Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

A little pre-Halloween horror

I’m aware, as most of you readers are or should be by now, of the esteemed Aesop’s take on all this. But I don’t think he’s spelled it out quite as completely and concisely as he does here. It amounts to an excellent precis, and I couldn’t agree more.

The conventional wisdom and polling data say the Dems are going to pick up 10 House seats for sure next month, but whether they can flip the majority (23+ seats) is still an open question.

If they do, it’s all impeachment and investigation, all the time.
Which will almost certainly lose them the House again in 2020.
(And FWIW, I consider trying to undo 2016 by impeaching Pres. Trump, like trying to undo the 2nd Amendment, to be an actual revolution-inducing act, in a kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out way. And not metaphorically. YMMV.)

If they don’t get the House in the mid-terms, they’ve already turned the crazy up to “11”, and they have nowhere left to go there, except actual, regular, political violence. I expect them to do that, because
a) they’re really that stupid
b) they have no other choice
c) they lack the common sense or insight to recognize the result of that course of action beforehand, and lack the self control among their idiot minions to stop it anyway even if they wanted to.

That will be an extinction event for them, because the Right will declare open season on them, and the Moderates will sit back and watch approvingly.

Because once you yell “Play ball!” on killing your political opponents as a viable course of action, Americans have a long and distinguished history of shoving that bat right up your ass. And then, going after your family for good measure. 

And both sides know that after the first killing, all the rest are effectively free, so this promises to be a short but ugly spasm of violence. To start.

After that, any bets or prognostications enter a fogbank of epic proportions, because once you uncork that genie, things will get out of hand and we’ll all be lucky to live through this, as Fred Thompson warned us.

As he says, that’s it in a nutshell. My one quibble, which is minor: personally, I don’t think they’re going to even be able to gain House seats. In fact, I expect them to lose some there too; their Kavanaugh debacle will cost them, but it’s just one of many self-inflicted wounds they’ve suffered, eye-openers all for anyone paying even slight attention, with the Kavanaugh mess being the moldy cherry on top of the whole flyblown shit-sundae. Executive summary:

The Leftards have lost their minds.
Before they can regain their senses, you’re going to have to get their attention first.
The only thing that will do that, amounts to large numbers (Antietam/Gettysburg-large, not 9/11-large) of them stacked up like cordwood, or hanging from lamp posts.

Sadly—tragically, for all of us—it would seem so. A clarifying quote from the first time around:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
—William Tecumseh Sherman

I also remember a quote from Grant, which I can’t find online: “If we have to fight, I’d rather do it all at once and then make up and be friends.” Don’t know how relevant that one is now, but it came to mind for some reason.

Share

The Loser Party

T’is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

In spite of what the polling may say, the Democrats are going to be hurt badly next month. The party line is that the Kavanaugh confirmation has energized voters as never before. But the failure to stop Kavanaugh’s nomination will result in some Democrats becoming so dejected with constantly losing, that they will simply refuse to vote.

Many Democratic voters may feel they are going to lose anyway, so what is the sense of voting? This would represent another in the long string of losses for the Democratic Party.

These losses started in 2010 when the GOP gained control of the House of Representatives by picking up a whopping 63 seats. This was the largest midterm election loss of a sitting president’s party since 1938.

Although Barack Obama was re-elected president in 2012, his party’s losses continued. In 2014, the Democrats lost control of the U.S. Senate. In 2016, Democrats lost the presidency. Since Trump’s election, the Democrats keep vowing to “resist,” yet—with the notable exception of the Obamacare repeal—they lose every major policy decision.

What will happen in 2018?

The Democrats are likely to suffer more losses. Republicans are running on a record of a vibrant economy, a more secure world, and lower taxes for all Americans. The Democrats are running simply to stop Trump. While the polls may show that Trump is unpopular and has a low personal approval rating, the president’s policies are actually quite popular. Ultimately, those polls do not reflect how Americans will vote.

A more fundamental problem with the polls is they tend to use samples that are not representative of the population. Nearly all give too much weight to Democratic voters. This is what happened in 2016 when the polls indicated there was almost no way Trump could win the presidency.

My prediction: the midterms will end with 57 or 58 Republican U.S. Senators, though depending on how a couple of key races break, the GOP could have as many as 60 seats when it’s all over. The House will be more of a challenge, but the Republicans will maintain their majority and Democrats will feel even more disgusted with their party.

The Democrats will become the party of losers. Insisting on policies that remedy perceived social “injustices” instead of concentrating on economic issues that benefit the majority of Americans will continue to erode their base. The name-calling and disdain for a president whose policies have galvanized the economy around after eight years of Obama stagnation will erode the base even further.

America could use a healthy Democratic Party. But it’s doubtful this dysfunctional party leadership will change its priorities any time soon. If that’s indeed the case, we could be witnessing the Democrats’ death throes.

America could maybe use a Democratic Party that wasn’t A) Leftist; B) filled with hatred for all things American; C) something better than pig-ignorant about American history, its founding ideals, its very reason for existing; D) corrupt and treasonous to its very marrow; E) ehhhh, why go on? That Democratic Party 1) does not exist; 2) has not existed for decades; 3) is not coming back, ever.

So yeah, let them crash and burn. They’re a plague, a curse, a suppurating boil on the neck of this nation. They’re parasitic, a luxury we can no longer afford. They’re a threat to American liberty and institutions. And thank merciful Heaven, with their Kavanaugh fiasco they have finally gone too far and look like being on the way out at last. Aesop notes just one of the more amusing among many signs of the coming apocalypse:

So after President Trump endorsed the Republican in the TN Senate race, and celebutard rookie Saylor Twit endorsed the gun-grabbing Democrat jackhole, the (R) has jumped overnight to an 8 point lead.
 
Thanks, Tay, you airheaded fluffbrain. Maybe you could endorse Fauxican Bob O’Rourke in Texas, while you’re up.

It all adds up to nothing good for the Democrat-Socialist scum. But the writing on the wall has an additional aspect which might bode even worse:

Democrats have behaved badly before, and it certainly didn’t unify the GOP. The Kavanaugh attacks and the GOP defense against those attacks had some very unusual characteristics that gave them that unifying potential and ensured that the potential was fulfilled:

(2) Kavanaugh was seen by all as a sort of Boy Scout. He was nominated in part because there was no hint of scandal around him.

(3) And yet the most vicious attack ever seen against a SCOTUS nominee was launched against this particular candidate. The Roy Moore attacks worked in large part because the moderate wing of the GOP hated him, and he was seen even on the right as a bit loopy. Brett Kavanaugh had none of those characteristics. So although the GOP was expecting Kavanaugh to be attacked during his hearings, they were not expecting a combination of Borking (in the first stage for Kavanaugh) and the Clarence Thomas hearings (in the second, post-Ford stage), with the offensiveness of the accusations in that latter stage exponentially more serious than those leveled against Clarence Thomas by Anita Hill.

(7) At that point, it was the moderate wing of the GOP that was galvanized. They suddenly discovered that the rules they thought they’d been playing by all this time, the ones they thought at least some of their Democratic colleagues shared, meant nothing to the opposition. They either had never held them at all, or were more than willing to abandon them—and all sense of decency—in their lust for power.

(8) And that’s why it was the moderate side of the right that stepped up to the plate and delivered the goods in the Kavanaugh fight. Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, all of them harshly vilified in the past by the more conservative wing of the party, found themselves uttering words that those who had previously reviled them were now cheering.

It remains my firm belief that the Democrat-Socialists—having so extravagantly and irreversibly dropped the mask and let their freak flag fly, and with real Americans invigorated by win after win since Trump took office—are headed for a shellacking in November of truly historic proportions. And then the fun will REALLY start.

Share

“We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization”

You may not be interested in culture war. But culture war is interested in you.

I do believe the right has often been guilty of exploiting and weaponizing certain news events or outlier stories, and I wish from the bottom of my heart that I believed this despicable attempt to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life was a bottoming event in our political discourse. But I believe it is “the new normal,” not a bottom, and that the worst manifestations will not be in a Senate Judiciary Committee, or a heated campaign (both of which are bad enough), but will be in our businesses, our lives, and our communities, until these vestiges of cultural Marxism are soundly defeated.

Conservatives have claimed (rightly) for some time that it would be quite difficult to win the war on terror if we could not label it and identify it for what it is – Islamic jihadism. I would say that right now, in the present context, conservatives will have a very difficult time surviving in this culture if we cannot identify, accurately, the battle in which we find ourselves. Well-meaning people of faith frequently comment that we must avoid getting sucked into the culture war. Good luck with that. You’re in it. You’ve been made to care. And no head-in-the-sand-ostrich routine is going to save you now. We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization. A romantic clinging to the idea of neutrality, denying the antithetical frameworks by which both sides see the human person, the human condition, and the nature of a free society, will lead to one side’s victory, and the other side’s annihilation. That is the reality in which we now live.

