Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

No worries

Schlichter asks: “Will Trump Go Sloppy and Soft on Illegal Immigration?” The first-approximation answer, to quote liberal dimwit Paul Krugman in one of the very first of many Smart-Set humiliations dealt out by the supposed “clown” Trump, is: no. The solid smackdown he just gave the open-borders crowd after his brilliantly-conceived show-meeting to shunt their gnat-like focus away from Wolff’s pack of scurrilous lies would seem to indicate so, at any rate. He let them blather and posture and demand, pretended to be interested in what they had to say, and then…told them to go take a flying fuck at a plate-glass window until they’re ready to get behind the wall and other moves to get control of the borders and immigration.

The very next damned day, he did. Meanwhile, the scurrilous tapeworm Wolff’s unfounded slanders have indeed wafted away like smoke thanks to Trump’s surefooted maneuvering—rendering the whole thing a twofer at the very least, insofar as humiliations go.

I indicated my growing impatience not long ago with cheerleaderish claims that Trump is playing 3D chess while everyone else is trying to learn checkers, but now…well, I dunno. Might have to rethink that one all over again.

I am absolutely delighted at the fake outrage over Donald Trump correctly assessing much of the Third World as a “Schumerhole.” It’s about time we had some real talk about immigration. For decades, the open borders establishment has tried to blind us with a blizzard of deceptive euphemisms designed to hide the truth. “Dreamers.” “Undocumented workers.” “Nation of immigrants.” Enough!

It’s all a scam designed to allow liberals to shut you up when you raise questions about why we should let our nation be flooded by outsiders – any questions. And they don’t even pretend to be coherent. One day we’re monsters for wanting to send illegals back where they belong, and the next we’re monsters for accurately describing the places they came from. We wonder why, if those Third World wonderlands totally aren’t what Trump said they are, their residents so eager to leave – and not to go back once they get here? And if Dreamers were wonderful hard workers who contribute so, so very much, why can’t they do all that contributing back where they came from?

Sheesh. Can you hacks please settle on a consistent narrative?

No, they cannot. It’s asking way too much of them, in no small measure because the motive behind their push for unrestricted immigration for the least desirable, most damaging candidates is not what they say it is. Or not entirely, anyway. Oh sure, they’d love to throw open the borders and invite the world in, no doubt about that. But in the larger, longer view, they don’t really give a good goddamn about immigrants or Dreamers except as a means to an end: cobbling together a new voting coalition now that normal Americans have finally seen through them and have indicated their displeasure by voting them out of local, state, and federal office in droves all over the map (excepting only their urban enclaves that multitudes of saner people are fleeing just as fast as they can manage to round up a U-Haul to rent—an undertaking which has, quite tellingly, become a damned difficult and expensive one indeed). Once they get the useless, parasitic throngs into the country, onto the voter rolls, and enrolled in welfare programs, Democrat Socialist concern for them will suddenly become very thin indeed on the ground.

After the big meeting, conservatives fretted that Trump seemed inclined to give away the store. He could have been folding, but then everything we learned about Trump over the last couple years indicates that he is no dummy – regardless of what his enemies fervently wish. It’s more likely that he understands the key consideration very, very clearly.

If Trump rolls on amnesty – that is, if he makes a DACA deal that doesn’t buy us real reforms today and not one of those “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday” scams where Tuesday never comes – then we dump him.

We’re gone, Mr. President. Nothing personal, but if you shaft us like everyone else has shafted us, we walk. And your enemies will have beaten you – the same ones who stuck you in the back when they broke the confidence of your private meeting.

Now it looks like a DACA surrender is unlikely, especially in light of the feces-pit furor. Good. Maybe the Nice Trump at the meeting was a negotiation ploy. There’s a technique in negotiations where you wave the other side’s objective right in front of them, let them smell it, feel it just within their grasp, and when you get them so invested in the idea that it is about to be theirs, you snatch it back and lay your demands on them in the hopes they’ll feel they’re so close to success that they have to give in.

Or maybe Dreamer-hugger Trump was playing the good cop while Stephen Miller, who is infuriating the surrender caucus by being the proverbial monkey in the wrench, was being the bad cop. It could be a giant mind game with the mindless drones of the legislature.

Maybe. But it’s a dangerous game.

Nah, not really. That sort of bait-and-switch IS the game, one he figures on winning. Plus, I don’t believe for one minute that he doesn’t know all about the risk of Kurt’s “we walk” promise already, and I also think his stated position on the absolute necessity of re-establishing the national borders is something he truly does believe in. If there’s anything he’s shown us in the past year, it’s that A) he’s extremely smart, and possessed of an extraordinary facility for coming out on top in any negotiation he enters into, and B) he’s relentlessly determined to come out on top in said negotiation, and won’t enter into it in the first place without great confidence that he can bend his opposition to his will in the end.

This leak-fueled bogus scandal over Trump accurately assessing the relative quality of different nations is an important reminder for the president that the people across the table (including some GOP types) are not his friends. They don’t wish him well. They do not want him to succeed. They desperately want him to blow this negotiation, to give them the zillions of new Democrat voters and to mortify his base of support. They want a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for the president.

Don’t be a lose-loser, Mr. President.

Don’t fall for the Nancy Pelosi football scam.

If Trump sells us out, will the media suddenly reward him with positive coverage, like they did for a few hours after the big meeting? Get real. If he signs a bill giving amnesty in exchange for some bull-hole promise of border security down the road, the first thing the media will do is find his outraged supporters. The second thing it will do is find some other outrage du jour and pump that wall-to-wall.

All of which you can also assume Trump knows perfectly well. In fact, just to take the first one, if there’s anybody out there not remotely likely to make the rookie blunder of thinking of “the people across the table” as his “friends,” it would have to be Trump. Hell, they may actually even BE his friends away from that table. But when they all sit down to bargain, there’s no evidence that Trump is sucker enough to let that influence him in any way. It’s been his whole damned life, and he s excels at it. He would never have gotten where he is otherwise.

Immigration must serve our interests, the interests of Normal Americans, not the interests of Democrat pols who want more pliable voters. Not the interests of corporate hacks who want hordes of uncomplaining serfs. And not the interests of these foreigners. Good luck to them, but their countries are their problem, and we are not the solution.

Immigration must stop benefiting everyone but us Normal Americans.

And for that to happen, the lies have to stop. The deceit has to end. We need to call things by their true names. And sometimes, their true names aren’t nice.

Stay honest, Mr. President. Stay firm. Don’t get suckered. Keep your promises to the people who elected you. And keep telling the truth.

