassembled and securely locked up in a state-mandated gun safe, they’re of no use at all in defending anything, and guarantee nothing.

We may fantasize that conservatives constitute a massive invincible army against the left. None of this will help us if nobody is willing to show up for the fight. The midterm elections this fall could easily hand the Democrats a commanding lead in both the Senate and the House. We have no real reason to expect that conservatives will gather in large numbers to monitor the voting process for fraud. The fall surprises full of slander, innuendo, and social media mobbing will follow the pattern we saw in the Roy Moore election, with National Review writers like David French slamming Republican candidates and commentators like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro playing it safe by virtue-signaling if ominous accusations, no matter how unproven or unlikely, gain traction with the general public.

Prudence calls for us to rally our troops to fight smear campaigns rigorously and to monitor the elections for voting fraud. But let’s not dream unrealistic dreams. If the Democrats win both houses of Congress, we should brace ourselves for the following probabilities:

Trump Will Be Impeached but Probably Not Removed from Office

The Obama years spoiled the left. With amazing speed, they developed an adolescent sense of entitlement, convinced themselves that their own propaganda is “fact,” and believed they would never lose control of the government, culture, schools, churches, military, intelligence, and media. While the left hates Trump with particular ferocity, any figure associated with the left’s loss of total national power would have provoked a knee-jerk temper tantrum.

Under no conceivable scenario will the left control the House without impeaching Trump. They hate him with the heat of a thousand suns and defy all appeals to fairness and logic. The trial in the House will consume the country, bog Trump in red tape, and stall the swamp-draining reforms until the presidential election in 2020. It will probably be impossible to get 67 senators to vote to remove Trump, but the impeachment in the House will be enough to throw most of Trump’s housecleaning efforts into disarray.

In an impeachment situation, many conservatives will betray us and jump on whatever charges the left manages to articulate against Trump. Too many on our side lack the willpower to resist coordinated message across major news outlets.

And even more aren’t really “on our side” at all, but are in barely-clandestine league with the enemy.

Lopez has a real bug up his ass about gays and rattles on about “conversion therapy” a fair bit, which, fine, whatevs; it’s an issue I don’t find all that compelling, frankly, but YMMV. His closing turn is way more consequential if you ask me:

Conservatives Will Complain and Roll Over and Do Nothing

I am sorry this prediction is so dire, but we have seen little in recent history to indicate any other outcome if Democrats take the House and Senate.

The point is, we have to hold both houses of Congress, which means we have to get moving immediately. As I told my Christian friends recently, “yes, God is on the throne. But we still have to get off our couches and do something.”

Well, hey, it’s always been my understanding that He only helps those who help themselves, right?

(Via Ol’ Remus)

Share

History lesson

How America went astray.

If governments through the ages have had a fixed star, it would begin with their Bureaucracy.

In the debates over how the new Constitution of 1787 should look, one constant both Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans seemed to agree was that the size and power of government should depend entirely on the people’s control of the men who both could increase the size and mission of government, and also raise the money to pay for it.

Despite their animosity towards one another, the Federalists and Republicans were of one mind about keeping the federal government very lean. The idea that the federal government should want to grow did not begin until the formation of the Democratic Party and Andrew Jackson, 1824-28, when the spoils system was first introduced…after all the lions had passed away.

But they finally got an income tax in 1913 (16th Amendment), (count the years, by generations, 126 and 4) which, while very, very small, its fine print enabled Congress to increase it almost at will, and then, 19 years later, 1932, with the Great Depression, and the next generation of Progressives called in to fix it, (FDR and the New Deal), the government grew like mushrooms in a rain forest. Many of those programs survived well into the 60’s, until LBJ could replace them with a new set of programs, The Great Society, which haunts us still.

It was in this period that federal employment first jumped its territorial boundaries in the District and invaded Virginia and Maryland. And someone in Big Government figured out this was a good thing for Big Government, which in those days was entirely Democrat. Even the good ol’ boys in the rural south. FDR’s New Deal saved the old South, where loyalty to the Democrats was even higher than in the northeast until the Cold War-Civil Rights days. That’s because the first basic handshake FDR had with the old Confederacy was that if they’d back the national Party and their plans, and keep the blacks from voting (they were largely Republican then…ask MLK) he’d keep the federal programs coming their way.

I hate trying to compress thousands of pages of American history into a few paragraphs just to focus on how the bureaucracy came into being roughly 125 years after the federal government was formed, but it’s important to note this was where, like that rutting deer, it always wanted to go.

Trust me on this: Bureaucracies are organic, and it’s in their nature to want to expand and grow.

Since 2010, at least, “the people” who’d lost this control over their government, have been pushing back to change (through process), while the bureaucracy has been resisting, using every string they have in Congress to prevent it. The bureaucracy has been sensitive to this threat for many years.

In every agency in government, not just the high profile ones (EPA, CIA, State), there is a struggle going on between Trump’s new administration and the careerist deep-state. In some of those the struggle is exacerbated by left-right political ideology, where climate change and the billions it generates in universities and slush-fund companies such as Solyndra, is as much a life-and-death issue to many true believers at EPA as Iran becoming a nuclear power is to the Left in State and CIA. (Just watch John Brennan or James Clapper speak for two minutes and you’ll know what I mean.)

But on these issues, the Constitution names who wins the coin-toss in every case. “The people” through Congress decide, which is why Congress is so conflicted, for it is “the people” who puts them in Washington with a nice $174,000/yr salary, plus other benefits. But Congress’ real loyalty is to those people who can carry them to the next level, some on K Street and other connections, and turn them into millionaires and powerful brokers; who turned Harry Reid’s senate salary into millions, as well as Paul Ryan’s.

In that world, the federal bureaucracy, not “the people”, is the real Congressional constituency, only “the people” aren’t supposed to know this, and Congress over the past 30 years at least, have spent billions trying to keep “the people” in the dark. (Think of a Connecticut commuter-bank executive who keeps a mistress in Manhattan. Same tryst, same secrets.)

This is why they call it “the Swamp”. Apt name; marsh gas and weeds. And alligators, bugs and things that crawl in the night.

Lots more here—LOTS—and no matter how much you may think you already know about it, or how much you actually DO know, it’s all must-read stuff.

Share

Games of chance

Don’t know why, but this story just grabbed me.

On August 3, 2001, a McDonald’s film crew arrived in the bustling beach town of Westerly, Rhode Island. They carried their cameras and a giant cashier’s check to a row of townhouses, and knocked on the door of Michael Hoover. The 56-year-old bachelor had called a McDonald’s hotline to say he’d won their Monopoly competition. Since 1987, McDonald’s customers had feverishly collected Monopoly game pieces attached to drink cups, french fry packets and advertising inserts in magazines. By completing groups of properties like Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues, players won cash or a Sega Game Gear, while “Instant Win” game pieces scored a free Filet-O-Fish or a Jamaican vacation. But Hoover, a casino pit boss who had recently filed for bankruptcy, claimed he’d won the grand prize–$1 million dollars.

Like winning the Powerball, the odds of Hoover’s win were 1 in 250 million. There were two ways to win the Monopoly grand prize: find the “Instant Win” game piece like Hoover, or match Park Place with the elusive Boardwalk to choose between a heavily-taxed lump sum or $50,000 checks every year for 20 years. Just like the Monopoly board game, which was invented as a warning about the destructive nature of greed, players traded game pieces to win, or outbid each other on eBay. Armed robbers even held up restaurants demanding Monopoly tickets. “Don’t go to jail! Go to McDonald’s and play Monopoly for real!” cried Rich Uncle Pennybags, the game’s mustachioed mascot, on TV commercials that sent customers flocking to buy more food. Monopoly quickly became the company’s most lucrative marketing device since the Happy Meal.