It would be nice if conservatives of faith had some support in the church, that allegedly spiritual institution of Christian community, doctrine, and practice. If you want to know what the church will look like in 3-5 years, look at what the culture is doing now. If you want to know what the culture looked like 3-5 years ago, look at the church now. From all but complete outliers in Rome and evangelicalism, the Christian church is in the theology of capitulation business now, desperate to fit in, desperate to be accepted by Vanity Fair, and oblivious to the fact that no amount of surrender is going to prove sufficient. Non-churched leftists are completely comfortable calling their ideology “leftism” or “progressivism.” The cultural pacifists that fill today’s pulpits lack the courage to even self-identify for the humanism-soaked sponges that they are. Christians, you are all alone if you are looking for the church to defend your cause, mission, and purpose. I don’t blame unbelievers for laughing at the latest screed that comes from today’s emasculated church; I do blame believers for not doing so.

My despair has come from the realization that our divide in this country is not merely sociological, that the other side is playing for keeps, and will stop at nothing to win. It is exacerbated by the realization that potential courageous opposition – the church – is asleep at the wheel. And my turmoil is unresolved by the realization that the tactics we will face as a remnant defending western civilization and the American experiment in the decades ahead will not, and cannot, be reciprocated by our own side. If we forfeit a quest for civility and decency, we will have already lost.

And that is where we find ourselves. A large percentage of the American population, enterprising, traditional, law-abiding, and respectful of social norms, under persecution from an extremist foe which has actually subverted the mainstream of American leftism. And that large percentage of the American population will spend the next period of time realizing the degree to which they are under assault, and then deciding how they wish to respond.

As for me and my house, we will do our very best to love each other, to love our neighbors, to grow our businesses, and to build community in the places that we live. We will defend ourselves against slanderous accusations. We will fight like mad for the causes we believe in. And we will try to live our lives above reproach.

But in engaging those who would prefer we be squashed, silenced, and ruined, we will not seek to squash, silence, or ruin them. And it is in that final commitment, that we may just be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

You certainly are; as with their Muslim allies-of-convenience, they view your rationality, your decency, your humanity, and your forbearance as weaknesses to be exploited. To adapt another phrase: we don’t have to like it. We just have to win it. It may be a crying shame. It’s also just the way it is.

I’d take issue with his assertion that Christianity is “asleep at the wheel,” though. A dismaying percentage of mainstream congregations and their leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, are actively lurching Left, and have been for a long time now. Christianity is another bedrock Western institution that has been successfully infiltrated and co-opted by the Left for the purpose of destroying it. It’s possible that it may be restored to its former glory and influence. But the war will have to be won first—and that will require unstinting effort, free of reservation or restraint, using tactics every bit as ugly as the hateful villains we’re fighting.

Share

Force and will

Methinks he might be a mite too optimistic about the likelihood of the Left ever accepting defeat.

Plenty has been written about the absurdity of running a republic by way of whisper campaigns, uncorroborated smears, and malicious innuendo. There is no need to rehash the mistreatment—some of it irrevocably damaging—of Judge Brett Kavanaugh. What’s important to remember is that this will now be the new norm of nomination battles. It marks the inevitable decline of our confirmation process over the last 30 years. I write “inevitable” because as soon as progressivism’s explicit living constitutionalism and implicit legal “realism” became dominant on the Left, the descent of the judiciary committee from respectable judiciousness to partisan bedlam was foreordained.

Our national politics in recent decades has lost its bipartisan consensus. The middle has collapsed, and the Democrats and Republicans are pulling away from one another on the deeper principles of politics, with policy disagreements following in train. The standard and incorrect explanation for this divergence is mere partisan recalcitrance and stubbornness. It is more profound than that.

Truth is, we are polarized now about foundational questions of human nature, constitutionalism, and justice. Our cold civil war and partisan rancor will only end when one party finally wins the argument about these fundamentals in a decisive and conclusive victory and uses that victory to solidify and sustain an enduring electoral coalition for a generation or more. Should such a turn come, the losing side, as has been the case repeatedly in American history, will then be forced to accommodate, regroup, reevaluate, and moderate (we of course have the one glaring historical exception of the Democrat-led secession movement in defense of slavery that led to the tragedy of our hot Civil War in 1860).

The stakes are high right now in American politics. When Michael Anton wrote “The Flight 93 Election” in September 2016, many on the political and intellectual Right objected in strong (and often histrionic) terms. It has been encouraging to watch in recent weeks as independents and moderate Republicans have come to Kavanaugh’s (and, on behalf of Kavanaugh, to Trump’s) defense. The president and his nominee are players in a much larger fight over fundamental questions about who we are as a people and who ought to govern and for what purposes.

Even with these high stakes, all Americans ought to pray fervently and hope fondly that we continue this passionate and spirited national argument as fellow citizens, rather than as enemies. Come what may, each side must abide the consequences of legitimate political victory when and if it comes.

Umm, hate to bring it up and all, but they’ve spent the last two years demonstrating beyond any possible doubt their total unwillingness to do just that, leaving no stone unturned to undo a “legitimate political victory.” As for “enemies,” they’ve openly declared us as their enemies, and have done one hell of a lot of violence to back it up, with many flat promises of more to come. I see no prospect of any sudden change of heart on their part, although I’d certainly love to be proven wrong about that.

Share

What are the rules?

Schlichter takes a stab at enumerating ’em, but there really ain’t but one.

Now, the elite insists that the alleged and disputed actions of Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk teen forever bar him from a seat on the Supreme Court. Okay, but then how does the disqualification rule apply to other situations? Let’s take Tex Kennedy. Beto O’Rourke drove drunk as a 26 year old, got busted after nearly killing some people and tried to ditch the scene. Let’s put aside whether he’s lying to the voters about absconding and focus on the glug glug vroom vroom part.

Does an adult DUI disqualify him from the Senate? If not, why not? Why are his undisputed actions less disqualifying than Kavanaugh’s alleged one? If true, both represent, at best, huge misjudgments. Both subordinated the safety and rights of others to the malefactor’s personal desires. Both involved alcohol, but one involved a minor and the other an adult. Why aren’t both disqualified?

Can someone explain the rule to me that makes both Kavanaugh irredeemable and Beto – pardon the expression – the toast of Texas Democrats?

What’s the rule?

Here’s what I think. I think there actually are no rules anymore. I think the elite is so terrified it is losing its power that it is tossing out the foundations of the society it is supposed to organize and manage, that is, the rules. I think our elite actually does not believe in rules, that their attempts at enforcing the rules are merely a grift designed to jam up Normals and provide a way to keep them in line.

Of course it is. Which brings us around to the One Rule: anything, anything at all, that Democrat Socialists or Leftists do=GOOD. Anything, anything at all, that Repubicans or non-Leftists do—even if it’s THE SAME DAMNED THING THE LEFT JUST DID—is BAD. No more, it’s just that simple.

Share

Mob rules

Not just a Black Sabbath album anymore. Unfortunately.

For the first time in history, we have a populace who will not abide by the results of our election process, and its effort to obstruct and destroy is damaging the fabric of our society and the foundation on which this country rests. We have a lawful process in place to address the will of the people, and currently we see the Democrats destroying the institutions we have relied on since our founding to carry out the will of the people. Whether it is the unlawful plots at the FBI and the Justice Department to frame an innocent President Trump, the weaponization of the IRS to silence conservatives, or the theater of the absurd at the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, the left’s dirty tactics are now a threat to our liberty and democracy. There is not an institution that has not been impacted. Many of us are asking what institutions we can still trust and rely on.

Since the left has not been able to advance its agenda at the ballot box, its followers rely on activist judges in black robes to advance their radical agenda. It was a process that worked well for them under Clinton and Obama, but now, without Congress or the Executive Branch and with the possible loss of the Supreme Court, they see their grasp on power slipping away, and they have become unhinged. They have openly stated they will stop at nothing in their effort to remove a duly elected president. In an effort to  hang on to power, they are now employing mob rule and character assassination in the halls of Congress, as we witnessed during last week’s congressional hearing.

Thus, it is not enough to denounce the thugs. George Soros, the billionaire funding the assaults and attacks, must be brought to justice for not only inciting violence, not to mention investigated for sedition, a crime we need to begin to take seriously. He and his minions are obstructing the agenda we voted on and one we won. It is imperative that Republicans in office begin to use the term “sedition” in public.

Those who plot the overthrow of the United States as a constitutional republic for a one-world order, as Soros has openly advocated, can no longer be ignored. He and his marching minions must be prosecuted for funding a war waged against our republic, and let it be a warning that we will no longer sit idly by as we watch our country destroyed from within. 

He calls for real Americans to vote the Treasoncrats out en masse in November, and he isn’t wrong to do so. His call to bring the truly, literally evil Soros to justice and resurrect the concept of sedition is also right on. Certainly, a Red Wave that removes large numbers of Democrat Socialist politicians from the halls of power can only be a good thing.

But anybody who thinks the ballot box is going to end—or even slow—the Left’s descent into violent, revolutionary madness is dreaming. They’re only to get worse instead, and harsher measures than the vote will be required to rid ourselves of them, if such is ever to be done at all.

Update! Did I just say Leftist insanity and violence will get worse? You bet it will.

Sen. Rand Paul’s wife on Wednesday demanded that a Democrat take back his comment encouraging activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople,” and said she now keeps a loaded gun near her bed after Paul was mobbed by protesters this week at an airport.

“Preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol — is this the way to express concern or enact change?” Kelley Paul wrote in an open letter to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., condemning the incident. “Or does it only incite unstable people to violence, making them feel that assaulting a person is somehow politically justifiable?”