That’s the way to bet, Kurt. To think otherwise would be to succumb to the fear that Trump might actually be as stupid and/or incompetent as his desperate detractors have claimed all along. You know, the very people he’s spent the last year running rings around and making fools of.

They’ve come a cropper every single race so far, getting the hide whipped off them every step of the way: staggering blindly across the finish line at the very back of the pack, steaming and sweating and gasping in humiliating defeat even as Trump is looking ahead to his next win. I can’t see any reason to put one thin dime on these hapless also-ran nags suddenly, miraculously coming up winners for once. Better that we do all we can to see to it they’re packed off to the glue or dog-food factory—where they really belong, and might finally turn out to be of some use to somebody at long last.

After so many GOPe betrayals, a little nervousness and trepidation over the prospect of getting knifed in the back yet again is probably understandable. But keep the faith, Kurt: one of the most important factors that got Trump into the Oval Office is that he isn’t “one of them.” It amounts to a bargain made by him with the American people, one that he keeps constantly in mind. It may well be that he reneges on that deal eventually. But right now, I just can’t see it; he’d have nothing to gain by it, and everything to lose. He’s way too sharp not to grasp the consequences of such a betrayal, and I don’t really think he’s inclined in that direction anyway.

Share

Science: yer doin’ it wrong

Science without doubt isn’t science at all.

Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.

You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.

Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?

Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.

Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?

I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”

Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.

In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it.

As you may have guessed, that’s the estimable Mike Rowe eviscerating a nitwit who wrote his bosses demanding he be fired because she doesn’t like political views she assumes he holds. Attempting to destroy a dissident’s ability to make a living—along with camping out on his lawn or porch en masse and screaming threats of violence at him and his family both day and night—has become a standard operational tactic with liberal-fascists, of course, one of the most acutely despicable of their many Gestapo-like transgressions against basic decency and tolerance.

But Rowe isn’t having any of it, and he manages to dispose of the twit not only deftly and completely, but calmly and even politely as well. She responds to him almost right away with the expected libtard incoherence and near-illiteracy, either failing or refusing to meet Mike’s challenge to provide an intelligent argument supporting her specious, spittle-flecked accusations in the typical libtard style we’ve all come to know and loathe.

Mike’s equable, reasoned approach isn’t my style anymore, for better or worse, although as incredible as it may seem it was in the early years of this site. No, I ain’t kidding, I promise. I had a good handful of liberal regulars here, in fact, several of whom I actually liked personally and enjoyed intellectually jousting with. Those debates back then were always civil and respectful, without any of the rancor that we’ve latterly been dragged into.*

But Lefty burned away all my patience a long time ago, and I no longer have the slightest inclination to either debate or attempt to persuade him, preferring instead to flamethrower the flesh off his bones and then scatter a little dirt over the whole smoking ruin just to keep the odor down. But I can respect Rowe for his forbearance and willingness to engage with them just the same. I can’t honestly say I believe there’s any real use in it—which, when I think about it, is kind of depressing. Rowe’s sincere, good-hearted belief in Lefty still retaining some humanity and decency in spite of voluminous evidence to the contrary speaks well indeed of his own basic decency, and probably makes him a better man than I.

Oh yeah, and from her picture she’s every bit the corpulent, grotesque bull-dagger caricature you’d assume, as ugly as she is stupid and vicious—charmless, petty, spiteful, repellently unattractive in every way imaginable. So there, dammit.

*NOTE: If the idea of a reasonable, sane, intelligent liberal seems inconceivable to you (as well it might, given the shrieking brats, violent Marxist extremists, and gibbering pathological headcases we’re inundated with these days), you guys should look up a fellow named Marc Danziger, a serious motorcyclist and staunch 2A guy that I became quite good friends with in the Olden Thymes. He blogged back at the very dawn of the blogosphere under the handle “Armed Liberal.” Sadly, I’ve lost touch with him over the years, but he was a great guy, and I miss him. Don’t know if any of his original writings survive out there, but it’d be nice to think they did, if only as a reminder of a better, more civilized age, now lost forever as our hold on respectful if passionate disagreement loosens and we slowly descend into madness, hatred, and outright physical conflict.

Share

Looking for love logic in all the wrong places

Ace commits an error very common on our side:

Other people have pointed this out, but Trump is saying: We should pick immigrants according to our needs.

The left is fighting this claiming that it is immoral to think about ourselves; we must think only of the immigrants’ plight.

But why are they in a “plight” at all? What would be immoral about just leaving them where they are now?

Because, of course, they live in shitholes. That’s what the left puts forth to change this argument from one of rational self-interest (pick immigrants and number of immigrants according to our own changing needs) to one of absolute moral imperative — we must let them in because to leave them in their current countries would be cruel and inhuman.

There’s only one kind of place it would be cruel to leave someone — that’s right, a shithole.

So they can choose between screaming that we are morally obligated to lift immigrants out of their shitholes, or they can scream that it’s a travesty to call these countries shitholes, but they can’t do both.

But of course they can. They do it all the time, in fact, on just about every issue you can name. It’s been a source of half-annoyed amusement for me for a good long while now: the Left seemingly paints itself into another corner, and then some Righty blogger, columnist, or TeeWee talker crows in triumph that “they can’t POSSIBLY…” or “they wouldn’t DARE…” say or do this or that…

And then they go right ahead and do it anyway. And get away with it, too, except for whatever momentary pause our Charlie Browns out there kicking furiously at that football again and again might give them. Which is to say: none at all.

The mistake at the heart of the assertion that the Left “can’t POSSIBLY” do anything they wish is based on a fallacy: that logic, rationality, integrity, fairness, evidence, and even facts themselves matter to Progtards in even the smallest degree. It has been made bounteously clear a million times over that they do not. Not when there’s an argument to be won or a dissenter to be silenced or run over roughshod, they don’t.

The Left does not debate in good faith. Not ever, not about anything. There’s no real harm in making the case for that truth, I reckon, and in some ways it’s even a good and necessary thing. But nobody should be saying “they can’t…” with any serious expectation that it will inspire some serious reflection on their internal contradictions among them, much less stop them from doing whatever they may wish. I’m sure Ace knows that, and uses that statement not out of a shocked revulsion at their dishonesty and lack of honor, but as a reinforcement of the very notion of integrity in debate. Like I said: nothing wrong with that. And in similar vein, I’ll present this:

Three weeks after college, I flew to Senegal, West Africa, to run a community center in a rural town. Life was placid, with no danger, except to your health. That danger was considerable, because it was, in the words of the Peace Corps doctor, “a fecalized environment.”

In plain English: s— is everywhere. People defecate on the open ground, and the feces is blown with the dust – onto you, your clothes, your food, the water. He warned us the first day of training: do not even touch water. Human feces carries parasites that bore through your skin and cause organ failure.

Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism.

Senegal was not a hellhole. Very poor people can lead happy, meaningful lives in their own cultures’ terms. But they are not our terms. The excrement is the least of it. Our basic ideas of human relations, right and wrong, are incompatible.

I couldn’t wait to get home. So why would I want to bring Africa here? Non-Westerners do not magically become American by arriving on our shores with a visa.

For the rest of my life, I enjoyed the greatest gift of the Peace Corps: I love and treasure America more than ever. I take seriously my responsibility to defend our culture and our country and pass on the American heritage to the next generation.

African problems are made worse by our aid efforts. Senegal is full of smart, capable people. They will eventually solve their own country’s problems. They will do it on their terms, not ours. The solution is not to bring Africans here.

Actually, I do disagree with one thing here: after uncounted millennia of these “smart, capable people” in Senegal and other places NOT “solving their country’s problems,” I can see no reason to assume they ever will. I’ve read several Righty columns and posts the last few days on Trump’s “shithole” truism, with almost all of their authors hastening to declare that the problems of shitholes like Haiti, Somalia, and others are “not the fault of their people.” They do this either in obeisance to liberal pieties, or in order to deflect the cries of “RACIST!” that will surely follow any contravention of them.

Which timid delicacy STILL doesn’t render those pieties true or accurate (it won’t safeguard the writers from shrieks of “RACISM!™” either, but that’s another topic). After literally eons of failure, squalor, and general lack of civilizational progress in these squalid places—with every form of governance ever conceived of having been attempted there, the only one yielding any success at all being colonial rule by more enlightened European nations—the inescapable conclusion is that, yes, these shitholes are what they are PRECISELY BECAUSE OF their primitive, mostly ineducable, un-upliftable, savage inhabitants. Naturally, there are exceptions, as Karin herself points out. All facts, history, and numbers considered, they would be of the kind that prove the rule. Goad examines but a handful of the inconvenient truths:

In terms of life expectancy, Norway leads the pack at 81.8 years. Then comes the USA (79.3), with a sudden drop to 63.5 years for Haitians and a mere 55.0 years for Somalians.

Norway also wins the blue ribbon when it comes to per-capita income, which is a staggering 38 times that of Haitians and 173 times that of Somalians.

The noble Norsemen also win when it comes to their nation’s mean IQ, which is 100 compared to the USA’s 98. Somalia (68) and Haiti (67) both suffer a mean IQ that is below the commonly accepted cutoff line for “retarded.”

The only category where the USA comes out on top is the percentage of the population with access to improved sanitation facilities—one index claims that 100% of Americans can find a functional toilet if they try. Next comes Norway at 98.1%. Haiti (27.6%) and Somalia (23.5%) are far, far worse.  According to Wikipedia, “Sewer systems and wastewater treatment are nonexistent” in Haiti, which would mean the country is a literal shithole.

Prediction: Not a single loudmouthed virtue-signaler who’s publicly wetting themselves about Trump’s alleged comments will ever move to Haiti or Somalia.

That, too, is true, and telling. If you think it’s all “racist” anyway, well, my heart just breaks over your anguish there, kid. But reality is what it is, and speaks for itself…just like Trump’s open acknowledgement of these shitholes’ nature—and the desirability and likely negative impact on our own country of importing them—does.

Be sure to read all of it; her conclusion is bang-on, and well-stated. Hats off to her as well for having courage enough to confront some ugly truth head on, and to allow her views to be informed and shaped by it rather than clinging to what I would guess was the standard starry-eyed “we’re all the same” liberal balderdash she would have been infected with in college. As one of Vox’s commenters puts it: “What’s the difference between a missionary and (a) racist? Two weeks.” We can file that worthy observation for future use right alongside the great old classic, “a liberal is a conservative who’s been mugged,” I think.

Share

Of Neanderthals…and shitholes

Interesting take from SteveF:

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

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

Share

Liberal Sideshow Bob’s latest rake

Oh, we’ve REALLY got him now!

Unnamed sources are once again claiming president Trump said outrageous things, including calling Haiti and parts of Africa “shi*holes.”

They ARE shitholes, and everybody with even half a lick of sense knows it. The big question is how we allowed ourselves to be dragged to the point that speaking self-evident truths in plain if impolite language came to be an impeachable offense.

No one is sure this actually happened, but it sounds true, so the Washington Post ran with it. But it brings up an interesting point. Are we allowed to point out that there are places in the world that are not ideal, or are we pretending all countries are equal? This seems demonstrably ridiculous, yet the left is acting super-offended at the suggestion that some countries are shi*hole-ish.

.i never hear enough stars speak out on this racist pig of a President..he calls BLACK n brown countries shitholes ..POTUS is RACIST
— cassandra white (@babiegirlprod) January 12, 2018

This doesn’t explain why the elite don’t vacation in Haiti and Cape Town.

Who in their right mind would? I guess maybe you could use that as the basis of an argument that libtards aren’t all THAT stupid, if you were so inclined. Follows, a list of the shitholiest of shitholes, including:

1. Haiti
A quick search of Haitian vacations found that a person could have a full week in Haiti for $600, airfare included. If that isn’t a screaming red flag, I don’t know what is. The reason it’s so cheap is that you have a high likelihood of never returning. If you don’t get murdered, you will probably get a disease.

2. Anywhere ending in “-stan” (or Iran)
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and all the other stans are not for me. If you don’t get stoned to death by the modesty police, you get dragged away in the middle of the night by secret police for some offense against whatever shi*head is running the shi*hole. No thanks. I’ll stay out of the stans.

4. Somalia
Unless you’re dying to go on a cruise and experience a real-life pirate adventure, complete with getting your throat slit, stay away from the Somali coast. I also wouldn’t recommend Somalia on land either. I still can’t get that image out of my head of American soldiers being dragged through the streets by Somali rebels. More recently, the violence has not abated as reported by Human Rights Watch: “Targeted attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, particularly by the Islamist armed group Al-Shabab, with suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), continue to have a devastating impact.”

Somalia is an outright shi*hole.

They all are, every one on this list and plenty of others, and we all know it. Trump, as is his wont, did nothing but speak the undeniable, simple truth. He said things everybody realizes—hell, things we’ve all probably SAID at one time or another. Once again, the Left’s argument is not with us; it’s with objective reality. My favorite off the list? Easy-peasy:

7. Detroit
Yes, I know it’s not a country. I’m still not going there. Wild horses or even Wild Turkey couldn’t drag me into Detroit. I drove through it once with the gas pedal to the floor and I shall never do it again. Coincidentally, all the American shi*holes on this list are run by Democrats.