Inside Hoover’s home, Amy Murray, a loyal McDonald’s spokesperson, encouraged him to tell the camera about the luckiest moment of his life. Nervously clutching his massive check, Hoover said he’d fallen asleep on the beach. When he bent over to wash off the sand, his People magazine fell into the sea. He bought another copy from a grocery store, he said, and inside was an advertising insert with the “Instant Win” game piece. The camera crew listened patiently to his rambling story, silently recognizing the inconsequential details found in stories told by liars. They suspected that Hoover was not a lucky winner, but part of a major criminal conspiracy to defraud the fast food chain of millions of dollars. The two men behind the camera were not from McDonald’s. They were undercover agents from the FBI.

This was a McSting.

It’s a hell of a fascinating tale, all about the rigging of the McDonald’s Monopoly game—a scam very nearly pulled off by an ex-cop working for the Georgia company that printed the game pieces, along with US postage stamps and state lottery tickets. But don’t go thinking that this greedy, crooked ex-cop was all bad:

During that 1995 prize draw, something happened that would change the game. According to Jacobson, when the computerized prize draw selected a factory location in Canada, Simon Marketing executives re-ran the program until it chose an area in the USA. Jacobson claimed he was ordered to ensure that no high-level prizes ever reached the Great White North. “I knew what we were doing in Canada was wrong,” Jacobson recalled. “Sooner or later somebody was going to be asking questions about why there were no winners in Canada.” Believing the game was rigged, he decided to cash in too.

Not long afterward, Jacobson opened a package sent to him by mistake from a supplier in Hong Kong. Inside he found a set of the anti-tamper seals for the game piece envelopes—the only thing he needed to steal game pieces en route to the factory. “I would go into the men’s room of the airport,” he later admitted, the only place the female auditor couldn’t follow him. “I would go into a stall. I would take the seal off.” Then he’d pour the winning game pieces into his hand, replace them with “commons,” and re-seal the envelope. First, he stole a $1 million “Instant Win” game piece and locked it in a safety deposit box. Then he stole documents that he claimed proved the Canada conspiracy. “I thought I would need that to protect myself,” Jacobson recalled. If his employer ever fired him, he had a “get out of jail free” card. But when he stole another $1 million game piece, Jacobson did something awesome.

On November 12, 1995, a donations clerk at the St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Tennessee ripped open the morning’s mail, and discovered a brightly colored card. At first, Tammie Murphy assumed it was junk mail, until she noticed the tiny Monopoly game piece inside. McDonald’s officials descended on the hospital and examined the game piece under a jeweler’s eyepiece. Ronald McDonald himself attended a press conference, where the hospital was announced the $1 million winner. Despite an investigation, the New York Times could not uncover the identity of the generous donor.

I remember seeing that part of the story on the news back then myself, actually. Like I said, this is a truly fascinating story, and—freighted as it is with avarice, corruption, betrayal, blind chance, and redemption—a quite human one.

(Via VP)

Share

Civil War, then and now

One of these things will not be like the other.

Such gallantry seems unthinkable today, when members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants and theatres, and Confederate officers like John Lea, if they are remembered at all, are considered precursors of the German National Socialists, and their once famous and respected commanders like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeb Stuart have their statues toppled and banished from public squares, their names stripped from public schools, and their memories spat upon and disgraced.

The difference between the America of today and the America of what seems like just yesterday is that we once had a common culture. As recently as 1990, Ken Burns could make a Civil War documentary for PBS and let historian Shelby Foote wax eloquent on the martial prowess of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest —  something that now would likely get them both tarred, feathered, and Twitter-banned.

Yes, there were big differences between North and South a century and a half ago. The South was a slave-holding, free-trading, libertarian-leaning, conservative Christian, agricultural, aristocratic Sparta, while the North was a commercial, industrial, protectionist, Transcendentalist, social gospel, democratic Athens. But they held far more in common than separated them — beginning with the fact that, as Lincoln observed, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God.”

One need only compare the Confederate Constitution to the United States Constitution to see that the former bears a striking resemblance to the latter. And far from being a national socialist charter, the Confederate Constitution puts even more restraints on federal power and limits the president to one six-year term.

Thereby proving that the South wasn’t wrong about everything.

The great seal of the Confederacy bears the image of George Washington, many of whose relatives served with the Confederacy, including Lieutenant James B. Washington, a West Point classmate of Custer’s (the two had a famous picture taken together — Washington was a prisoner of war — a few weeks before Lea’s wedding).

North and South venerated the Founders. They shared the same language, the same religion, and, in large part, the same general stock. Most of all, they shared what Jeff Sessions was recently rebuked for calling an “Anglo-American heritage” of liberty under law, stretching from the mists of medieval England — even before Magna Carta — to our own Bill of Rights.

Today, however, our divisions are so deep and fundamental that Americans cannot even agree on what marriage is or what a man or a woman is (which is pretty darn fundamental).

The lunatic self-righteousness of the Left (and yes, I’m afraid one must point fingers here), where disagreement is bigotry to be prohibited by law or even condemned and prosecuted as treason, is a consuming, destructive fire that will not be easily quenched, and cannot be reached by cool waters of rational argument.

Crocker gamely—and yes, gallantly—offers a few suggestions for forestalling the coming conflagration. I wish I could say I still held out much hope for such a solution. But with every passing day yielding its outrageous insult to all decency from the Bughouse Left, each surpassing the last in vileness and provocation, that hope fades, to be replaced with the dismal realization that real tragedy is all but inevitable now.

Share

And now you know the rest of the story

But…but…but…it’s UNPOSSIBLE.

My great-grandfather was given the nickname Nwaubani, which means “from the Bonny port region,” because he had the bright skin and healthy appearance associated at the time with people who lived near the coast and had access to rich foreign foods. (This became our family name.) In the late nineteenth century, he carried a slave-trading license from the Royal Niger Company, an English corporation that ruled southern Nigeria. His agents captured slaves across the region and passed them to middlemen, who brought them to the ports of Bonny and Calabar and sold them to white merchants. Slavery had already been abolished in the United States and the United Kingdom, but his slaves were legally shipped to Cuba and Brazil. To win his favor, local leaders gave him their daughters in marriage. (By his death, he had dozens of wives.) His influence drew the attention of colonial officials, who appointed him chief of Umujieze and several other towns. He presided over court cases and set up churches and schools. He built a guesthouse on the land where my parents’ home now stands, and hosted British dignitaries. To inform him of their impending arrival and verify their identities, guests sent him envelopes containing locks of their Caucasian hair.

Last year, I travelled from Abuja, where I live, to Umujieze for my parents’ forty-sixth wedding anniversary. My father is the oldest man in his generation and the head of our extended family. One morning, a man arrived at our gate from a distant Anglican church that was celebrating its centenary. Its records showed that Nwaubani Ogogo had given an armed escort to the first missionaries in the region—a trio known as the Cookey brothers—to insure their safety. The man invited my father to receive an award for Nwaubani Ogogo’s work spreading the gospel. After the man left, my father sat in his favorite armchair, among a group of his grandchildren, and told stories about Nwaubani Ogogo.

“Are you not ashamed of what he did?” I asked.

“I can never be ashamed of him,” he said, irritated. “Why should I be? His business was legitimate at the time. He was respected by everyone around.” My father is a lawyer and a human-rights activist who has spent much of his life challenging government abuses in southeast Nigeria. He sometimes had to flee our home to avoid being arrested. But his pride in his family was unwavering. “Not everyone could summon the courage to be a slave trader,” he said. “You had to have some boldness in you.”