“I would call on you to retract your statement,” Paul said in the letter. “I would call on you to condemn violence, the leaking of elected officials’ personal addresses (our address was leaked from a Senate directory given only to senators), and the intimidation and threats that are being hurled at them and their families.”

It ain’t gonna happen. Violence is all they have left, and they’ve already demonstrated that they’re too power-crazed to just let it go at being defeated in an election. Bless your heart, Mrs Paul, and your husband’s too, but what we’ve seen so far is only the beginning, I’m afraid.

The New America update! Hinderaker says:

I am sure a lot of Republicans in Washington are upgrading their security systems and making sure they are prepared to defend themselves against crazed Democratic Party activists. This isn’t the America I grew up in, but it is the America we all live in now.

The thing I don’t understand is, why do Democrats like Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, etc., think they are the only ones who can use violence to advance their cause? Do they not understand what a whirlwind they will unleash if they try to use political violence as a path to power?

They don’t care; they think they’ll win, and the depth of the fanatical hatred that drives them won’t allow them to stand down.

Share

Winners and losers

And war, civil and uncivil.

It is my contention that we are just one bad event away from a shooting civil war in America — and in fact if you ask Steve Scalise it may have already started.

The political process is often fraught with severe language, money and hard-fought contests. But in the end there are winners and losers; a person who loses by one vote still lost, while the person who wins by one vote still gets the office. The margin is immaterial and, in the context of a Presidential Election, the popular vote doesn’t matter; it is the electoral vote that counts and thus all candidates tailor their particular political process toward that outcome.

Twice now in recent history the left has refused to accept the outcome of that process. The first was Bush .v. Gore, which went to the US Supreme Court. Said court wisely refused to intervene in what was a political process, leaving said process intact, and Bush was seated as President. In doing so the issue of refusal to accept the outcome of an election was left for another day, and, for the most part, the left bided their time and then came back with a winner in 2008 in the form of Barack Obama.

But this time no such thing happened. Hillary Clinton lost. She didn’t lose by much, but by the rules of the contest she lost. Unfortunately the left not only refused to accept the outcome at the time two years later it still refuses to accept the outcome.

Let me be clear on this — if you’re bitter that there was no President Pantsuit that’s fine. Losses can be bitter, especially when you really think you should have won. But no matter what you think by the rules of the contest Hillary lost to Trump — period.

But if you go beyond being bitter, start up hashtags like “#Resist” and then put that into action both inside and outside the government to disregard and disrupt the results of a valid electoral process you are not only violating the law you are inciting a shooting civil war.

This sort of activity by people inside the government is treading right to if not over the line of insurrection. The use of government force for unlawful purpose, intentionally, meets the definition; it is an attempt to overthrow the law of the United States by corrupting the monopoly on deadly force that the government has and directing it unlawfully against certain people for political purposes. This is not a “petty offense”; it is a direct assault on and attempt to overthrow the result of a lawful elective process and according to the above link it’s still going on today.

If you’re aggrieved by an election’s results you have every right to print up a sign and go picket on a public street or other public place. You can take out all the political advertisements you wish and make your best effort to get a different result the next time around. But you do not have the right to enter into a restaurant where someone is eating dinner, which is private property, and assault said person because they happen to be a member of that political party. That is a violation of the law in that it constitutes assault and is begging for an immediate outbreak of violence in response.

There are many who, I’m sure, will say I’m over-reading this. Nope. You’re wrong. I have studied history for decades, from times long gone to far more-recent examples, and this is an unbroken pattern.

Nor am I calling for a “desired outcome.” Nobody in their right mind takes rocks made out of tens of kilograms of pure U-235 and smashes them together with their bare hands. The outcome of doing that is a known fact and you have to be flat-out nuts to desire or effort toward that happening.

But that’s where we’re headed and it is not just the left that is responsible — it is also those on the right and center including the current Republican Senate members who are tolerating and kowtowing to a strident group of nuts who refuse to respect the political process and accept its results. Never mind those in the House and Senate who have continually refused to bring impeachment or expulsion proceedings immediately against any and all in their bodies that refute a right to due process, a basic foundation of our country’s political and legal system.

He’s right, right down the line; the only thing I’m inclined to quibble with is his demand that this be stopped. I don’t think it CAN be, and I’m damned near certain it even if it could be, it won’t. Cataclysmic wars throughout history have followed this same pattern, just as Karl says: they’re always the last thing anyone seriously expects—UNEXPECTED!™despite myriad obvious signs so easily recognized in hindsight. And they never end up yielding the results their early instigators hoped for, either.

Via the good ol’ WRSA, wherein Bracken strongly commends this comment to our attention thusly: “It nails the essence of CW2.

Share

Belated realization

From Francis:


BelatedReaization.jpg

As I wrote back to him: “Yep, our parents were onto something. And now it’s all gone.” Funny thing is, absolute NOBODY seems all that happy about it.

Update! Since I mentioned Fran’s blog, I also ought to mention that he’s been kind enough to extend posting privileges to me over at his joint, for which I am grateful. Haven’t yet had time to take advantage of it yet, but I fully intend to do so, soonest.

Share

“The peaceful transfer of power is no longer a given”

A new, deplorable paradigm.

As troubling as the new paradigm is, it is just another convenient political gambit for the irresponsible left. The prominence of the new paradigm should alarm every freedom-loving American. If unchecked, in time, it will force a breaking point. It also speaks to a palpable division that goes beyond anything we’ve seen since at least the Civil War. Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides. America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.

The fact that we still have a chance to save the country from the collectivist ash heap is miraculous, given that almost every force in society is aligned against its salvation:

  • We toil under the baleful eye of the leftist corporate media, which ignores our successes; amplifies every perceived failing; and paints conservatism as intolerant and incompetent, stuffy, and stultifying.
  • A small but loud resistance movement inside conservatism is endlessly paraded before the country, obsessing over what is “crass” and “gauche.” It is animated by a reeking desperation for approval of everyone outside the right and is utterly useless against a left that never puts form over substance.
  • The population is widely dependent upon the largess the government has been dispensing for generations.
  • The left seems near the end of its long march through society’s consciousness-forming institutions, dominating the media and almost wholly controlling academia, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment and making serious inroads into religion.
  • The strings that connect and control the digital age are in the hands of the left, hands that gleefully strangle voices on the right.
  • Even as “the right” controls the federal government, recent events have shown that rogue leftist elements within government are active and treasonous.
  • The left is utterly ruthless, while the right still pretends propriety and decorum are indispensable hallmarks of civilization rather than civilization-threatening indulgences. 
    Problems such as the national debt and unfunded entitlements were once considered paramount. One can be forgiven for pining for such simple times.

As important as many of Trump’s agenda items are, this year’s election is the most important in more than two centuries because the left has fully embraced the new paradigm of illegitimacy. Leftists have never been more clearly defined, and the present moment affords us the best chance we have ever had to turn decisively away from their road to ruin. For the first time in a generation, the president and his allies have the country moving in the right direction, defined not by statistics, but by the fact that what he has already accomplished offers conservatism a real chance to be shown to work. All of the propaganda and histrionics of the left will fall on deaf ears if the people are confident about the direction of the country. The left still represents a cacophonous minority; most Americans are still animated by a desire to secure their place in a world where they can feel proud of themselves and their country.

Given that Hillary!™ did in fact win the popular vote in 2016, along with the apalling success of the Left’s Long March Through The Institutions—most especially the government schools, which have been beavering away at brainwashing hordes of new young socialists for many decades now—I’m not sure how confident we can be about that final assertion.

George Orwell Daycare Center update! Did I just mention government-school indoctrination, and its paramount importance to the Progressivist plan? Why, I believe I did. A little history on that:

Translated into practical terms and updated from its early-20th-century Italian cultural setting, (Antonio) Gramsci’s thesis is understood by the modern Left to mean:

Socialist revolution will never happen in a nation if its culture continually reaffirms and enshrines middle-class capitalist values. Thus, in order to pave the way for the arrival of a communist state, radicals must first insinuate themselves into and/or influence the media and educational system, and from these positions of influence change public attitudes about the status quo. To achieve political hegemony, you must first achieve cultural hegemony.

This was a significant change from Marx’s and Lenin’s original ideas about communist revolution, which basically involved simply seizing power, public opinion be damned, and afterward propagandizing the masses to accept the new order. Gramsci realized that Marx had it reversed, and that the propaganda and indoctrination must happen first, in order to make the populace open to the idea of revolution; otherwise, rendered complacent by middle-class values and comforts, the populace would never consent to the upheaval of a revolution.

The media and public schools were correctly identified by Gramsci as the most influential cultural institutions, and it was therefore those that the left realized must be targeted.

It is this sophisticated Gramscian plan, and not the more brutish Marxist idea of simply seizing power by force, which has guided leftist thought in America since WWII. And it is why the media and education have, over time, been slowly turned into engines of leftist propaganda. Gramscianism matured into “critical pedagogy” which is the real-world application of his educational theories, and countless left-leaning young adults have for decades been nudged toward careers in education and the media. Some time ago, we crossed a threshold in which the Gramscian infiltrators no longer had to ply their trade surreptitiously, but became the majority in the media and in education, and after that point the process accelerated rapidly as they took over both fields and turned them into ideological weapons.