“Coincidentally” my ass. Nonetheless, liberal idiot Dick Turban cranked the OUTRAGE!™ up to eleven in an attempt to make hay with both this and another “deeply troubling” and “shocking” aspect of Trump’s “gaffe”:

“He said, ’Haitians, do we need more Haitians?’” Durbin said.

DAMN, seriously? This putz is offended because the genocidal MONSTER Trump called Haitians…Haitians?

But of course he isn’t any such thing; I’m quite certain the shitstain Turban has made such comments his own damned self. Way more than just once, too. Little Dick’s motivation for this shitfit subterfuge is way deeper, and way darker. More on that in a minute, though; first, let’s explore some of the defining characteristics of these shitholes:

Is there any question Haiti is a s***hole? Who’s offended by that? If it wasn’t a s***hole it wouldn’t be one of the most prominent recipients of American charity aid on Planet Earth. And it isn’t like this country has ignored Haiti — we’ve been trying to lift it out of s***hole status for more than a century, with absolutely no result whatever. In 1910, President William Howard Taft granted Haiti a large loan in hopes that Haiti could pay off its staggering international debt and therefore achieve a larger measure of independence from Europe. The result? Haiti defaulted and U.S. tax dollars were poured into a bottomless pit. In 1915, following the assassination of Haitian president Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, President Woodrow Wilson sent in the U.S. Marines to help establish order there — and the American military presence in Haiti didn’t end until 1934. Yet so little was America able to influence the Haitians that Haiti is the only country in North America where baseball — a national pastime in the Dominican Republic next door — isn’t played by the population.

There is no poorer country in the Western Hemisphere than Haiti, though given time Communist Venezuela might well change that.

And no, it’s not racist to note Haiti is a s***hole. While Trump was having his supposed outburst his administration was removing Temporary Protected Status from some 200,000 Salvadorans, most of whom are not black people, who had entered the country illegally. Why would he do that? Perhaps because on balance, mass immigration from El Salvador isn’t such a great idea. Know what you get when you take in an unlimited number of illegal Salvadorans? You get MS-13, which is a Salvadoran street gang spreading its vicious tentacles into every Hispanic community in America in the precise way the Italian mafia achieved a chokehold into the Italian community in this country a century ago.

Apparently, repeating the errors of the past makes you a racist. Of course it does. And you’re especially racist if you note that the modern American Left’s patron saint Saul Alinsky learned the tactics of “community organization” passed down to today’s neo-Communist radicals from the Italian mafia in Chicago. Even more so if you wonder whether Alinsky’s ideological disciples don’t secretly want to repeat that collaboration in order to organize America’s Hispanic community into a monolithic Democrat vote, which would explain the jeers and “fact-checking” pieces hurled at Trump when his Justice Department declared war on MS-13 last year.

And yes, El Salvador is also a s***hole. When your country has the world’s highest murder rate, you qualify for s***hole status.

How about Somalia? Who’s up for more mass immigration from Somalia? Is there any argument Somalia is a s***hole, or do we need a national screening of Black Hawk Down to remind us what that country is like? If you’d like a more recent depiction of what Somalia has to offer the world we could all watch Captain Phillips, the 2013 Tom Hanks vehicle about the true story of the Maersk Alabama, set upon by one of the multitudinous hordes of pirates — yes, actual pirates — sloughing off from Somali shores in search of fat from international commerce. Somalia is such a s***hole that its stench infects nearby countries like Kenya — viz., the Westgate Shopping Mall attack in Nairobi in 2013 — and Uganda, where Al-Shabaab, Somalia’s home-grown jihadist terror group, set off a series of bombs in the capital of Kampala to slaughter 76 people as they watched the 2010 World Cup soccer final.

What has America derived from mass immigration from Somalia? Machete attacks on street corners in Columbus and mall stabbings in suburban Minneapolis. And if you like, you can ask the current and former residents of Lewiston, Maine, what a boon Somali immigration has been to that town.

Sure, ideally it would be nice if the president wasn’t quoted as describing other countries as s***holes. But these are s***holes.

Ahh, but why exactly would it “be nice” if the president wasn’t etc? Yes, yes, I know, the coarsening of discourse, the dignity of the office, blah blah, sniff sniff. But coarse or not, lowbrow or highbrow, rude, crude, and socially unacceptable or otherwise, this is how ordinary people talk. And one of the very things at the root of Trump’s appeal from the first was his easy way of connecting with us crusty ol’ knuckledragging common folk. Y’know, the benighted proletariat, to put it in terms a libtard might more readily grasp. He doesn’t talk at us, or over us, or down to us. He talks to us in familiar terms, speaking obvious but forbidden truths in a language that doesn’t require anything at all in the way of deciphering.

No, it might not be precisely correct or genteel according to Emily Post rules. But I’d say you’d have a hard time finding a single Trump supporter in the smallest way bothered by his use of the term “shithole” to describe…a shithole.

And asswarts like Turban, along with the handful of Vichy Republicans who hastened to pile on, aren’t really offended either. Their sanctimonious posturing is a tactic, and nothing more. I, along with many others, have long assumed that their hope is to finally trip Trump up enough to have him removed from office with the spray-and-pray barrage of Outrage Of The Week nothingburgers, but I’m doubting that now. I think their aim, recognizing as they must their decline into impotent irrelevance as they flounder in Trump’s wake, is more just to keep him tied up so as to hamper his ability to get anything at all done. If nothing else, they hope the OOTW will at least serve as a distraction, while Praetorian Media hammers away at one bent, rusted nail after another, trying to drive one of the things home at last.

There’s another assumption implicit in that position: that they really ARE that desperate, and that they really ARE pathetic enough that this really IS all they can manage. Given the way Trump just keeps right on beating their dumb asses like a big bass drum, I’d say that’s one assumption we can mark down as confirmed.

Bottom line: Trump, rich and famous though he be, is at heart one of Us. He has never been one of Them, and he never will be. Most galling of all to the Powers That Be, he has as yet never evinced a shred of interest in becoming one, either. He’s a walking, talking, unimpeachable refutation of their most cherished fantasy: their status as the deserving, capable Elite.

Update! Okay, I admit it: I was just about to refer to Steyn as a “shithead” here, but then it hit me that I’ve just about dug to the bottom of the shitpit with my “shit___” wordplay. Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Given the ongoing furor over President Trump’s executive order commanding the State Department cartographer to mark the map of the world with “Here be sh***holes”, I thought for our Saturday movie date we should have a film about just how bad it can get. Twenty-four years ago, the Rwandan genocide was just about to get under way: In a hundred days, a million people were murdered – with machetes, all very low-tech. Since then, as I noted only the other day, the machete has been introduced to such boring white-bread places as Shelburne, Vermont, and Dundalk, Ireland, and Gothenburg, Sweden, and Kandel, Germany. But back then you had to go to what the President calls the s***hole countries to be on the receiving end of such vibrant diversity.