My father succeeded in transmitting to me not just Nwaubani Ogogo’s stories but also pride in his life. During my school days, if a friend asked the meaning of my surname, I gave her a narrative instead of a translation. But, in the past decade, I’ve felt a growing sense of unease. African intellectuals tend to blame the West for the slave trade, but I knew that white traders couldn’t have loaded their ships without help from Africans like my great-grandfather. I read arguments for paying reparations to the descendants of American slaves and wondered whether someone might soon expect my family to contribute. Other members of my generation felt similarly unsettled. My cousin Chidi, who grew up in England, was twelve years old when he visited Nigeria and asked our uncle the meaning of our surname. He was shocked to learn our family’s history, and has been reluctant to share it with his British friends. My cousin Chioma, a doctor in Lagos, told me that she feels anguished when she watches movies about slavery. “I cry and cry and ask God to forgive our ancestors,” she said.

Huh. And all this time I’ve been led to believe slavery existed exclusively in the states of the old Confederacy here in America—an evil unique to my ancestors alone, a blot which will and should stain all Southerners unto eternity. Why, next you’ll be telling me that the slave ships coming here were mainly run by Brits and New Englanders, or that slavery still exists in the Muslim world without exciting the slightest murmur of condemnation from Westerners who will nonetheless sneer most heartily at anyone with a Southern accent they may meet.

The part I bolded above highlights a key truth as regards A) both the condescension and moral smugness Southerners still face from “damn Yankees” even now, and B) the author’s anguish over his family history. Namely: it’s foolish and unjust to condemn the people of bygone eras by the standards of our own. My sarcasm above aside, it’s a fascinating article in a pretty improbable spot.

Share

“A nation of immigrants”?

Nope.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here…substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Remember, Brandeis was a Progressive leading light back then. In light of the above statement, the raving madmen of our present-day Loonie Left wouldn’t for a moment consider him an acceptable SC nominee now. But then, if Trump nominated Che Guevara to the Court the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest would doubtless denounce even him as a “right-wing extremist,” too.

That’s progress, see.

Share

The South…uhh, won?

An interesting take on Civil War v1.0.

Many still think that the Civil War was about slavery, when in fact it centered on the issue of autonomy for the states.

The North wanted to capture the Southern economies because, as producers of cotton, the South was charging high prices for the raw materials the North required to make into textiles. Vertical integration, or ownership of those Southern farms, would make more money for the North, whose economy was otherwise becoming unstable.

For those in the South, the question of war went back to the founding of America: were we a confederation of states, where each region could have its own rules, or a single federal entity, where each state was responsible for the fortunes of every other? The former favored Southern agriculture, where the latter demanded vertical integration.

One hundred and fifty-seven years later, we have our answer. Conservatives and Leftists are discovering that we cannot coexist. Under the confederation model, we would each have our own semi-autonomous states and be less reliant on the federal government. Thanks, however, to the Northern win, we have a highly centralized government.

Where force of arms could not prevail, the force of history has. Human groups cannot coexist because they are headed in different directions, whether ethnic, cultural, religious, racial, or political. Democrats now realize they cannot coexist with us, and we cannot have one leader for both factions. The USA is a dead letter, as is the EU for the same reason.

This means that the South won: their model has been proven correct, and denial of that model has proved fatal for the supposed winners of the war.

Like I said, interesting, although I’m gonna pass on further elaboration myself for the nonce. Whatever you might think of the proposition, I got a feeling most if not all discussion of our first Civil War will soon lose its appeal, having been superceded by the new one.

(Via WRSA)

Update! While we’re on the subject: Glenn Reynolds: The Civil War Has Already Started. Glenn plays around a bit with a divorce motif therein, to which Ace adds:

He’s referring to an idea I’ve mentioned before myself, that there are “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” that predict divorce in a couple. Those Four Horsemen are criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt.

All of which are singularly present in modern American “discourse.”

The country is toxic. It’s time to split it up, For the Good of the Children.

Well, there’s too much hate, too much discord, too much bitterness—too much water passed under too many bridges generally—for things to go on much longer as they have been. A case of “irreconcilable differences,” if ever there was one. As the battered spouse in this abusive relationship, real Americans need to get out for their own good.

Share

“CRY ME ANOTHER RIVER OF SALTY TEARS, YOU INFANTILE FREAKS”

Heartiste—who, thanks to the most damnable of oversights, was not in Ye Olde Blogrolle until a few minutes ago—lets fly.

So many leftoid crocodile tears shed for bawlin’ beanlets dragged by their parents thousands of miles away from their homelands, while not a single tear spared for poor White kids who live a few towns over. Tears for the former are grace and empathy personified, while tears for the latter are gauche. That’s how moral enlightenment looks once refracted through the twisted shitlib mind.

“How dare you?” shrieks the anchorshitlib in high dudgeon when her Void-Cunt Conformism Test is defied by a wompin’ White man whose sympathies are more realistically and sincerely situated closer to home. “These poor (brown) children are being separated from their parents! IT’S A NATIONAL DISGRACE,” she screams through red face and eyes bulging with fire and brimstone. To which the only needed response is, “lol suk a dik, you leftoids are off your rockers. ‘Tender age’ kids are separated every day from their parents…it’s called elementary school!”

Yellow journalism isn’t the right term for what’s going on today with the media, which is much worse than mere sensationalism. The media is now into passing off lies and suppressing truths to whip up fervor among their remnant shitlib followers in the hopes of inciting either an impeachment or an assassination of Trump. It’s that bad.

Manufactured emotionalism is the Chaimstream Media’s sole purpose now. Truth? Objectivity? Journalistic ethics? Sanity? Toss it in the bin, because the only thing that matters is winding up a bunch of hysterical cat ladies, urban sluts, and soyboys over the phony plight of foreign invaders who use their kids as “get into the US free” props. The media’s mottos can be condensed to “Anything to Get Trump” and “No Lie Too Big”.

But a funny thing happened (again) during this combo platter two minutes hate + two minutes sanctimony: the central figure — the core conceit — of the shitlib narrative collapsed, and made a farce of what was already a sham.

The Great Bawlin’ Beanlet Hoax of 2018 was always about Trump and what he and his followers represent: a disturbing lack of faith in the value of histrionic anti-White moralism. It was, yet again, a theatrical piece of agitprop around which shitlibs could coalesce into an uptalking choir of smarmy self-righteousness revealing an increasingly fragile superiority complex over those deplorable Whites who don’t commute to work via bike lane. Every modren day madness roiling the Hajnalsphere is just another front in the IntraWhite War.

With that much rich buttery goodness already, need I even suggest that you go read the rest of it? Apologies to Chateau Heartiste for the delayed entry into both my blogroll and bookmarks, by the way.

(Via WRSA)

Oopsie update! Oh, we REALLY got him now!

Yes, it’s true that after a few days of media hysteria over the “crisis” on the border, which reflects a situation not all that dissimilar to the way things have been down there for two decades other than the fact the behavior by the illegals is worse than it’s ever been, Trump signed an executive order aimed at getting the issue off the front page. And yes, that executive order was a step down from a policy which, given time, probably would have deterred the wave of illegals coming to the border. But the Rasmussen poll shows that this was at best a Tet Offensive by the Democrats — not a substantive victory.

Anyone with a brain knows, of course, that the issue was only on the front page due to the necessity of finding something — anything — that would displace the earth-shaking Inspector General’s report from its rightful place there. The IG report is the most newsworthy item in American current events in the past five years, if not far longer — not just because of the governmental corruption depicted in its 500 pages but because of the whitewash the conclusions of the report entail. Queried about that disconnect — the mountain of evidence of bias and corruption in the body of the report and its nonetheless weak executive summary — Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz refused to disagree with much of anything his House and Senate interlocutors in hearings this week presented him with.