That’s quoted from a much longer, broader, and deeper post at The Smallest Minority, of which you should read the all. Several of our regular commenters here at this hogwallow have waxed eloquent about the urgent need to regain control of the government schools, with an eye towards remaking them sans the malign Left influence currently saturating them. They aren’t wrong about that. Until such time as we figure out a way to achieve that Sisyphean task, whatever victories we manage to win will be small, and temporary.

Share

Me-too Republicans

Some things never change.

Eighty years ago, “Me Too” described Republicans eager to publicly second the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, a feeling so pervasive that the party nominated for president in 1940 a man who a few months earlier registered as a Democrat. “Me-Too Republican” generally conjured up not opportunists but an oversocialized character longing for approval from his Democratic neighbors and colleagues but clinging, perhaps out of family tradition or some other cause that also spoke to his desire to fit in, to the GOP label.

The phrase now refers to something different. But the conformity and reflexive support that characterized that Me Too endures in this #MeToo. Me Toos “me too,” too, after all.

Prominent Democratic politicians insist that decent people must believe the allegations against Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford, a woman who refuses invitations to testify under oath, whose story conflicts with that of the man she names as an eyewitness and the notes taken by her therapist, who cannot pinpoint the approximate date or precise location of the alleged assault, and whose history of supporting ActBlue and other left-wing causes indicates a possible motive to take down the president’s pick.

Her story seems suspect. But if you express something short of belief, many see you as suspect.

Okay, look, here’s the damned deal: let’s stipulate the lying liberal whore’s every assertion. There’s no compelling reason to, and certainly no evidence to back it up, but let’s go ahead and do it. So what do we have, then? A few teenagers got drunk at a party, and she ended up with one of them grabbing her tit and pawing clumsily at her clothes for a few seconds. And then…

That’s it. By her own account, NOTHING ELSE HAPPENED. He grabbed her by the tit momentarily, and that is the ABSOLUTE WORST of it.

And now she all of a sudden claims to have been traumatized by it for almost four fucking decades. Although, oddly enough, she never once mentioned it to a living soul, not until Kavanaugh’s name turned up on Romney’s list of prospective SC nominees in 2012. Kavanaugh has been vetted by the FBI six times already, and never ONCE was this non-event mentioned. Not one time.

There’s a right way and a wrong way to handle this dirty, transparent, manipulative attempt to do away with due process and the right to confront one’s accuser in open court. This would be the wrong way:

In Judge’s Defense, Republicans Shouldn’t Descend to Dems’ Level

Oh, Jesus tapdancin’ Christ. Right out of the gate, you know what’s coming. Ain’t like we haven’t seen it a blue million times already, after all.

Weaponizing a vague and unverifiable claim of sexual assault from Kavanaugh’s teenage years is a fitting capstone to what has been a truly grueling and repugnant confirmation process. The question now becomes, will Republicans respond in kind? Fearing for their grip on the Supreme Court if Kavanaugh is defeated and Democrats take control of the Senate, will they overreact and lash out at Ford? Will they attempt to discredit Ford by questioning her motives, her veracity, or even her sanity? My view is that this would be a serious error, as well unfair to Ford herself.

Fuck Ford, and fuck what might or might not be “fair” to her or any other such low-down, scurvy sewer rat as she. She eagerly lent herself to the sleaziest of smear campaigns for purely partisan purposes, and is manipulating the process even now with her ducking and dodging and cutesy-coy maneuvering. She’s gotten “death threats,” has she? Boo fucking hoo; so has the decent man she slimed, and his whole family too. This sort of thing is a tried-and-true Democrat Socialist tactic, and it’s more than past time it splashed back on them. If she has to spend the rest of her worthless life in hiding, I solemnly promise you I will not give a single shit.

This isn’t some noble, civilized debate we’re having here, with honorable opponents who respect the rules and can be counted on to conduct themselves with integrity and decorum. This is a war to the knife against craven guttersnipes who will stick at nothing at all to win. If you can’t get your head around that, you’re better off staying indoors with the women and children.

On the other hand, Republicans face real danger. If they were to treat Professor Ford with, the same savagery and contempt that has been inflicted on Brett Kavanaugh, there is a possibility that public sympathy for the Judge would evaporate, and the whole affair could turn into an ugly mess.

No, Republicans must be the adults in the room. They must treat Judge Kavanaugh, and his accuser, with the sort of fairness, circumspection, and respect that has eluded their Democratic colleagues throughout the process. Republican Senators thus far have shown every indication that they intend to do exactly that: they will act responsibly and judiciously, and they will show sensitivity to Professor Ford and allow her to keep her dignity. Americans will thus be left in no doubt about which party is acting in good faith.

The entire bare-knuckles campaign to defeat the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh can be likened to a leftist tantrum, characterized by vitriol as well as futility. The numbers in the Senate, after all, are with Republicans, and thus the truth has always been that, as long as Republicans keep their cool and close ranks to support a solid conservative nominee, nothing and no one can prevent them from confirming a good man like Brett Kavanaugh.

Wanna bet? For my money, they’ve already done it. It’s for sure and certain that FeinSwine has already gotten everything she wanted out of this and then some.

The timing of Feinstein’s release of information regarding the initially anonymous woman accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault was simply impeccable. Democrats knew they had no reasonable chance of stopping his confirmation, but Feinstein, a savvy and old-school politician, found a way to turn lemons into lemonade. Feinstein may have wrought a political masterpiece.

It is very likely that Feinstein knew in July, when her constituent sent the allegation to her, that it was so lacking in any kind of detail and backup that it could not derail Kavanaugh. But that didn’t mean that the allegations from Christine Blasey Ford could not be politically useful.

By releasing the information at the last hour, Feinstein put Republicans on the judiciary committee and the White House in a catch-22. They could either vociferously defend Kavanaugh and look like they were once again defending an abuser of women, or throw him under the bus and have to scramble to nominate and confirm a new nominee.

If, as increasingly appears to be the case, the GOP stands behind Kavanaugh in the face of this allegation, Feinstein has created a Me Too moment that Democrats can campaign on in their attempt to take back Congress, just as she did in 1992. It is, in a word, brilliant. One can almost see Mitch McConnell smiling and fist-bumping her, saying, “Well played, Di.”

This guy too, strangely enough, argues for the GOPe to “take the high road,” as if that had ever worked before. I certainly agree that it would be nice if our opposition was honest, trustworthy, dignified, and reasonable—if our disagreement was over Constitutional nuance, a debate about how best to maintain the integrity and relevance of the Constitution and its insistence on limited government and individual liberty.

Too bad that none of that is true, not one word of it. In truth, this isn’t a “debate” at all, not in any meaningful sense. It is an existential struggle, a semi-cold war against a dishonest, dishonorable opponent who NEVER argues in good faith, but is always jockeying for a position from which he can slide the shiv into freedom’s back. The Kavanaugh Kerfuffle is in no way unique, extraordinary, or atypical. It is merely the latest chapter in a very old playbook.

And there’s a reason for that: it’s worked for them every time up till now. That’s thanks to the collusion of the GOPe, combined with the above-the-fray prissyiness of those of us who misguidedly insist on this “high road” nonsense and recoil in horror from the thought of getting their hands dirty and their raiment soiled in an unseemly gutter brawl. It’s an essentially passive, defensive strategy, which is the wrong tack to take when what is required is a proactive, offensive, vigorous, and unrestrained effort.

What we’ve been seeing all these years is Mike Tyson pitted against the Marquess of Queensberry—or Little Lord Fauntleroy, more like—yielding its perfectly predictable result. And if you think the Kavanaugh fight has been ugly, just wait till Ruth Bader-Ginsberg either croaks or is carted bodily off to the glue factory. We ain’t seen nothing yet, folks, and we’d all damned well better be ready and willing to get as down and dirty with the scuzzbuckets of the Left as necessary if we want to keep from losing what little of our country is still left to us.

The “high road” is every bit as useless and irrelevant now as the effete feebs who smarmily scold us about its importance are. Until we’ve well and truly clobbered the Marxist moonbats, by any means we can contrive, we need to keep Miss Manners on the sidelines, and Emily Post’s Blue Book Of Social Usage firmly tucked away in our back pockets. Well, unless we intend to clout a shitlib over the head with it, that is.

Share

On the Coming Unpleasantness

Aesop gets real on the Shit Getting Real, riffing on a VDH column which can be perused here, and sums up thus:

Will America keep dividing and soon resort to open violence, as happened in 1861? Or will Americans reunite and bind up our wounds, as we did following the upheavals of the 1930s Great Depression or after the protests of the 1960s? 

The answer lies within each of us. 

Every day we will either treat each other as fellow Americans, with far more uniting than dividing us, or we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.

Aesop picks up the ball and runs with it:

Hanson has correctly described a binary outcome:
Either the lunacy will stop, or the country will rend itself.

Either/or.

1, or 0.

And he described it, not to put too fine a point on it, in exactly the terms put forward by Matt Bracken years since:

Bracken:
“Bosnia, times Rwanda”
Hanson:
“we will continue on the present path that eventually ends in something like a hate-filled Iraq, Rwanda or the Balkans.”

Hanson is not an instigator, he’s a historian.

He’s showing, with painful precision, that following the edge of this straight-ruler to its logical end leads to flying off a cliff into an abyss at speed, unless people see that inevitable denouement, and decide within themselves to turn away.