How compassionate was pre-Trump America to Sh*tholia? There being no hashtags in those days, President Clinton, the Pain-Feeler-in-Chief, had to slough off the victims with a brusque soundbite nixing international intervention: “The UN has to learn how to say no,” he declared. And so 20 per cent of the population of Rwanda was slaughtered, a number so huge that the world chose to hold it at a big, woozy, blurry distance. To mark the tenth anniversary, the editors of the Economist asked, ‘How many people can name any of the perpetrators?’ I’d say it’s more basic than that. How many could tell you whether it was the Hutu killing the Tutsi or the Tutsi killing the Hutu? C’mon, take a guess, without looking it up.

Well, it was the Hutu energetically hacking the Tutsi into oblivion, while the rest of the globe sat back and watched that decade’s “never again” genocide as it would the next one (Darfur): Toot, toot, Tutsis, goodbye! In 2004, when Hotel Rwanda was released, I didn’t think you could carry off a movie “about” this subject. It’s really an anti-story — it’s about the cavalry not showing up. And how do you find any human interest in it? These fellows killed a million of their neighbors, in the lowest-tech way possible — with knives — and taking especial care over the murder of the children, in order to wipe out the next generation of Tutsi. They’d slash open three kindergartners and then move on to the house next door. It’s a story of lack of human interest.

Which is why us actual developed-world humans weren’t terribly interested. In fact, if I remember right, the Tutsis came to power later, and repeated the whole process themselves once they were on top. The pattern is of a piece with the MO of the Ethiopian famine in the 90’s: warlord seizes power, warlord proceeds to use starvation as a weapon of genocide against his tribal enemies, warlord is toppled from power, his enemies return the favor. Lather, rinse, repeat. Endlessly.

Which, in turn, is precisely the sort of thing that makes a shithole a shithole, and renders the hopeless intractability of sub-Saharan Africa’s perpetual cycle of murderous misery a story without an audience: it’s just not worth bothering to tell because it has no end, no resolution, and is damnably disheartening to listen to. Steyn somehow does make this movie sound kind of interesting, despite its underlying reality remaining just depressing as all hell. But sooner or later, the sad realization hits home: Africa is the shithole it is because it’s full of Africans. No amount of aid of any kind will bring down the curtain on Africa’s sorry saga until the cast finds a way to break character and move forward at last.

Share

Drink up!

I think this is a fantastic idea—just the hippest, coolest, most environmentally responsible and Sustainable!™ thing ever, a real opportunity to Make A Difference in saving our precious Gaia—and I would like to take a moment to wholeheartedly encourage every Progtard and/or fad-chasing hipster douchebag in the country to jump on this bandwagon with both feet.

Seriously, you guys. Don’t waste a moment; you can thank me later.

Share

Fred Reed: what happened?

Aesop rips Fred a new one.

So, in short, get off of Mexico’s dick, they can’t be paying you enough to shill for this sort of nonsense. Just get used to the idea that we’ll soon be stopping your wife’s cousins and nephews from coming here, the remittances will stop, and then you’ll be living in a Third world shithole smack dab in the middle of another revolution, and you’re the gringo in that guacamole.
 
Might want to step away from the keyboard, and work on your tan, amigo.

Read the rest; it’s nothing short of brutal. As y’all CF lifers know, I was always a big fan of Fred’s, excerpting and linking him here many times over many years. But with the advent of the Trumpening he, like so many others, lapsed almost immediately into a particularly virulent strain of NeverTrumptardia, with the most prominent symptom being his howling, obsessive outrage over the very idea of the US reasserting control over its own borders.

It looks like there’s very little hope of recovery from the deadly flat spin Fred is in, which is too bad, really; I do miss the old funnier, saner Fred now and then. But hey, whatcha gonna do?

Share

Man with a plan

Bill does some pretty deft analyzin’.

Remember, Codevilla never said it was necessary to destroy the nations that supported Muslim terror, just the regimes that did so. He also said the way to do that was to empower the native enemies of those regimes to do so, because who would know better who, and how many, needed to be killed (and where to find them) than those native enemies of the regime?

And so the very first stop on (Trump’s) very first foreign trip was the capital of Saudi Arabia. And, hmmm. A few months after that, seeming arising out of nowhere, Mohammed bin Sultan becomes Crown Prince, and initiates a massive purge against the very elements of the Saudi regime that supported Islamic terror gangs like Al Qaeda and ISIL (the head of the bin Laden company was among those arrested).

This is getting very little play in the American media, because MbS is using the massive influence among American elites developed by the Kingdom over decades to sort of hide what he is doing in plain sight. Some of his actions are being reported, but our media claims that his motivations are surrounded in mystery. They aren’t at all, if you can connect the dots and read between the lines a bit.

So…Trump now has the enemies of the old theocratic regime housecleaning them right out of the regime and onto the dustbin of history. Amazing enough, ISIL was utterly destroyed as a force on the ground during the same period, and its “caliphate” reduced to smoking rubble. They probably really missed all the financing, sheltering, arming, training, and so on they used to get from the Saudi theocrats before MbS decisively shut off that spigot.

I believe that the Saudi regime is now out of the Islamic terror business, thanks to President Donald Trump.

Next item:  I’m still trying to flesh this out, but I very much doubt that it is either coincidence or accident that seemingly out of nowhere a flash revolution against the Iranian Mullahs seems to be brewing. I assume that the Israelis (and the Saudis) are involved in that. Both have far more assets on the ground in Iran than we do. If so, we see another page in a now-familiar playbook being turned: The Iranian regime has a plenitude of internal enemies. If we and our allies like SA and Israel can give them the upper hand, you can rest assured they will know who to kill, how many, and where to find them. Nor will they be much hampered by international disapproval. Whoever emerges on top, they will still have all. that. oil., and nominal control of the Straits of Hormuz.

And finally, yet another aspect of the challenge: Pakistan. It is the largest Muslim nation on the planet, and it is a full fledged nuclear power. However, it is generally acknowledged that their nuclear arsenal was financed by Saudi Arabia, and Saudi money plays an enormous role in the economic and political life of that impoverished nation. In other words, if the Saudis are willing, we have an enormous lever that can be used to pry the Pakis away from their taste for terror gangs like the Taliban.