The inference to be drawn from this is obvious — if we get to see the original draft of Horowitz’s report, we’ll likely find that its conclusions are in line with those of the Jim Jordans, Trey Gowdys, and Lindsey Grahams of the world, but when that report was reviewed by muckety-mucks within DOJ they were watered down to Horowitz’s dismay.

Maybe. Either way, what’s in the report makes Watergate look like a two-bit burglary. And we know there is more coming, because Horowitz is set to deliver another report, this one on the Russia investigation, soon.

Wonder what the Democrats and their stenographers in the legacy media will come up with to displace that news. Asteroids? Tidal waves? The return of Zuul?

All we can know for sure is that 1) there WILL be something, and 2) it will be even more bugfuck-nuts than the last attempt, as their abject failures continue to pile up and push them ever closer to the abyss of literal psychopathy. Those who aren’t there already, that is.

Share

“Another fake crisis”

It surely is.

Now we are treated to the spectacle of US border officials ripping children away from their loving “parents”–and we don’t know if they’re the parents. “Separated,” yes, “separated” is now the new evil word! Curse you, Trump! This never happened under previous Presidents! Hollywood types are all abuzz; the word “NAZI” makes a frequent appearance. Hillary Clinton, her very self, is now up-in-arms over taking children from their “parents.” The women who told us that it takes a village to rear our kids doesn’t like that village when it’s run by Trump. The same progs who have set forward and funded billions upon billions of dollars worth of programs that take children from parents–“Child Services,” anybody?–object to children being separated temporarily from criminals. Oops! Did I just write C-R-I-M-I-N-A-L-S? There I wrote it again. 

Yes, folks these “asylum” seekers are, in fact, criminals. If nothing else, they are child trafficking coyotes.

First of all, we must question their love for the kids if they are putting them through a brutal and illegal trip; this, as noted, is child trafficking at its worst. Second, if they were legitimate asylum seekers, they would go to a legal border crossing, and claim asylum. They would get a respectful hearing, and “their” kids would not be ripped away. Instead, of course, these “asylum” seekers have allowed themselves to become pawns in a cynical and ILLEGAL process that exploits children. This stunt is pushed by well-funded progressive activists, abetted by Mexican officials, with the intention of collapsing our immigration system and creating a fake but very loud and visible political and humanitarian “crisis.” I repeat, people crossing our border illegally, there’s that pesky word, are, by definition, breaking the law and engaging in criminal behavior. If a bank robber were to show up at the bank with his kids and get arrested, would the kids stay with him? No. Child Services, anybody? We don’t keep minor children incarcerated with adult criminals; imagine the “OUTRAGE!” were we to do that. 

Another fake crisis.

Comrade Elian Gonzalez could not be reached for comment.

Update! TuCa blasts ’em but good.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Monday blasted the “self-righteous posturing” of politicians and media figures eager to condemn the Trump administration for its border policy.

“So, the same people who support the third term post-viability abortion for purposes of sex selection are now lecturing you about God and sin and the holiness of children. Feel chastened?” Carlson asked sardonically before launching into a few more examples, including Michael Hayden’s comparison of the border situation to Nazi Germany. 

“We could go on,” The Daily Caller co-founder said. “There was so much more just like that. The rich and powerful reminding you just how virtuous they are. Do you think any of these people really care about family separation? If they did, they would be worried about the collapse of the American family, which is measurable and real, but they are not worried about that. In fact, they welcome that collapse, because strong families are an impediment to their political power. That’s why they are always lecturing you about the patriarchy and the evil of the American family.”

“This is one of those moments that tells you everything about our ruling class. They care far more about foreigners than their own people,” said Carlson, pointing out that they also aren’t “interested in solutions to anything. They are great at yelling and at preening but not so much at fixing and building.”

“Lots of people yelling at you on TV don’t even have children, so don’t for a second let them take the moral high ground,” Carlson concluded. “Their goal is to change your country forever, and they are succeeding by the way.”

Well, they were, anyway.

Via Ace, who mixes lots of rich buttery goodness into his post—including a handy how-to guide from those humanitarian patriots at #OccupyMyBalls on how to murder an ICE agent, and why you should.

Yeah, we’re gonna be able to find a way to peacefully resolve our differences with these vicious, hate-addled pigs. I’m sure we will.

Bitter tears update!The statue of liberty is weeping“? Yep. Know why? Because, as my friend Don said earlier, once upon a time immigrants came into this country with pride right in front of her via Ellis Island, with respect for our laws, eager to become Americans and contribute to our society. Now they sneak in behind her back; have no interest in becoming Americans at all; refuse to even bother learning our language; have no regard for our culture and traditions; and whine about their nonexistent “rights” while ignoring the responsibilities of citizenship.

Share

Alternative take: “The Deep State is winning”

Dunno if I quite buy that. Not yet, anyway.

The extreme politicization of federal bureaucracies was routine and common knowledge during the Obama Administration. Upper leadership of those bureaucracies assumed life would continue as usual once their preferred candidate won the presidency. But Hillary Clinton lost. Now institutions that had been corrupted with partisanship found they could not continue to operate in the vacuum of accountability as they had under President Obama.

So the inspector general’s report is maybe best understood less as an exercise in truth finding and more a matter of managing public perceptions. We saw a similar effort at self-diagnosis immediately after the 9/11 attacks. In that instance, the entire national security apparatus failed.  Every one of our multi-billion-dollar national security institutions was negligent in protecting America. Yet, somehow, no one was held accountable for their failures. In fact, most everyone received major pay increases!

The swamp always comes out ahead.

He goes on to make a pretty good case, actually. But a very large number of Americans are now irrevocably “woke” to the Deep State’s existence and its deeply corrupt nature, and there’s no unseeing the rot that’s been exposed. It all boils down to one thing: WILL the scurrilous traitors who tried to undermine the cornerstone of American self-government skate with no more than token wrist-slaps for a paltry handful of minor players? It’s a very real and uncomfortable possibility all right, but I’ll continue holding my cynicism in abeyance for the nonce.

The IG report was, after all, the product of Justice having been allowed to investigate itself; as corrupt as we now know that degenerate department to be, no one should have expected much else from them. Everything depends on Trump’s next moves, and how bold and straightforward he’s willing to be. He’s habitually gone full-on scorched-earth-nuclear on enemies in the past; cuththroat as NYC real estate is, though, this is a much bigger and more serious game, for far higher stakes. We’ll know soon enough if Trump has the go-to-hell gumption to hold to his old modus now.

It’ll take quite a bit of gumption too: the Deep State crawly things remain both powerful and dangerous, and nobody should imagine for a moment that they’d be above assassination to retain their grip on power and impunity. Their now amply-demonstrated fumblefooted incompetence is the only comfort and assurance in such a black scenario. Certainly Strzok and McCabe, at the very least, ought to be sleeping with a loaded pistol under the pillow at this point. Surely Trump’s SS detail and his own personal security team are aware of the incredible vigilance required of them now.

Update! Schlichter is of two minds:

The IG report sidestepped the most critical point, the one that is resulting in the American people losing their last remaining fragments of faith in our system, the fact that there are demonstrably two sets of rules, that there are two brands of justice in America.

There is one for you, me, and everyone else not in the elite – the infuriated, angry Normals. And there is another one for the elite.