Again, Hanson is not suggesting anything; he’s stating with mathematical precision that either things will be done differently, or there will be a conflagration. He is mathematically correct and precise in this formulation.

Having laid out the consequences, I don’t think he’s in denial about the current state of affairs at all.

When one guy, or five guys on the ‘net say “Civil War”, it may be just Tulipomania. When everyone is starting to sound like a chorus, including Stanford historians, there is beginning to be something to it.

Hanson is telling you the product (just as Matt Bracken has).
You may be worried about plugging in the variables.
You may even have them precisely correct, but the greater point is that it’s immaterial.

When you put enough U-235 in close proximity (64kg, in point of historical fact), you achieve a predictable result.

And, as he goes on to say, ain’t nobody gonna like it. At. All. CA responds with this:

Do you honestly believe you can, let alone should, treat the Americans who intentionally and with malice/political/personal gain who destroyed your California as as “fellow Americans, with far more uniting than dividing us”?

How about the Red academics who not only kicked over the Jenga tower of limited government and the rest of Western Civ but set all against all first behind campus walls, and now in the general society? Can and should they be treated as “as fellow Americans, with far more uniting than dividing us”?

The race pimps – same question?

The first and second gen feminists – same question?

The “my wallet and powerlust before country” politicians over our lifetimes – same question?

Othet post-WW2 miscreants – same question?

Those folks are destroyers, plain and simple.

They are not my fellow Americans.

And that right there is the REAL problem. We already know just how amenable to reason they are: not in the least. Which brings us back to that Walsh material I told you earlier you’d be seeing again.

The Democrats today no longer believe in the very system in which they serve.

But our two-party system can only work if both sides are of good will, in common agreement on fundamental principles, and profess fidelity to the country as founded. In their lust for power and the “fundamental transformation” of the Republic into a leftist tyranny, the Democrats can no longer function within such a framework—just as they couldn’t in 1860-61, declaring war first on Lincoln and then on the United States of America itself. It took four long and bloody years for Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman to show them the error of their ways. And even then, a Democrat murdered the president.

Today’s Republicans are, in the main, made of lesser stuff. More patsies than potentates, they roll over at the first hint of trouble; indeed, the late John McCain (R-Ariz.) made a fetish of what he called “comity,” which in his definition meant surrendering to the Left and poking his finger in the eye of the Right. His love children, Senators Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), would dearly love to inherit his mantle, but alas for the both of them, they’re self-retired short timers, and nobody cares what they think.

But Democrat memories, while long—they stretch back to Aaron Burr, Jefferson’s vice president, who shot Alexander Hamilton and founded Tammany Hall—are selective. They, like Iago, see themselves as victims, frustrated by the evil Federalists/Whigs/Republicans/conservatives from realizing their political program: free pie (in the sky) for all, but all power to themselves. It never occurs to them that, like Michael Douglas in “Falling Down,” they’re the bad guys.

Any movement of the type and magnitude capable of staving off a Civil War-type conflagration of necessity MUST come from their side, towards us. There is no nonviolent way to bridge this gulf otherwise. Having spent decades moving Left themselves, Real Americans already know well enough how that ends up: with further demands, further petulance and threats, further nervous breakdowns, and of late, further violent assaults against them. The Left has no desire to reason with anybody, or debate anybody, or meet anybody halfway. They desire—they intend—to rule. No more, no less.

There is no happy ending to all this, not that I can see. They will not stop; they will have to BE stopped. They will either win, or the real Americans they loathe and despise will. Horrible as it all is, it’s the plain truth, unless an inconceivable tide of profound awakening and enlightenment suddenly washes over them somehow. It’d be awfully nice if such a thing happened, but all the evidence so far says it is NOT the way to bet.

Share

The Great Divide

Then and now.

In 1860 free state voting populations were larger than those of slave states so these states, as a total, had more Electoral College votes than slave states. One of the catalysts to the U.S. Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln over John C. Breckinridge. Lincoln took office in January 1861 and the war started in April of 1861. Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot of ten slave states but still won the election of 1860 because he won the largest number of Electoral College votes. Seven of these slave states, unwilling to accept the results of the election, decided to secede from the United States.

Several states considered seceding from the United States over the 2016 presidential election. Oregon, California, and Silicon Valley threatened to secede after Hillary lost. Texas was discussing secession if Trump lost. Canada offered to make several U.S. States part of Canadaif they left the United States.

Since the election of Donald Trump to President of the United States, we have seen an escalation of violence. Therapists have increased business because progressives did not have their way in the 2016 election. Many progressives are unable to cope with reality and instead choose to live in a fantasyland. Even before the 2016 election, we witnessed how nasty, aggressive, despicable, and violent progressives have become and these behaviors have escalated since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

The election of Donald Trump has brought to the fore the stark difference between ideological, economic, political, and social ideas. His election exposed many politicians as the traitors they really are.

There are more divisions now and larger divisions in the United States than in the 19thCentury. The philosophical lies of progressives did not have a strong following until the 20thCentury. We are witnessing the division and the weakness these progressive ideologies create. Progressive ideologies make people weak and afraid.

That being the whole idea behind the evil ideology, of course. Lots more here; read it all.

Share

The essential truth

Steyn hits the most important point of L’Affaire Kavanaugh:

It is immensely depressing to think that in a few days’ time the upper chamber of the national legislature of the most powerful nation on earth will conduct hearings into which teenager groped what at a drunken high-school party thirty-six years ago. Or possibly thirty-eight. Or thirty-five. Or thirty-seven. But it’s somewhere in that ball park, notwithstanding that Professor Ford cannot reliably place the date, or even the year.

Which is the main reason why this event should not be occurring. On the present set of facts (and, given previous form, Dianne Feinstein may have more two-month-old info yet to disclose), there is nothing that can be proved. By her own account, Ms Ford cannot identify the house where the party occurred, or explain how she came to be in that house, and how she got home that night. She admits to being very drunk – too drunk to recall certain basic facts, but not to recall telling details. She was not a friend of Brett Kavanaugh, and never saw him again after the party. You could not take that to the county attorney, but you can take it to the United States Senate, thirty-six years later. There is a reason for rules of evidence and statutes of limitation – not because justice has a sell-by date, but because the determination of it does.

Nevertheless, I expect she will be “credible”. She has had four decades – or at any rate the six years since she first mentioned the incident at “couples therapy” in 2012 – to fix the summer of ’82-ish in her mind. In real courts, the best testimony is as near to contemporaneous as you can get – the statement you give immediately after the mugging or the car theft, before time and telling lead you to believe you saw him in the glow of the street lamp outside the Thai restaurant…when there is no street lamp on Maple Avenue, and the Thai restaurant closed three months before the incident took place. But we are now licensing a select group of crimes where the the normal rules of evidence do not apply.

And so what matters is that she will tell a narrative which (like Jeffrey Wright’s seersucker and docksiders) fits half the country’s preconceptions of the evils of the other half.

If Republicans fold on this, they might as well forget about getting anybody through a Senate confirmation ever again.

Annnnd BINGO, there it is. It is simply inconceivable that even Vichy GOPers don’t realize this—an obvious truth from which one can only conclude that they just don’t care, as long as they can get their precious Uniparty/Deep State business-as-usual back.

This isn’t about what Kavanaugh may or may not have done as a teenager. It isn’t really even about Kavanaugh himself. This is about who really runs things in Washington. It’s about power. It’s about setting an example—a demonstration of what happens to anyone uppity enough to attempt real, substantive change to Mordor On The Potomac’s status quo, pour encourager les autres. Above all, it’s about forcefully adjusting the expectations of the MAGA Deplorables—about putting us in our place; about establishing the distinction once and for all between rulers and ruled; about making it clear what bucking the Ruling Class too hard will get us in the end: nothing.

They assume one hell of a lot about how much shit we’re willing to eat without taking to the streets in open, violent rebellion against them, don’t they? But just because they’ve been right this long doesn’t mean they’re always going to be. “Too early to start shooting the bastards”? Claire Wolfe’s famous assertion looks less defensible with every successive Deep State outrage against the very concept of self-rule and “the consent of the governed.”

Share

The magnitude of our cultural division

A bridge way too far.

If we can admit that warfare encompasses high intensity fighting (like tanks and bombers), then we need to take a look at the low intensity, too. This “Low Intensity Conflict” includes violence, but it also features other forms of warfare that we are, without a doubt, seeing today.

In fact, we are seeing every single indicator of a low intensity conflict right now, and that’s the basis for my reasoning that a domestic conflict has already started. (Overviews of the reasoning are here and here.)

I have no crystal ball and I can’t tell you exactly how bad it will get or when it will end, but I am confident in two things:

  1. It’s already started.
  2. It will get worse before it’s solved, if a solution can be found.

As I saw suggested by a comment-section wag somewhere or other the other day: the Civil War already started. But so far, only one side is fighting.

Update! There is no compromise or nonviolent solution possible. There is only victory, or defeat. Schlichter does the math proving why socialism does not work, has never worked, and cannot work.

Let’s take the richest man ever was, Jeff Bezos. He’s got a net worth of at least $150 billion. It not in actual dollars, though, unless he has the world’s biggest mattress. It’s mostly in Amazon stock. We’ll just leave aside the inconvenient issue of what would happen to Amazon’s stock value if it were “seized” and nationalized and just assume he’s got a big pit full of dollar bills. We take all that and split it among the 330 million Americans and everyone gets…$454.55. Congrats. Everyone gets one payment on their 2015 Toyota Camry. That is, unless we’re decreeing that all consumer loans are forgiven, which is probably on the socialists’ to-so list and would mean many fewer consumer loans going forward, but again I digress.