And, lo and behold, just yesterday Donald Trump began tweeting about…Pakistan, and threatening to remove US aid because the Pakis are a “terror aiding” nation. You bet they are. And if both the US and the Kingdom pull the money plug, the Paki regime will be in a world of hurt, nukes or not.

I don’t expect our national disgrace of a media to ever put these pieces together, not, at least, for public consumption, because crediting Trump with what would effectively be victory in the war against Islamic terror would be far more than they would ever wish to give him.

But I think it is real, I think it was gamed out maybe even before Trump made his final decision to run, and I think it is playing out right under our noses.

And I think the chances are good that Bill is onto something here.

Update! Think the notion that Trump is enacting a canny and well-thought-out strategy against Muslim terrorism, rather than getting lucky here and there amidst a bunch of clueless floundering about, might just be a bridge too far even among diehard Trump supporters? Might want to reconsider that.

I, frankly, came to despair that we would ever awaken from and escape that crushing Obamista incubus. Then, of course, a November miracle; in that month in 2016, despite the polls and the sneers of the MSM and Hollywood, despite the fabulously financed Democrat Party machine, and an epidemic of fake news and phony “dossiers,” the most improbable thing happened: brash, loud and bold non-politician Trump won the election. He ran what was, in essence, the only successful third-party candidacy in the long history of our Republic since, perhaps, Lincoln. The GOP leadership was as befuddled by the Trump phenomenon as was that of the DNC. As we have commented on in this humble blog, that event led to the greatest meltdown of the left since, since…well, I don’t know since when. His election revealed the leftist rot in the US and global elites that many of us had long suspected and perhaps commented on, but had not realized the full extent.

The resistance to Trump’s nomination and election started with prominent Republicans, such as Romney and the Bush clan, and continued with brave talk of riots in the street, “pussy hats,” vote recounts, electoral college challenges, Russian “collusion” investigations, and ended with ISIS on the run, US oil production roaring along, a new tax scheme, thousands of regulations slashed, the economy booming, Hollywood in a tailspin, Jerusalem recognized as the capital of Israel, illegal alien criminals rounded up, UN budget cuts, a teetering EU, riots in Tehran, the “deep state” exposed, the Supreme Court turned around, the Maduro regime on the ropes, and lefties fighting over first class seats on United Airlines (BTW: I know the “teacher” who got booted from her first-class seat by that whacky leftist Congresswoman; she’s a hard-core leftist “activist” who made my life and career very difficult many years ago. Lefties like to travel first class.)

That’s a pretty damned lengthy list of solid successes for an incompetent moron, seems to me, and it is by no means comprehensive. Nothing speaks louder than results, and Trump is undeniably getting ’em. The exposure of the Leftist rot Dip mentions, and especially the public psychotic break on the Left it helped nudge along, is by no means the least of Trump’s many achievements. I believe the long-term impact of that alone is going to be…umm, YUUUGE—most especially when you consider the related revelation of the complete failure of their entire program right along with it.

No wonder they’ve all gone bug-fuck nuts right out in front of God and everybody.

Share

Nose to the grindstone, people

Time to get back to work at Job One: kicking Lefty while he’s down.

When we gather together this Christmas, it’s going to be super-awkward since everybody is dead because Donald Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Scam, repealed net neutrality, and cut taxes. The depredations of Genghis Khan, the Black Plague, and the repeal of the Obamacare mandate – these are pretty much the same thing. Santa Claus and all of our dreams are dead too.

On the plus side, since we are all dead there’s no one to make egg nog, which is the worst of all possible nogs.

You know what these eggs need? Some milk. And then rum.

No. Whoever invented egg nog is the second grossest human being ever who is not Lena Dunham, exceeded in grossness only by the first person being who thought, “Look, an oyster! I know. I’ll put that slimy thing in my mouth.

The Democrats are the egg nog of American politics. Discuss.

The rest of the column is great fun too, but I felt it was most important to get this part in as the excerpt portion, every word of which I wholeheartedly endorse. Especially that bit about oysters. Ugh.

Share

Quote of the year

Via Bill:

I think what you said is bullshit. No, wait — it’s worse than that. We talk about the black people in Uganda, and the brown people in New Guinea, and you say that we push our cultural artifacts upon them…You mean, medicine? You mean, TV? You mean, cars? Those people are just as smart as we are. They’d love to sit around a swimming pool and drink lemonade and listen to Eminem and get flu shots when they need them.

You want to keep them in some kind of crazy zoo, hunting with spears, so we can look at them and study their culture. I’ve done that. I lived in a zoo. I lived in a tent when I was a kid and drank sewage and had the shits for six years in a row. I’d kill somebody to keep from going back to that. I can goddamn well guarantee if you took one of those guys out of the jungle in New Guinea and gave him some jeans and T-shirts and a good pair of shoes, he’d cut your heart out before he’d let you send him back.

I’d bet you anything that they’d rather live in a nice apartment with a stereo and a toilet and running water that you can drink. So what I think is, you’re arguing that you have to allow the niggers to stay in their place. That’s about half a step from we gotta keep the niggers in their place. Simple racism is what it is.

Naked Prey by John Sandford

Fake but accurate, fictional but not false, from first to last.

Share

Interesting times

Taking a peep into the ol’ crystal ball.

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

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

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

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

Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.

Ask a Milosevic what happens when you try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expect devolution, not revolution.

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

Share

If you can’t drain it, disperse it

I mentioned this not too long ago, but it bears repeating.

Amid the talk of draining swamps, restoring political might to blue-collar America and turning off the spigot of taxpayer cash that showers Washington, a familiar battle cry is ricocheting through this city: Move the bureaucrats out.

It has the ring of a Trumpian fantasy. Dislodge arms of the federal government from Washington and reattach them in faraway places, spreading the wealth generated by these well-paid agency workforces and forcing senior bureaucrats to face the people they affect.

But the idea has established populist roots that spread across party lines, and they are reemerging at this unique political moment.

The swaggering Interior secretary from Montana is putting the finishing touches on his plan to move the headquarters of three large public lands agencies to the West. The Stanford economist representing Silicon Valley in Congress sees opportunity to strategically seed regions of the country with pieces of the federal bureaucracy that can benefit them — and that they can benefit. The unlikely prospect of locating the Department of Transportation in Los Angeles is dangled by Republicans eager to show this crusade has bipartisan cred.

There hasn’t been so much buzz about getting “Washington” out of Washington since Franklin D. Roosevelt sent 30,000 federal workers to the Midwest after a presidential commission advised such moves would ensure the prototypical federal employee “remains one of the people in touch with the people and does not degenerate into an isolated and arrogant bureaucrat.”