Our country cannot go on like this. The rule of law matters, and the rule of law does not have exceptions that exempt preferred people and groups. We have tolerated this abomination long enough – it has to stop. Either the elite rediscovers its sense of duty and service and stops it, or we will stop it. Donald Trump is our latest attempt to do that. If he is unable to do so, the elite is really going to hate what we try next.

See, they don’t get to win.

The IG report, simultaneously a devastating indictment of elite misconduct and a total whitewash, is a symptom of the moral leprosy infecting our elite. It is rotting away our institutions, and the foundations of the United States as we knew it. But the elite can’t, or won’t, even admit to itself what we all see.

And this means that means the elite can’t, or won’t, do what is necessary to repair the damage the elite itself has caused our country. 

It’s won’t. Because they don’t consider it damage.

Share

Frameup

Oh, it’s a fairy tale all right.

Once upon a time, the FBI said some thugs planned to rob a bank in town. Thugs are always looking to rob banks. They try all the time. But at this particular time, the FBI was hyper-focused on potential bank robberies in this particular town.

The best way to prevent the robbery — which is the goal, after all — would be for the FBI to alert all the banks in town. “Be on high alert for suspicious activity,” the FBI could tell the banks. “Report anything suspicious to us. We don’t want you to get robbed.”

Instead, in this fractured fairytale, the FBI followed an oddly less effective, more time-consuming, costlier approach. It focused on just one bank. And, strangely, it picked the bank that was least likely to be robbed because nobody thought it would ever get elected president — excuse me, I mean, because it had almost no cash on hand. (Why would robbers want to rob the bank with no cash?)

Read on; the Last Real Journalist waxes ever more clever with her premise from there, winding up with a closer that makes the rubble bounce.

Sharyl Attkisson has more integrity in one discarded toenail clipping than almost all the rest of her “journalist” colleagues combined. In fact, referring to them as her colleagues feels uncomfortably close to slander, since what they do for a living has little or nothing in common with her work.

Share

Memorial Day music

Steyn transcribes the score.

In 1861, the United States had nothing that was recognized as a national anthem, and, given that they were now at war, it was thought they ought to find one – a song “that would inspire Americans to patriotism and military ardor”. A 13-member committee was appointed and on May 17th they invited submissions of appropriate anthems, the eventual winner to receive $500, or medal of equal value. By the end of July, they had a thousand submissions, including some from Europe, but nothing with what they felt was real feeling. It’s hard to write a patriotic song to order.

At the time, Dr Samuel Howe was working with the Sanitary Commission of the Department of War, and one fall day he and Mrs Howe were taken to a camp a few miles from Washington for a review of General McClellan’s Army of the Potomac. That day, for the first time in her life, Julia Ward Howe heard soldiers singing:

John Brown’s body lies a-mould’ring in the grave
John Brown’s body lies a-mould’ring in the grave…

Ah, yes. The famous song about the famous abolitionist hanged in 1859 in Charlestown, Virginia before a crowd including Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and John Wilkes Booth.

Well, no, not exactly.

It’s another of Mark’s brilliant musical-history essays, with all the usual unexpected twists and turns, so naturally you’ll want to read it all.

Share

School yourself

A great idea.

Heroes for liberty are not particular to any region of the world or to a particular time period or to one sex. They hail from all nationalities, races, faiths, and creeds. They inspire others to a noble and universal cause—that all people should be free to live their lives in peace so long as they do no harm to the equal rights of others. They are passionate not solely for their own liberty, but for that of others as well.

In my last book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction, I wrote about 40 individuals whose views, decisions, and actions served this cause in various ways. That book planted the seed for this new weekly series to be published each Thursday at FEE.org. But this time, others from around the world will do the writing, and I’ll be content to do the editing while keeping that to a minimum to preserve the author’s voice. It is my hope that when all is said and done some months from now, the literature of liberty will be greatly complemented by this collection of short biographies. The authors will be writing about heroes for liberty who are (or were) citizens of each author’s own country. Each week’s installment will be added to the collection here.

This week’s edition is about the life of one of the greatest heroes of liberty, Austrian economist and philosopher Ludwig von Mises, and it is written by FEE’s own Dan Sanchez.

That’s from the preface to, as the man says, the latest installment in what looks to be a compelling and worthwhile series. The Mises article linked above is fantastic stuff:

The death knell of the age of liberalism could be heard in the cannonades of the First World War. And Mises had barely enough time to finish, publish, and defend his treatise on money before he himself was sent to the eastern front as an artillery officer.

Imagine the mind of the greatest critic of central planning being snuffed out by the war that represented central planning’s apotheosis.

Other scholars of comparable qualifications were given safe roles in war-planning offices. But Mises, whose liberal ideas were out of step with the establishment in Austria, was put directly in harm’s way. One of history’s greatest geniuses was a single air burst away from having his career nipped in the bud.

How tragic that would have been! Mises had not yet even written his great 1920 essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, which contained the single most powerful argument against central planning that had ever been formulated. Imagine the mind of the greatest critic of central planning being snuffed out by the war that represented central planning’s apotheosis.

Put yourself in Mises’s shoes on the front line. You, better than anyone else in history, understand the workings of the peaceful market society. You understand the fatal flaws of socialism and interventionism and the futility of war. You have the answers! You know the societal code that would unlock and unleash humanity’s potential.

But nobody will listen to you, and you are surrounded by destruction and madness. Moreover, you yourself may, at any moment, be devoured by this war that rages around you, and all these unwritten ideas that are bubbling over in your mind will be lost to humanity forever.

It would be enough to break almost any man. But, fortunately for us, Mises was not only a genius but also a paragon of moral courage. In this harrowing crisis, as in all his subsequent trials, Mises bolstered that courage with a scrap of Latin poetry he had learned as a schoolboy.

No matter how much you may or may not already know about this remarkable man’s life and work (and I freely confess to knowing very little), you’ll want to read all of this one. There’s a whole slew of other pieces on the main page for the collection already, which I hastily bookmarked and will be wading through and mentioning here as and when I can. I’ll probably provide a blogroll link to it as well. Many thanks to Glenn for hipping us to this worthy effort.

Share

A female cuck?

You don’t concede the Left’s premises. Not ever, not even once, not for any reason.

Speaking of silly women inviting snakes into the fold, let’s address a recent essay published by National Review, titled “Conservatives Are Wrong to Dismiss Feminism.” It is written by one Sarah Quinlan, a woman who, we are told is a “front-page contributor to RedState.” This is intended as a credential, when in fact, it is rather more like calling someone a former lead engineer for the Hindenburg. But one supposes it was the best the likes of Ms. Quinlan could do under the circumstances.

One of Quinlan’s unlisted associations, however, is her sometime affiliation with one of the sadder outings in NeverTrump history, the so-called Buckley Club, an infected little pimple of an organization that knew so little of its namesake that it once mistook one of Buckley’s favorite phrases—“immanentizing the eschaton”—for a conspiracy theorist slogan.

Holt goes on to dismantle Quinlan’s convoluted mess of an argument pretty thoroughly, culminating in this stinging closer:

I’m sure she’ll get around to making a mockery of her other conservative principles in time, but we needn’t waste any more exertion waiting on her to do it.

At best, Quinlan’s piece is a vapid extended emotivist wail in search of a shoulder and a pint of vanilla ice cream to dash itself against. At worst, it is a hostile ultimatum that the Right must trade Trump for Teen Vogue, and transform William F. Buckley into William F. Becky-with-the-good-hair so that it can attract the votes of women whose character validates the assumptions of every misogynist who ever lived. Either way, it deserves to be rejected in the strongest possible terms.