Divvying up the cash seems…unhelpful. How about we put all the money toward government spending? That would never be dropping it down a rathole because the government is awesome. Let’s see, the 2019 U.S. budget is $4.407 trillion – with a “T” – so all of Bezos Bucks would be about 3.4% of that. Yes, all of Bezos’s money would run the federal government for 12.4 days.

So, after about two weeks we’re going to need some more cash. There appear to be about 560 billionaires in the U.S. They all have less than Jolly Jeff – everyone has less than him – but let’s count each one as having $5 billion to simplify things. That’s $2.8 trillion. A lot of dough. But even assuming the entirety of their assets could be converted to cash, you could fund the government at present levels for … 232 days. That’s at present spending levels, without all the bells and whistles and free college and doctors and kale smoothie-makers everyone will get from Uncle Santa.

Remember, under socialism we aren’t minting any new billionaires, so where do we go for the money once the low-hanging billionaire fruit is picked clean? Millionaires!

A 2017 report says there are probably 10.8 millionaires in what would be the People’s Republic of America: “In 2016, there were 9.4 million individuals with net worth between $1 million and $5 million, 1.3 million individuals with net worth between $5 million and $25 million, and 156,000 households with more than $25 million in net worth, the report says.”

Now we’re hitting regular folks. If you have a house in Los Angeles or Washington, welcome to millionairehood! Or a small business – lots of us are rich on paper. Well, what’s ours is…theirs. The fact is our socialist pals are going to have to reach way down below the 1% to find enough stuff to redistribute so that everyone can have everything they want (but not enough to work for) while robots mop out the toilets.

They want your stuff. The stuff you spent years working for, saving for, sacrificing for. All gone, to someone else, because some neck-bearded Gender Studies grad decided he and not you should choose what happens to your property. All that effort, all those years you spent gainfully employed, being responsible, working while other folks played? 

Too bad. 

The socialists seem to assume that there’s not going to be any pushback from all these millions of Normal Americans who are going to fund this latest socialist experiment (Remember, this time, under these geniuses, socialism will totally work – it’s due for a win!). We’ll sort of shrug and just give up our stuff, and our freedom, to a bunch of 20-something adolescents because…the 20-something adolescents really want us to.

Nah.

Hate to be always sounding the discordant note and all here, but the sad fact is socialism already has its talons deep in the thews, sinews, and viscera of American society. Worse still, too many Americans who don’t consider themselves “socialist” at all like it that way, and won’t part with their Free Shit happily, or easily. That blase acceptance of Socialism-Lite still won’t make the thing work any better than it ever has, of course. Which just means Civil War 2.0 will be twice as bitter and destructive, whether it finally ratchets on up from low-intensity conflict or not.

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

Storm warning

Culper mulls the Coming Unpleasantness.

It’s increasingly likely that we’ll arrive at a point where one or more of these politicized social bases arrives at the conclusion that their problems can’t be solved through political channels, or that nonviolent solutions are less preferable than violent ones.

Should they succeed somehow in forcing Trump from office, that would be a pretty clear sign of exactly that.

At a broader level, countrymen (politicized social bases) go to war against themselves when the alternative to war (i.e., being dominated or conquered) is less preferable than fighting, and they feel that they can or should use violence to achieve their political objectives. War in America will increasingly look like tribal and gang conflict, but along the lines of politics, culture, race/ethnicity, and class, and armed with the tools of economic and information warfare that ultimately generates violence.

According to a recent Rasmussen survey, nearly one-third of Americans believe that the U.S. will have some kind of civil war within the next five years. In that same poll, half of all Americans felt that the country was more divided as a result of the Obama administration, which divided Americans by race/ethnicity and class for eight years. You can’t create fault lines to exploit for political gain, and then complain later when there’s an earthquake… yet that’s exactly where we are.

With the clouds continuing to gather, you’ll surely want to read all of this one. Aesop adds some worthwhile commentary of his own, too.

Share

Switcheroo

Funny how things change, innit?

Time was when Bowdlerism and pecksniffery were alleged to be characteristics of conservative Christians and small-town Babbitts: reactionary squares from Squaresville, who couldn’t handle a little overt sexuality or transgressive humor from the likes of Lenny Bruce. These days, the censorship comes almost exclusively from the perpetually outraged cultural-Marxist Left. Like their Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian forebears, they cannot abide anything that does not conform to their world-view right this minute, and therefore must constantly update their “Index of Forbidden Books, Films, Words, and Cultural Artifacts.”

Whoops—there goes Dustin Hoffman’s star turn in “Lenny.” And Quentin Tarantino’s Oscar for “Pulp Fiction.” And Phoebe Cates’s magnificent bosom, which gave hope (however fantastic) to nerds across America that someday they, too, might actually see such wonders in the flesh. And pretty much everything else since the great cultural revolution of the late 1960s overthrew the Production Code and sent the Legion of Decency scurrying off into the sunset. If they can come for Mark Twain and Joseph Conrad, they can come for anybody.

Now they’re back and, as revolutionaries everywhere are wont to do, they are hanging their parents and desecrating the graves and monuments of their ancestors. Because their zeal knows no bounds—because, by definition, too much zeal can never be enough—they are now set loose upon the past, the better to erase it so that a brave new world might be born.

Let’s be clear: the assault on the past—on the Western and American past—is something more than simple cultural vandalism. After all, the original Vandals kept a great deal of the Roman Empire even as they and the other northern barbarians transformed it, eventually, into the nation-states of Europe. No, the negation of the past—even of its own past—is something the Left must accomplish in order for it successfully to school the populace of the brave new world in the brave new ways. As with Islam and the French Revolution (in which cultural Marxism has its roots) the new world demands a new beginning, with a Year Zero against which to measure time henceforth. It cannot countenance the memories and the trappings of the old ways, and so they must be extinguished, eradicated, and exterminated.

This puts the so-called cultural conservatives in a bind. The old bluenoses must now defend elements of the culture they might well have hated, and still do hate—but refusing to protect them is to align themselves, however unwittingly or unwillingly, with their mortal enemies on the Left. (Their situation is akin to the moral dilemma of the #NeverTrumpumpkins, who have abdicated binary morality in favor of selective “preenciples.”) It’s all the more galling when you consider that the Left hid behind “free speech” when it was in their interest to goad the larger culture toward change, but now cannot abide “hate speech,” which is, when you stop to think about it, exactly the same thing.

But in order for our culture—our entire culture—to survive, we must defend it in whole, lest it be torn down around our heads piecemeal.

PC doesn’t just eat its own—it eats everydamnedthing.

Share

“Did Trump Really Save America From Socialism?”

For the moment, yeah.

Americans need to understand that the shocking refusal by a major political party to accept the results of the last election and the onslaught of verbal, legal, and physical assaults the Democrats have engendered, are not specific to Donald Trump. In other words, it is now clear plans were made by Obama to exploit federal power during his presidency to give the Democrats control of our nation — perpetually. It really didn’t matter if Trump was the GOP nominee or not. In other words, the chaos we are witnessing today would not have been much different had, for example, Ted Cruz won the presidency.

Sure, the issues and the phony narratives would be different but the intensity of the attacks would be the same and the illegal politicizing of Federal agencies would probably still have occurred. There is little doubt the Dems would have created phony narratives customized for whoever the nominee was, similar to how they customized the Russian collusion hoax for Trump. This is what the establishment Republicans and the Never-Trumpers don’t understand. Long before Trump’s candidacy, total war was declared on the GOP when the Obama administration strategically created the conditions to make its progressive revolution a permanent one. Or so they thought.

First, let’s dump the naivety. Obama has been fully in charge of both the pre- and post- election attacks on Trump. He is the leader of the resistance. The idea that his appointees at the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CIA, State Department, etc., would risk committing multiple felonies without direction from him or his henchman is simply not believable as many long-time political leaders and observers have stated.

Obama’s goal was to weaponize his agencies so as to create the conditions to make it impossible for any Republican to win the presidency again. The circumstantial evidence over the last ten years strongly suggests that Obama was determined to make the 2016 election the last real free election, meaning one in which legal citizens elected the president. Based on his actions during his presidency, it is difficult to not conclude otherwise.

Indeed, Obama even did an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez in which he made clear that illegal aliens who vote won’t be investigated by his administration because the voting records are not cross-checked against the immigration databases.

This is also why Obama ally and socialist billionaire George Soros funds a network of Obama-aligned groups to carry out much of the dirty work. For example, Soros funds a plethora of groups that promote open borders, attack ICE, and make it easier for illegals to avoid arrest.

These groups also fight all efforts to implement any kind of voter ID system that would make it difficult for illegals to vote. Indeed, the current DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, worked with “Casa De Maryland,” a Soros-funded group that successfully convinced the city of College Park to allow illegals to vote in local elections.

But Soros plays an even bigger role in the Obama-led resistance. The House Intelligence Committee reported that Soros and seven to ten other heavy hitters spent $50 million trying to convince people that the phony intel contained in the Dossier was authentic. Soros also funds Media Matters, a leftist group that works to convince social media companies to censor conservatives, a necessary tactic in order for Obama’s soft coup to be successful. And Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook appear to be dutifully following the left’s demands.