It’s a fine idea for more than just one reason. Which makes it somewhat surprising that any Democrat Socialist would be anything but howlingly, immovably averse to it. Walsh adds:

The problem with Washington today is that far too much power and money is concentrated in a small geographical area, which lends credence to the Leftist fantasy that a country as large and diverse as the United States can be controlled from central command. Westerners, for example, have long known that the Bos-Wash corridor kidz have no real understanding of the issues that lie beyond the Hudson and Potomac rivers; getting some federal agencies closer to their areas of jurisdiction can only help.

After the war, the West German government was dispersed, so as not (to) allow a concentration of malevolence such as occurred during the National Socialist regime to repeat itself. Now that the Left has declared the “Resistance” to the GOP victory in the 2016 election, we might want to think about the German example, before it’s too late. At the very least, it will ease pressures on the D.C.-area real estate market, give the bureaucrats some much-needed fresh air and sunshine, and expose them to the real world beyond the Mall. Who knows, they might even learn something.

“Concentration of malevolence”—I really like that bit, which is as pithy a description of Mordor on the Potomac as I can think of. But let’s not get nuts with our hopes here, Mike; I mean, “learn something”? Naaaah, not a chance.

One of the nicer aspects of such a move, though, is that dispersing DC power would be a fine practice run for dispersing the libtards en masse themselves. Say, to a nice little Caribbean island, maybe.

Share

Miracle On 34th Street

So I had intended to do my next Christmas-themed post on another wonderful old classic movie, but damned if Eskiman didn’t beat me to it in the comments to the Wonderful Life post. Did a very good job of it too, thereby saving me a lot of labor, so I’m just gonna swipe it and bring it right on out here.

Another wonderful film from that era (1947) I just re-watched last night: Miracle on 34th Street with Maureen O’Hara and John Payne, Edmund Gwenn as Kris Kringle and a very young Natalie Wood as Susan. Do please watch it, but –SPOILERS– do follow!

It was delightful, and better by far than the much more modern version produced in 1994, though the newer one’s Richard Attenborough as Kris Kringle was excellent; in fact he was so good that the other actors’ performances appeared mediocre, which is as much as could be said. I saw this version the night before last, which is why I had to find the original; this new one left a bad taste in my mouth, which was dispelled by the beautiful Maureen O’Hara.

The original film, made in 1947, is in black & white, and reflected values of that time. Unlike It’s a Wonderful Life, it was actually bitterly cold when it was filmed; I understand that some of the cameras froze during the shoot! But the real reason it was remade wasn’t just because someone wanted to make the film in color- it was to “sanitize” it. The later version is much more PC: it has no black housekeepers and women are more than equal. For some reason I don’t know, even the department stores’ names had to be changed: the old version had Macy’s versus Gimble’s, but the new one had Coles versus Holiday Express (is there actually such a store?) The 1994 version toward the end has Fred and Doris getting married late at night in an empty church, for no particular reason. I was not impressed; the entire ending sucked in this version.

The original script was re-written, but not improved. Many changes seemed to be made just to make it different, but the changes didn’t make it better, and most made the newer film much worse. In the original, Kris Kringle’s cane was a simple wooden cane, not very heavy. Its replacement was a fancy silver-headed cane that looked like a club; someone could easily be killed with such a cane. This didn’t improve the plot, nor did other changes which made the original drunken Santa into a real bad guy and Holiday Express a viper’s den instead of honest competitors.

The original was much more light-hearted, made more sense, and the ending was much, much better: the unmarried (but very sweet on each other) couple were sent on a “short-cut” and Susan saw the house of her dreams when they arrived at a cul-de-sac; she was thrilled, and ran into the house, with Doris and Fred in hot pursuit; inside, it was just an empty house which was for sale- with a swing in the back yard! Susan knew who had arranged it all!

And Kris Kringle’s cane was propped against the fireplace.

I highly recommend the 1947 version of Miracle on 34th Street; accept no substitutes (because there really isn’t one.)

I couldn’t agree more; the original is another great movie of the Wonderful Life stripe, made to a standard that present-day Hollywood can’t even approach anymore and seems indifferent to at best anyway. More light-hearted than Wonderful Life (which is not necessarily to say frivolous), certainly; you won’t find much examination of weighty existential issues here, which is just fine, and shouldn’t really be scored against it.

One caveat, though: it aired on the teewee earlier today, and to my horror and disgust, it was *ULP* the colorized version. Gag me with a maggot. What a revoltin’ development.

Leaving his commie predilections and Jane Fonda out of our consideration, Ted Turner should have had his skinny ass kicked up between his shoulder blades twice daily in perpetuity for coming up with the wholly rotten idea of desecrating carefully-conceived and meticulously executed black and white films—which were framed, lit, and shot with black and white film in mind, remember—by painting over them with washed out, drab, sickly looking colors, supposedly to heighten their appeal to modern audiences anesthetized by color TV.

It kicked up quite the little controversy at the time, as I recollect, which Turner dismissed in his trademark high-handed, arrogantly ignorant fashion (“The last time I checked, I owned the films that we’re in the process of colorizing…I can do whatever I want with them, and if they’re going to be shown on television, they’re going to be in color“).

The filmmakers of the day did not consider black and white to be any sort of limitation or handicap. To the contrary: it was their palette, and the best among them were quite skilled at its use, thanks. To vandalize their purposeful art by the rough equivalent of scribbling over it with crayons is a perfect example of the sort of arrogant application of present-day standards to a long-gone era we see all over the place nowadays. Hey, given modern advances in the production of pigments, maybe somebody should go back and paint over all those Rembrandts too.

Thankfully, you don’t see those colorized obscenities nearly as much as you once did, which amounts to pretty righteous repudiation of Turner’s smug assertion that “once people start watching the colored version, they won’t bother with the original.” But having to endure Miracle On 34th Street sullied by the annoying, ugly travesty of colorization is reason enough to suspect there must have been a special place in Hell waiting for Turner upon his death all the same…and that the jerk had it coming, too.

Oh, and one more thing: if Donna Reed had any real competition as America’s loveliest woman, the magnificent Natalie Wood would have been it—with Maureen O’Hara making a credible bid herself.

Share

Breaking the law, breaking the law!

Unwarranted risk.

Can We Be Honest About Women?

The real question is: do we DARE?

David French of National Review recently wrote an article asking, “Can we be honest about men?” In it, he laments the avalanche of sexual harassment cases in the media, politics, and entertainment, asking, “When will it end?”

Oh Lord. The King of the Cucks again.

I have no problem with the basic points of French’s article, but I do take issue with the assumption that women are passive and innocent in this sexual interplay between the sexes. This might not have been his intention, since he was focusing on men, but we can’t let these conversations remain fixed only on men, as if they alone exploit. We can’t always assume women are hapless damsels in distress horrified by how they’re objectified.