And so, I will do just that. Conservatism needs feminism like National Review needed Sarah Quinlan’s byline: only as a tool for suicide. NRO’s brand needs to be hospitalized and any dangerous objects need to be taken away from the editors after this. As for True Conservatism (™), after the publication of this article, it will need a rape kit, which, unlike the thousands that Quinlan complains remain untouched, we have been obliged to process.

Ouch. Better put some ice on that, sweetie.

Share

Back to the future?

A government that tries to control everything ends up controlling nothing—one way or another.

Sadly, with a high enough percentage of the population voting for socialism, not to mention an increasing percentage of the population preferring to celebrate inferiority over excellence, we as a country cannot return to the “glory days” of the 1950’s. Millennials are not capable of living on their own at 18. Women prefer to outsource kids to day care instead of raise them. Men have been replaced with government checks. And what men are present in their nuclear families are usually Soy Boy jokes which cannot compare to a strong, but fair 1950’s Ward Cleaver. Without the based, anchored, and galvanized WWII generation, the generations of Americans that remain are simply too inferior and lazy to achieve what Americans did in the 1950’s. And so you assume we can never return to those halcyon days of yore and are condemned to Enjoy the Decline.

However, I have a bit of good news for you, and it is one of those rare bits of good news indeed. For while “we” as a country can’t and never will return to the 1950’s, YOU as an individual can. And there’s nobody who can stop you.

The main reason anybody can return to the 1950’s at any time is because while on a national or macro level the US may be turning into a childish, socialist shithole, on the local or micro level the average American still holds considerable sway and control over their immediate and local environment. You don’t have to live in California where the insane people put cancer warnings on coffee. You don’t have to live in Seattle where the city council obviously loves parasites more than the producers. You can simply choose to live in towns that aren’t socialist, have low crime, low traffic and don’t vote to tax their citizens all the time. But returning to the 50’s goes well beyond simply picking the right municipality to live in. It boils down to individual life-style decisions that are even more personal, more “micro” and will more directly affect the quality of life you live. And if you make the right decisions, there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy a 1950’s life replete with 2020’s technology and conveniences.

Follows, a wildly practical how-to on ways to ignore alien orders and live a worthwhile, decent life insulated from the insidious influence of our dysfunctional culture to the greatest extent possible, including this:

Continue reading “Back to the future?”

Share

What if…

Wonder if VDH’s cuckster colleagues at NRO are reading his stuff? Because I can think of at least three right off the top of my head who ought to be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary—to read this one. Twice.

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.” The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton. In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

For example, why would FBI director James Comey have been so foolish as to ask for a FISA warrant request without fully informing the judge of the compromising details of the Steele–Fusion GPS dossier? Or why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been so reckless as to meet with Bill Clinton in a stealthy jet rendezvous on an Arizona tarmac when her department was concurrently investigating his spouse?

But those are precisely the wrong questions, given the Washington careerist mind. The right one is “Why not?” — in the context of the overwhelming likelihood that Hillary Clinton would not only be elected president but also would follow the well-known Clintonian habit of punishing both enemies and neutrals while rewarding friends, the more obsequious, the better.

It goes on from there, a perfect reminder of the bullet we dodged by electing Trump and packing Her Herness off to bitter, booze-soaked irrelevance. Hanson’s conclusion:

The Podesta brothers would still be A-list Washington operators. During a Clinton administration, Devin Nunes, who would likely still be seeking the truth behind the illegality in the 2016 campaign, might have been under FISA-ordered surveillance himself, or would have shared the deep-state fate of the jailed videomaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or might have become one of the victims of Lois Lerner’s residual henchmen at the IRS.

The coffers of the Clinton Foundation certainly would be expanding exponentially. Robert Mueller might have been brought back in now and then for his sober and judicious work in finding no wrongdoing in the Uranium One deal.

And Donald Trump? He would be mocked and ridiculed as he barked at the moon that his wires had been tapped in Trump Tower — as the truth became insanity, and insanity the truth.

You’ll surely want to read all of it, even though it means swallowing the bitter pill of clicking over to NRO to do so. As I said, certain prissy-Right types ought to be forced to.

(Via KT)

Share

Culture war

It’s ON in Bavaria.

Bavaria has ordered Christian crosses to be hung at the entrance of all of its regional government buildings, it has emerged.

The German state’s government said the crosses should not be seen as religious symbols, but are meant to reflect the southern state’s ‘cultural identity and Christian-western influence’.

But the move has already drawn a furious reaction from opposition politicians and one prominent cleric accused the regional government of hypocrisy ahead of an election. 

The south-eastern state was on the frontline of 2015’s migrant crisis, when over a million people fleeing war and poverty in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia arrived in Germany, fueling support for the AfD.

Even clerics were critical of the plan. ‘Many see as a provocation and a hypocrisy the way you speak about Christianity,’ wrote Burkhard Hose, a priest who ministers to the students of Wuerzburg University, in an open letter to Soeder.

‘Stop this misuse of Christianity and its symbols as a supposed bulwark against Islam,’ he added.  

Oh yeah? Got any better ideas for bulwarks against Islam, then? Or are you good with just rolling over and letting them get on with the conquest and sack?

And to think, some people wonder why Christianity is dying in the West. With weak-kneed, namby-pamby clerics like this to defend, uphold, and preserve the faith, it’s something of a miracle it didn’t fade away altogether years ago. The AfD, referred to as you’d expect in the article as a “far right” party, has a more legitimate gripe about the symbolic move:

But the AfD, which campaigns against Muslim immigration, dismissed the cross proposal as ‘the usual gesture politics’.

‘The Christian Cross is being turned into an election accessory, while the conservatives refuse to protect our basic values with real actions,’ the AfD’s co-leader Alice Weidel said in a statement on Wednesday.

Well, I dunno. “Real actions” are called for sure enough, and long past due. But in Europe as in America, you’ll have to be content with baby steps at first, guys…and just pray it isn’t already too late. PRO TIP: it is.

Via DuToit, who also presents this very-much-related item:

A Swedish woman in her 40s was brutally raped by an Afghan teenager while another migrant man molested her, a court has heard.

Anwar Hassani and Fardi Hesari, both 18, met the victim outside a hotel bar in Ljungby, southern Sweden, in the early hours of Boxing Day last year.

The victim later told police she took an interest in the teenagers, having been told they were migrants from Afganistan.

She explained that she had been a member of a Facebook group which campaigns against the deportation of migrants from Sweden.

Fucking moron. As Kim says: you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh hysterically at this story.

Share

The coming unpleasantness

In decrying the Great Schism (ie, the prospective partition of the country) in five simple steps, Aesop reels off a good ‘un:

3) There isn’t going to be any “amicable divorce”. The phrase is an oxymoron equal to “military intelligence”, “government help”, and “jumbo shrimp”.

He then proffers a link to a fellow I hadn’t heard of before who, for his sins, will immediately be cast into the Outer Darkness of the CF blogroll:

Continue reading “The coming unpleasantness”

Share

War without end

Cui bono?

Good for Trump. The job of the military is to win, and thus finish, wars, not to use them as extended live-fire exercises. Further, under our Constitution, the military reports to civilian authority, in the form of the president and one of his chief cabinet members, the secretary of defense. And it’s their job to make very clear the overall strategic objective, which in warfare is always optimally the total destruction and unconditional surrender of the enemy. During World War II, the objective was clear: destroy Imperial Japan and take Berlin. We, and our allies, did both, and America’s war—from the standing start at Pearl Harbor to VJ Day—lasted less than four years.

But that’s not how our contemporary military sees things. As the Post story points out, referencing Defense Secretary James Mattis, “His remarks reflected a broader Pentagon consensus: In the absence of a clear outcome, winning for much of the U.S. military’s top brass has come to be synonymous with staying put. These days, senior officers talk about ‘infinite war’.”