Are you getting the picture yet? It’s a nifty formula: Register illegals and felons to vote but suppress the votes of conservatives and those who serve our country. Add up all these actions and it’s difficult to not conclude Obama and his leftist allies in various states were engaged in a massive conspiracy to use the power of federal and state governments to influence the electoral process. And much of this occurred before Obama knew Trump would be the GOP nominee.

But let’s bring this conspiracy up to the present. All of this flows nicely into Obama’s plan to use his intelligence agencies as an appendage of the DNC. There is now little doubt that Obama’s appointees involved themselves in a scam to purchase phony intel and then used it as the basis for an application to the FISA court so they could spy on Trump’s campaign. This plot had little to do with Russia and everything to do with creating a damaging narrative about “treason” and “collusion” that was to be spoon fed to their media allies and used to try to remove Trump from office.

But something happened on the way to socialist utopia. Trump won. That was not supposed to happen.

To be blunt, the plan was for Hillary to win and continue the destruction of the American system of limited government, the rule of law, and the free enterprise system. A Hillary victory would have continued Obama’s agenda of open borders, government control of many industries, a cradle to grave welfare system, and emaciated military and socialist policies that would continue economic stagnation. Future elections would appear to be legit but they wouldn’t be.

Under a Clinton presidency, she would continue the Obama immigration policies, thereby allowing a few million more illegals to enter the country and would also massively increase Third World refugees who vote heavily Democratic. Indeed, in 2016 she announced that as president she would increase Syrian refuges alone by 550%. Add to this the aggressive federal/state/private voter registration programs targeting these groups and the result would be a boost of Democrat vote numbers probably large enough to keep winning the White House on a perpetual basis, essentially invalidating the will of the legal majority.

Elections would just be a formality to make the masses feel like they still lived in a free country, but the only free elections would be between Democrats in their own primary. The result would be the transformation of America to a full blown socialist country within a decade. Just as Obama had promised.

Nor should there be any doubt about Obama’s socialist vision for America. This is important because his ideology explains why he is leading the resistance: socialists believe in the Marxist theory that capitalism cannot coexist with socialism, hence they are obligated to destroy the free enterprise system and all the cultural traditions that go along with it. It was not a coincidence that the attacks on traditional marriage, the undermining of religious freedom, the promotion of transgendered “rights,” and other issues challenging traditional mores came to a fore during the Obama years. Obama and the progressives seek to undermine America’s cultural traditions because they are linked to America’s Christian and capitalist heritage. Their socialist ideology explains the chaos we find everywhere we look today. Historically, socialists detest free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and other constitutional rights we all take for granted. Just walk down any big city street with a Trump hat on and you will witness the attacks for yourself. Start getting used to it.

This one is long, it’s deep, and covers one hell of a lot of ground, with a ton of supporting evidence to back up the premise. Nonetheless, I still have a few problems with it. For starters, I can’t buy Obama as the evil genius behind it all. For all his narcissistic arrogance, he’s a stuttering, shambolic, inept moron, and it’s always been my contention that he was never much more than a puppet, with darker, more clever and obscure players pulling his strings from way offstage. Moreover, our descent into socialist darkness started way before he came along anyway.

On the other hand, the ineptness and slow implosion of the Klown Kar Koup does seem to provide some basis for the argument that he was more than just a figurehead, at that.

I also have a problem with this bit:

If the GOP cannot unify to pursue a scandal this deep-rooted and consequential, then they don’t deserve to win in 2020 and will not likely survive as a viable party. It’s as if the Republican establishment wants the Deep State to prevail, Trump to be removed, and America returned to the socialist path it was on under Obama. Are they really that naïve that they don’t understand that once we go down that road, it’s unlikely the damage can be undone?

Dude: the Republican establishment IS the Deep State. Are you really that naive that, even after decades of being betrayed again and again by them, you don’t understand that yet?

Moreover, AG Jeff Sessions needs to take back control of his agency. It is alarming that he appears to be not involved in any DOJ investigations concerning anything remotely related to Russia or Hillary, because he was advised to recuse himself by career DOJ attorney Scott Schools, even though the legal case for Session’s recusal was non-existent. Not surprisingly, Schools was hired by Obama official Sally Yates who was fired by Trump for refusing to support his travel ban. Sessions needs to reverse this silly recusal, hire new staff who are actually loyal to him, and get back on top of investigating the biggest political scandal in American history.

I advise all and sundry not to be holding their breath waiting for it. Whatever he may once have been, Sessions is just another Swamp rat now. His nonchalant willingness to sit idly by as the rogue agency he is supposedly in charge of attempts a blatant overthrow of the legitimately elected government is proof enough of that. This next is certainly right enough, though:

This is do or die time. Failure to act now by the GOP will cost the country dearly. Obama and his progressive allies have an aggressive multi-prong plan to survive congressional investigations, win back the White House in 2020, and resume their effort to take America down the socialist path. This is war, and the Democrats know it, but it’s not clear the Republican leadership understands this moment in history.

Occam’s Razor tells us that they understand it’s war well enough. It’s just that they’re on the other side.

Anything can happen, of course, but I really don’t see the Democrat Socialists winning the White House back in 2020. They might well have “an aggressive multi-prong plan” sure enough. But it’s going to take somebody other than Lieawatha/Fauxcahontas, Crazy Bernie, Sick Hillary!™, or Gropy Joe Biden to implement it. Unless they’re willing to enrage their base by reining in the lunatics; dialing back the howling Marxism and tacking a bit to the middle; and can dig up a complete unknown untainted by scandal, corruption, youthful indiscretion, sexual deviancy, or the kind of greasy, unctuous smarm that oozes off of almost every Democrat-Socialist candidate like oil out of a cracked transmission case, I tend to think their chances of ever selling their chaotic flea circus to Mainstream America again dwindle with every AntiFa assault, Muslim terrorist attack, transgender parade, BlackLiesMurder riot, and accidentally-honest expression of hatred and loathing uttered by one of their bumbling, ignorant Flavors of the Month.

I could be all wet about that, I admit. But in any event, it’s what comes after Trump that we need to be concerned about. And we admittedly have a recruitment problem of our own there. Unless we can somehow find another battle-ready Trump-ish outsider to put forward, it’s going to be a return to DC business as usual when the professional-politican vultures waiting in the wings make Mordor On The Potomac their exclusive domain once more, probably for good.

Share

Playing with matches

Little sparks can sometimes grow into huge conflagrations.

Since the election, the Left has been dreaming up scenarios in which the results of the election are overturned. For a long time they were sure Trump would be impeached, but that seems to have faded. Last year my left-wing office manager was deep into the impeachment scenarios. Now the talk is of revolution, which probably fits better with their conception of themselves as the heroic resistance. They imagine Trump as a strong man, against whom they must resist until the system cracks, and then the revolution begins.

On the other hand, there are limits to everything. As the outrages from the Left stack up, the average white person in American grows more angry. Talk to anyone sympathetic to this line of thinking and they will tell you they have grown far less tolerant of their remaining liberal friends. I know I’ve lost touch with quite a few former friends, because I will not tolerate their nonsense. I have friends who just a few years ago thought Ben Shapiro was edgy and now think the alt-right is too soft. There is a reaction brewing in the country.

The question is what would it take to move people from yelling at their televisions over the latest liberal outrage to marching in the streets. This is never easy to know. Sometimes, the smallest spark sets off the biggest fire. The reaction to Alex Jones getting purged from the internet has been surprising, given that he is not a serious person. I got questions from people, who never heard of him until yesterday, angry over his banishment. My guess is the percentage of people thinking fondly of Pinochet is at an all-time high right now.

As far as the spark, a move against Trump is good bet. The glue that keeps things from flying apart right now is middle-class white people, who still have faith in the political system. These are the middle American radicals Sam Francis wrote about 30 years ago during the Reagan moment. They will tolerate just about anything, as long as they think they can fight the other side within the system. An effort to remove Trump or even silence his advocates, could be a spark that gets these people into the streets.

It is tempting to think this will all blow over. I was in the camp until recently. Now, I just don’t see how it will ever be possible to make peace with the Left. They hate us and will use any means necessary. The lack of code is the critical part. How does one make peace with someone that will never abide by the rules? Whether this results in revolution, counter revolution or civil war is hard to know, but the number of people thinking the gap cannot be bridged is growing every day. Now we wait for the Cossak’s wink.

The gap CAN’T be bridged, as I’ve said for a long, long time now. The conflict is between people who want total, unquestioned control (“We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives“) and people who insist on their right to be left alone—between people who believe in the Founding vision of limited government and people who want no limits on government whatsoever. How can anyone possibly imagine that those positions are reconcilable? As I’ve asked before: if you’d prefer to see Constitutional government reinstated yet also favor “compromise” with the Left, exactly which parts of the Constitution are you willing to see thrown out?

As for Alex Jones, I kinda don’t get the high dudgeon over his “deplatforming.” YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al have been doing the exact same thing to both strident Dissident Right types and far milder and more innocuous “conservatives” for a long while now without nearly this much ballyhoo over it. Now all of a sudden people are willing to draw a stark line around a nut like Jones? Not saying they shouldn’t, mind; if it had been done long ago, maybe we wouldn’t be where we are now. It just seems kind of weird to me that Alex Jones ends up being the Bridge Too Far, that’s all.