Those senior officers should be cashiered. “Infinite war” is what characterized the Roman Empire from Julius Caesar (read the Commentaries, Caesar’s reports back to Rome regarding his military operations in Gaul and elsewhere) through Marcus Aurelius (who spent very little time in the Eternal City) right up to the fall of Rome in 476, when the barbarian chickens came home to roost in the form of Odoacer, a member of the Germanic tribes that the Romans never managed to conquer. Their defeat by Arminius at the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest in 9 A.D. dissuaded the legions from crossing the Rhine again—but eventually the Rhine crossed them, and made it all the way to the Tiber.

The moral of the story is: finish the job. So good for Trump for giving the Pentagon a strategic objective and a time frame in which to accomplish it. The Posts article quotes another officer, Air Force General Mike Holmes, in a speech earlier this year: “It’s not losing,” he explained. “It’s staying in the game and…pursuing your objectives.”

How terrifying to know that, for some senior military officers (who, by the way, are not necessarily on the Right politically), warfare is about “staying in the game.”

It would seem that for our politicized general-officer class, at least, it IS a game. It’s disappointing to hear Mattis sounding like one of them, at least in the above quote. One would think that he more than most would recognize the damage done by the conversion of America’s once-dominant military into Welcome Wagon in cammies—a top-heavy bureaucracy that emphasizes “nation-building” over crushing America’s adversaries, political correctness over combat readiness, and over-reliance on technology over a hard-nosed warrior ethos.

We as a nation don’t even seem to know what “victory” is anymore, and aren’t terribly fussed over it either way. Our squeamishishness about civilian casualties and “collateral damage” leaves us incapable of doing what’s required to prevail against committed foes unburdened by any such vacillation or lack of will. Juvenile, simple-minded shibboleths declaring that our enemies “love their children as much as we do” or that “it will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber” aren’t just nonsensical and irrelevant. They’re dangerous.

“War isn’t healthy for children and other living things”? Well, no shit, Einstein. Exactly who ever said it was? Nobody likes war; nobody wants war. Sadly, though, Trotsky had the right of it: you may not be interested in war. But war is interested in you.

Throughout history, all military organizations have been made up of far more staff, support, and logistics personnel than actual fighting men. But US armed forces have exaggerated that statistical imbalance to a near-preposterous extreme, then smeared a triple-thick layer of lawyers on top who must be consulted before soldiers are even allowed to carry loaded weapons in combat zones, much less point them at anybody who might be shooting at them at the time.

We have sailors who can’t navigate on the high seas without colliding with other ships. 74 percent of Marine Corps F18s are graded “not ready for combat”; over 53 percent of Navy strike fighters are “out of service.” Parts to repair these expensive door-stops are being scavenged from museums and gutted, rust-bucket display aircraft. Pilots get most of their training in simulators rather than the stick-time in actual aircraft they badly need.

Doughy, gasping recruits can’t meet long-established physical readiness requirements for infantry? Too many female recruits can’t hack the program because their upper-body strength just isn’t up to snuff due to inherent male-female genetic differences? Fine, just lower standards across the board then. Mentally-ill “transgender” types want to join so they can get their expensive hormone treatments and surgeries paid for on the military dime? Hey, who are we to deny them their Constitutionally-guaranteed “right” (ahem) to sign up, then?

It’s the same soft-headed, feel-good mindset that brought us “participation trophies” for schoolkid athletics…on the rare occasions their all-important self-esteem was ever put at hazard by competition at all, of any kind. Ask any kid who got “graded on a curve” how much he really learned sometime. Quiz him on things most adults would consider to be the simplest, most basic knowledge. Prepare to be appalled.

Jerry-rigged, antiquated equipment worn down by an unsustainable operational tempo; untrained, unmotivated, and/or unfit troops; a politicized senior officer class more interested in political correctness than fighting and winning, incapable of seeing “open-ended commitment” for the deadly tar-baby it is; political “leadership” whose “invade the world/invite the world” mentality leaves them eager to flex American muscle in far-flung places where there is no compelling national interest at stake—the whole mess tolerated by a disinterested citizenry lulled by blind faith in a perpetual American military superiority that long ago ceased to exist. Anybody still wondering why America can’t seem to win any of its endless, innumerable “conflicts” anymore?

The smug assumption of our lapsed “lone superpower” status and the unchallengeable invincibility of the American military persists in defiance of the sad, sorry reality. None of this, mind, is meant to suggest that there aren’t many skilled, dedicated, and highly competent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines out there. There surely are, and we should be extremely thankful for them. Ultimately, they’re struggling against the same dismal tide of feckless liberalism that threatens to swamp American culture entire. A way needs to be found to stem the flow before we all drown.

Share

Ch-ch-ch-changes

Not for the better.

The millennial generation might be surprised to learn that theirs is the first without guns in school. Just 30 years ago, high school kids rode the bus with rifles and shot their guns at high school rifle ranges.

After another school shooting, it’s time to ask: what changed?

Cross guns off the list of things that changed in thirty years. In 1985, semi-automatic rifles existed, and a semi-automatic rifle was used in Florida. Guns didn’t suddenly decide to visit mayhem on schools. Guns can’t decide.

We can also cross the Second Amendment off the list. It existed for over 200 years before this wickedness unfolded. Nothing changed in the Constitution.

That leaves us with some uncomfortable possibilities remaining. What has changed from thirty years ago when kids could take firearms into school responsibly and today might involve some difficult truths.

Let’s inventory the possibilities.
 
What changed? The mainstreaming of nihilism. Cultural decay. Chemicals. The deliberate destruction of moral backstops in the culture. A lost commonality of shared societal pressures to enforce right and wrong. And above all, simple, pure, evil.

Before you retort that we can’t account for the mentally ill, they existed forever.

Paranoid schizophrenics existed in 1888 and 2018. Mentally ill students weren’t showing up in schools with guns even three decades ago.

So it must be something else.

Indeed it must. I touched on all this myself Friday; Adams holds the nails in the post above, and Klavan breaks out the BFH to drive ’em on home:

It reminds me of some wisdom from another two sheriffs, the fictional sheriffs from the Coen Brothers movie of Cormac McCarthy’s novel No Country for Old Men discussing the mindless violence that has taken over society.

“Once you stop hearing ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am’ the rest is soon to follow,” says one.

“It’s the tide, the dismal tide,” says the other. “It’s not the one thing.”

One of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite movies. Which, hideously violent as it admittedly is, never inspired or compelled me to go out and kill anybody.

Well, not yet, anyway.

The left wants to defend gangstas and “transgressive” art and antifa thugs — but when the shooting starts, they blame the guns.

The left wants to get rid of feminine modesty and masculine protectiveness and social restrictions on sex — but when the abuse and rape and harassment rise to the surface, they start whining about toxic manhood. Perhaps they should have listened to the Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton, who wrote about the difference between reforming society and deforming it — a passage that was neatly paraphrased by John F. Kennedy: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

“Reforming society and deforming it.” Damned good one, that is.

Now the left wants to legitimize disrespect for the flag and for Christianity. They want to ignore the rule of law at the border and silence protests against Islamic ideas that are antithetical to every good thing the west stands for. They should look to Europe where all that’s been accomplished.

The left wants us to reel in shock that Donald Trump chased women or praised Russian strong men? Who was it who defended the infidelities and possible rapes of Bill Clinton? Who was it who turned a blind eye to Barack Obama consorting with terrorists and hate-mongers like Farrakhan?

For fifteen years and more, I have been complaining that the right is silenced in our culture — blacklisted and excluded and ignored in entertainment, mainstream news outlets, and the universities. But the flip side of that is this: the degradation of our culture is almost entirely a leftist achievement. Over the last fifty years, it’s the left that has assaulted every moral norm and disdained every religious and cultural restraint.

The left owns the dismal tide.

Own it? They ARE it. Without the Left’s insidious machinations—their depraved, wanton destruction—we wouldn’t even be discussing any of this horror. Because it simply wouldn’t exist.

Ahh, but how might heretofore more or less moderate Americans have become so severely radicalized that they would turn on their country with such vehemence? Might there have been a guiding hand behind the dismal tide of Leftist destruction and nihilism? Something that took an at least rational if misguided Loyal Opposition and pushed it over the edge into madness, sedition, and revolutionary violence?

I thought you’d never ask.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals on Friday confirms Russia sought to promote anti-Trump protests after the election as a way of sowing discord in American society.

Russian operatives organized a rally titled “Trump is NOT my President” in New York City on Nov. 12, 2016, less than a week after the election, the indictment states.

The indictment notes that the operatives organized a pro-Trump rally in New York the same day as the anti-Trump rally, although there is no indication that the pro-Trump rally was as successful as the anti-Trump rally, which had thousands of attendees, including left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore. The Guardian reported 10,000 attendees at the anti-Trump event.

The Russian operatives staged a similar anti-Trump rally, “Charlotte Against Trump,” a week later in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Russian operatives sought to “promote discord in the United States and undermine confidence in democracy” by organizing the protests, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday.

Mueller’s indictment confirms what legal representatives for both Facebook and Twitter told a Senate panel on Oct. 31 last year: that Russian operatives sought to harm America by undermining public confidence in President Trump’s election.

Russian operatives also sought to promote the left-wing identity politics that currently dominate the Democratic Party, previous reporting has shown.

One Russian account promoted a militant, left-wing form of feminism, similar to the kind pushed by Women’s March organizers. The Russian operatives behind the account fooled Women’s March organizers into sharing their divisive propaganda on Facebook, as TheDC first reported.

Several Russian accounts posed as racial activist groups similar to Black Lives Matter. One of those pages, Black Matters, organized the Nov. 12 anti-Trump protest attended by Michael Moore and thousands of other protesters.

The story of the American Left acting as willing if unwitting dupes—highly effective vanguard (ahem) troops in Russia’s ongoing war of subterfuge and sabotage against us—is an old one, as you CF longtimers will already know (this is probably the fourth or fifth time I’ve linked that ESR piece just in the last few months).

Strangely enough, though—especially considering the perennial nature of the Soviet/Russian campaign against the US—I’ve seen a few otherwise thoughtful and well-meaning people joining with Lefty and his NeverTrumpTard pals in pooh-poohing these indictments as somehow no big deal—trivial, a piffling distraction from the real issue, which is and forever will be TRUMPTRUMPTRUMPTRUMPOHMYFUCKINGGODTRUMP!

But this development IS a big deal. Not only does it represent the dim candle of the Trump-Russia “collusion” scam guttering out at last, it also confirms the entire Progressivist cabal in its varied parts as wholly-owned subsidiaries of a dangerous foreign adversary, aiding and abetting a hostile campaign to weaken, befuddle, impoverish, and eventually destroy the US’s ability to function as a global power and to act effectively to advance its own interests both at home and abroad.

I know I said “aiding and abetting” just now, but the more appropriate wording is probably “lending aid and comfort”—with all the deadly import that phrase carries with it. Or would, if Russia and the Left’s undermining of our very foundations hadn’t reduced the words to complete irrelevance, along with most of the rest of the document from whence they come.

Lest anybody grumble that the exposure of the Left’s groundpounder role in Russia’s sneakthief shadow-war against us isn’t related to the original topic of this post: trust me, it is. The recent scourge of mass murder in American schools, and more broadly the Left’s hysterical caterwauling for “common sense gun control” in the wake of each successive incident—a demand rooted in their ignorant horror of guns; their total incomprehension of what the 2A says, or their deceitful misrepresentation of same; their reflexive mania for bigger and more powerful government in defiance of clear, blunt Constitutional strictures; and their blank disregard for the Constitution generally—is now directly, provably attributable to Russian manipulation of the gullible twits.

The gradual disintegration of American culture into chaotic, babbling incoherence is also attributable to that manipulation. All of which brings us to the propagation by a gratuitously wrecked culture of growing numbers of dysfunctional, despondent males with no outlet other than violent mayhem for the confusion and frustration bred by years spent enduring spittle-flecked denunciations of their very gender as “toxic”—rendered defenseless against an onslaught of hatred spewed at them by shrewish, implacably unhinged termagants, themselves entirely dysfunctional, who smugly declare themselves “feminists” without a smidgeon of awareness concerning Russia’s successful effort to warp the very word itself into a depraved caricature of its accepted meaning.

“Not a big deal”? Like bloody hell. It is EVERYTHING—the biggest deal of them all, the whole enchilada. All this misery, all this strife, all this confusion and woe and conflict and distrust and hate…all of it, brought crashing down on us on purpose, by design, and with malice aforethought: a strategy conceived and engineered by a foreign foe, executed on our home turf not by skilled clandestine agents or SpecWar operators working under deep cover but by dimwitted American puppets too gullible, too blind, too damned stupid to perceive the Slavic strings controlling their every wooden-headed move.

With yet more to come, and probably worse. Nobody needs to think for one moment that this shattering exposure of Russian skullduggery will inspire the merest moment’s reflection on the part of Progressivist dupes, even after a year they themselves spent wailing about the intolerably monstrous Russian crime of meddling in our elections. Quite the opposite, is my bet: they will plunge fingers into ears and sing tra-la-la, refusing to so much as acknowledge it, embracing their destructive delusions all the more fiercely.

If there was ever going to be a moment when Trump could rid himself of the Mueller probe with political impunity, it would have to be now. Libtards having found themselves doused with a good splash of Russian toilet-water, they might suddenly be more than happy to let Mueller’s witch hunt fade quietly away without much (if anything) in the way of protest.

Well, most of them, that is. The more dazed and drool-soaked of their geriatric career-politician parasites like Pelosi would probably blibber nonsensically about such a move with arm-waving, batshit vigor before being hastily hustled away from the microphones by more astute and clear-headed Democrat-Socialist footpads desperate to salvage whatever they could from the wreck.

Myself, I say let Mueller carry right on as best he can manage. There never having been the slightest evidence of any Trump “collusion” with Russia—being, as it always was, a self-serving fabrication cobbled together on the fly by shell-shocked Clinton minions for whom losing was an impossibility, beyond comprehension—the Mueller probe has now collapsed on itself in a most agreeable fashion, blown to hell and gone by the unearthing of Democrat Socialist dirty tricks instead. A clumsy attempt to swindle their way into office with the assistance of the very malefactors they tried to frame Trump with has been unexpectedly brought to light; the loaded cigar has exploded in the clown’s face, bringing down the Big Top over the whole damned circus. I suspect nobody is more unhappy about that undreamed-of denouement than Mueller himself.

Accusations of treason most foul against Obama, Hillary, and the rest can no longer be shrugged off as partisan exaggeration, which is another most edifying product of Mueller’s Folly. Such accusations, once the exclusive province of only the most wild-eyed of whackadoodles, must now be pondered with at least some gravity by any informed and aware person in whose soul such quaint, archaic concepts still resonate, even if there remains no realistic hope of any of the aforementioned reprobates’ being brought to justice for it.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave.

Share

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

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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