But it’s easy enough to explain. The Left has stayed frenziedly on the attack for so long now that people are fed up with them. Seeing as how they still show no sign at all of being willing to dial back on the cray-cray one little bit—on the contrary, they’re doubling down each and every day, seemingly incapable of perceiving the mainstream’s rapidly eroding forbearance not as the warning it is but as further incitement—it almost doesn’t matter WHO it was they went after this time.

And then the spark ignites the dry tinder, it blazes up and out of control, and everydamnedbody winds up getting burned.

Share

On the necessity of PWNING the libs

That last post reminded me to check in on Schlichter in his regular spot.

You must have a heart of stone not to giggle in delight as you watch them howl with outrage while you crank them over the flames on the Twitter rotisserie.

But owning the libs is more than just delightful. It is absolutely necessary. Why? Morale – that intangible factor, combined with fearless leadership, that means the difference between total defeat and unexpected, legendary victory: Little Round Top, Rourke’s Drift, and yeah, the upcoming midterms.

Owning the libs is a rejection of their dominance and an assertion of our own. It is a way of not only saying, “We will not submit,” but of demonstrating that refusal to others. There is a reason the motto of the infantry is “Follow me,” and not “Uh, you guys go on ahead.”

People are not led to triumph by cowards, by wimps, or by submissive weasels who take heaps of garbage and then explain away their refusal to hit back by sobbing, “We’re better than that!”

People are not better than that. They want to fight back, but for that they must have morale, and morale requires that they need to see others fight back too. And when they don’t, morale collapses, there is a rout, and the bad guys win.

Let’s be clear about who the bad guys are, because in this struggle there are good guys (us) and there are bad guys. The bad guys are the people who outright tell us that they hope to strip away our freedom of speech. They tell us they want to circumscribe our religious practices to the point at which – maybe, if we’re good little boys and girls and non-binary beings – they might let us quietly practice our faith out of sight, maybe. They are the ones who call for us to be disarmed, then also call for us to be exiled from society, hounded, battered, and even murdered. My novels People’s Republic and Indian Country paint a picture of the hellscape they want to create.

Anyone who presumes to lead us and does not believe that we are in the right, that we are the good guys, is unfit to lead us. The bottom line is that we need to defeat the other side, and you don’t do that through moral equivalence, passivity, and submission. Non-owning is a non-starter.

Y’know, now and then I just have to sit back and marvel at how guys like Kurt manage to just keep on crankin’ out good stuff like this day after day, week after week, year after year. It’s remarkable, is what it is.

Share

Piling on

Even Klavan—no Trump guy, he—can’t resist batting the squeaky little cat toy around a bit.

New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger says he told Trump his anti-press rhetoric could lead to violence. But the media’s anti-Trump rhetoric already has led to violence: public officials rat-packed and bullied, Trump supporters harassed, White House spokes-lady Sarah Sanders having to live under guard. And yet when Sanders pointed this out to Look-At-Me-I’m-Jim Acosta, Acosta stormed out of the room. Hell, if he doesn’t want to hear the truth, he could just stay home and watch CNN.

What’s also appalling is that reporters answered Sanders by reminding her of the tragic shooting of journalists in Maryland. But that had nothing to do with Trump. It was the personal grudge of a madman. Even when these knuckleheads are protesting being called Fake News, they are purveying Fake News. Remarkable.

But most remarkable is this: the media seems to take no responsibility for the anger in the country. Not once — not one time — have I seen a reporter come onscreen and say, “Hey, you know what, maybe we are biased. Maybe we haven’t listened. Maybe we have been arrogant and insulting. Maybe we do bear some responsibility for the anger against us.”

When Muslim extremists destroyed the World Trade Center, David Letterman and others among the chattering classes went on TV and wondered: “Why do they hate us?” But they can’t take the time to ask the same question about their fellow citizens. The Islamists are murdering pigs. Who cares why they hate us? These Trump supporters are just ordinary folks. If they were screaming at me, I’d do a moral inventory on myself before blaming them.

Yeah, but see, you have at least a modicum of good sense and humility, Andrew. Which makes for a pretty stark contrast with those shitbirds.

Update! Walsh also puts the boot in:

The old journalistic ladder looked something like this: a year or so on the police beat in Dubuque, followed by a stint covering the local county and perhaps federal courts for a newspaper in Portland, and then, if the reporter was able enough, a job on one of the big-city papers in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles. Not every piece had to have a political angle; not every lede needed to include a slighting reference to the president of the United States; not every opening graf needed to mischaracterize or refute the Republican/conservative position on any given topic. In fact, attitudinizing was strictly forbidden: it was talent that mattered, not the correct opinions.

Now the White House beat has become an entry-level reporting job, in the course of which the callowest of youths, or the most airheaded among the former beauty queens, can sass the objects of their coverage, mock them, call them liars, and generally act out in public. (Yes, Jim Acosta, we’re talking about you.)

This constant irruption of mindless prattle might be amusing were it not such a terrible commentary on the state of “journalism” today. And when the tables are turned, and the public gives the reporters a taste of their own crude hostility, the media freaks out and, of course, blames Trump, falsely claiming that a little civilian pushback against a group of people who openly despise them is somehow a direct threat to the First Amendment and might even get some reporters killed. The fact that, as far as I know, there has never been a single pampered White House correspondent killed in the line of duty, not only never seems to pierce the veil of their heroic fantasies, but it also dishonors the many great reporters who actually did die for their profession, among them Mark Kellogg (who died at the Little Bighorn with Custer) and Ernie Pyle, killed at Okinawa in 1945.

There’s precious little they don’t dishonor.

Updated update! OHH, talk about piling on!


Acosta-Thompson.jpg

Courtesy of WRSA.

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

“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

End stage

PC eats itself.

Scarlett Johansson is the latest target of the social-justice warrior mob. The actress is being chastised for, well, acting.

She has been cast in a movie in which she will play someone different than herself. For this great crime — which seems to essentially define the career path she has chosen—she is being castigated for being insufficiently sensitive to the transgender community.

Johansson is set to play a transgender man in an upcoming film, “Rub and Tug,” a film based on the true story of transgender massage parlor owner Dante “Tex” Gill. The announcement quickly garnered a reaction.

Trace Lysette, a transgender actress who plays Shea on “Transparent” took to Twitter: “And not only do you play us and steal our narrative and our opportunity but you pat yourselves on the back with trophies and accolades for mimicking what we have lived… so twisted. I’m so done.”

A New York Times story on the fallout described the online backlash as being “led by transgender actors, who argued that such casting decisions take opportunities away from members of marginalized communities.”

I SO eagerly look forward to evenhanded enforcement of this New Rule: gay actors must not ever again portray straight characters from now on; the end of the modern trend of remaking classic movies and TV shows with black actors in place of the original white ones (like, say, the execrable Wild, Wild West remake with Will Smith); precious, twee “reimaginings” of Shakespeare with modern settings, costume, and alterations to the language of the Bard must also cease; in fact, in keeping with the original productions, no females should be allowed to act in any Shakespeare presentation at all.

This is similar to the longstanding liberal assertion that majority-black districts can only be fairly represented in Congress by black representatives, that majority-black cities must have black mayors, etc. Which is just hogwash.

In the bigger picture, what we’re witnessing now is political correctness—liberalism itself, actually—reaching its end stage and collapsing under the weight of its own juvenile unworkability. As it must; Leftist dogma contradicts itself eighteen times before lunch every day. It’s failed miserably each and every time it’s been tried—unless it’s propped up by a bigger, stronger outside influence, such as the USSR with its satellites, or Western Europe with the US—and it’s going to go right on doing that. It can’t do anything else.

And when the inevitability of the Left’s failure becomes undeniable, you get the kind of blue-on-blue backbiting we’re seeing now. It’s delightful to watch; as Insty is fond of saying, you’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

I gotta mention this part, too:

Editor’s note: This column was published by Business Insider before being removed from the website for violating “editorial standards.” The Daily Beast reported that staffers complained about the column. It appears here exactly as originally published.

Hats off to the Weekly Standard for rescuing the article from the BI’s cowardly attempt at burying it. BI’s editors prattle on in their explanation:

In an email to editors on Monday obtained by The Daily Beast, global editor-in-chief Nich Carlson announced that BI would create an internally available list of employees who had “volunteered to talk about culture and identity issues” to other staff. Further, Carlson also announced that “culturally sensitive columns, analysis, and opinion pieces” would now be reviewed by the company’s executive editors before publication.

“Editors should make sure we are not publishing shallow, ‘hot takes,’ but instead, fully thought-out arguments that reflect and respect the opposing view,” Carlson said. “There should be no partisan name-calling, e.g. ‘social justice warriors,’ ‘libtards,’ or ‘rednecks.’ Opinion and arguments should feel reported and researched, and not like quick reactions.”

Uh huh. I’m not familiar enough with them to know, but I can’t help but wonder if these guys ever employ the standard lib-prop maneuver of referring to every single conservative—be he ever so milquetoast—as “right-wing,” “extremist,” or “radical,” while any and every Leftist is a “moderate,” “centrist,” or “pragmatic”?

Pull the other one, guys, it plays a little tune.

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

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