Here’s a little secret we have to say out loud: Women love the sexual interplay they experience with men, and they relish men desiring their beauty. Why? Because it is part of their nature.

As I always say: Progtards’ argument isn’t with us. It’s with reality.

Outside of a woman looking for a mate, her beauty is a source of power because men and other women value it. This is why married women still want to be beautiful. It’s an expression of their femininity, which doesn’t disappear at the altar.

We don’t need studies to bear this out, though we do have them. A recent Pew Research study says society values physical attractiveness in women the most. Nurturing and empathy are second. The top traits most valued in men are morality and professional success. In other words, men want women who are attractive and emotionally connective, and women want good men who are financially successful.

Feminists will say this is a social construct from the Victorian era that has yet to be cleansed from our society. I say this is human nature. So do history, religion, and millennia of myths, legends, and literature. Humanity’s stories are filled with the most competent man winning the most beautiful woman. Men are drawn to beauty like moths to a flame, and women want to be the flame.

And then we get down to the, umm, meat of it.

Speaking of breasts, you can’t pick up a magazine, turn on a website, or watch television without seeing boobs. They’re everywhere. From selfies to profile pics to advertisements—they’re on full display. Why do you think that is? It’s because a man is drawn to a woman’s feminine beauty, and a woman wants to lure him in with her most sexual traits.

Fun bags. We call ’em fun bags. Not for nothing, either.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Sorry. I couldn’t restrain myself.

When men are being their sexual selves, drawn to a woman’s beauty, they’re not exploiting women. They’re responding to them. The women are the fire, drawing a man toward their feminine heat.

This is true even for all those beautiful women who hook up with rich, powerful men—the “arm candy.” I was watching a Premier League soccer match the other day, and the camera focused on one of the rich owners and his wife. He was short, old, and terribly unattractive. She was a foot taller than him, with long blond hair and legs for miles. She was dressed in a fur, and diamonds graced her fingers. She didn’t look miserable at all. In fact, she looked like the cat who ate the canary. One has to ask, who here is actually exploiting whom?

Okay, before I run afoul of fair use again, suffice it to say that DC (who I just realized is a neighbor of sorts, from right here in CLT—hi, DC!) makes a whole bunch of excellent points here, and is taking a pile of crap from the expected sources for writing it. Hats off to her for her honesty. It took courage to put these eternal truths out there publicly…which speaks volumes about the sorry state of our affairs nowadays.

I’ll also note without further comment the delicious irony of so many of those self-same “feminist” termagants who have saddled us all with ubiquitous Pajama Boys wondering sourly where all the “real men” have gone. Three guesses, gals.

Share

It’s a wonderful movie

Can’t recall offhand if I’ve written about It’s A Wonderful Life here before; most likely I have, not least because it’s one of my all-time favorite movies. I know I did mention the wonderful Donna Reed, the loveliest human female ever to grace the Earth, in this old post. And I’m quite sure I’ve expressed my contempt for the tiresome hipster douchebaggery that had every snotty twerp in hearing distance caviling about the movie as a lightweight, manipulative, sappy piece of schmaltz—little more than a standard-issue three-hanky weeper cranked out by the Frank Capra factory, noted for producing thinly-disguised propaganda flicks promoting those wretched, repressive old American values we’ve thankfully left in the dustbin of history.

Trust me: if you feel that way about this movie, you will NOT enjoy the rest of this post, which I will tuck below the fold to spare your finely-honed artistic sensibilities until such time as you grow the fuck up and cultivate a proper appreciation for Capra’s masterwork, a film that will far outlive anybody’s jejune cynicism towards it.
Continue reading “It’s a wonderful movie”

Share

A consummation devoutly to be etc

We can only hope Lifson is onto something here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update! Steyn on the big picture:

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Nutroots neutrality

I’m afraid I’m gonna have to stretch fair use pretty badly once again here, but it’s just too hilarious a self-beclowning not to.

MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi got absolutely destroyed during an interview Thursday with former FCC commissioner Robert McDowell about net neutrality.

Velshi got increasingly frustrated throughout the interview, even getting angry at his guest at one point for citing the laws that govern internet regulation.

He responded to Velshi’s argument that repealing net neutrality might freeze out startups, reminding him that new tech companies like Facebook were created well before 2015.

“So, you have the Federal Trade Commission Act, for instance, you have the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act,” McDowell said. “Those are three very powerful federal statutes that kept the internet open and free prior to February of 2015.”

“What Title II [net neutrality] has done, in the wireless space anyway, is reduce investment in the past two years by 18 percent,” he continued. “We need about $300 billion over the next decade to build out [5G] networks and every independent Wall Street analyst I’ve spoken with says…the 1,000 requirements of Title II has created tremendous uncertainty.”

Velshi, watching his narrative slipping away right in front of his eyes, came up with a scenario where Facebook could subsidize faster internet speeds in exchange for preferential treatment, reducing competition in the overall marketplace.

“Section I and Section II of Sherman Act and Section III of Clayton Act…you just triggered all three of those sections,” McDowell smoothly responded. “That would be an anti-trust violation…that was against the law before February 2015 and it will be against the laws of today.”

Assholes like this ignorant putz simply don’t know what they’re talking about, on this or anything else. All they know is they never saw a government takeover they didn’t fully support. Which tells you all you’ll ever need to know about “net neutrality,” and about them. This part is especially delicious:

“Look, I just feel like we’re having a really unfair conversation here, I’m trying to have a conversation on the merits of the principle of unintended consequences,” Velshi whined. “And you’re dropping a lot of legal-ese.”

“The legal-ese is the merits though, Ali,” McDowell asserted. “That’s what’s at play here, and maybe you haven’t read these laws.”

“I’m very familiar with net neutrality,” Velshi snarked back. “I’m really not that familiar with being condescended to.”

Asshole says, condescendingly. As for that risible “legalese” codswallop, umm, well, you see…you’re talking about a FUCKING LAW here, Einstein; it ain’t just “the merits,” it is the ENTIRETY of the subject at hand. I’m guessing dipshit here just learned himself a new word this past week and tried it out prematurely in his eagerness to impress his fellow PMSNBC mouthbreathers, before he’d had a chance to get the meaning entirely straight.

Yeah, we really need to have the internet—or anything at all—in the clutches of wet-brained muttonheads like this doofus. Sheesh.

Be sure to read all of it, though; I didn’t do too badly with the fair use thing after all, there’s plenty more, and it’s all sidesplitting, right to the very end. Doesn’t hurt any that it’s a former FCC commish handling the beat-down duties, either. One would have to assume right out of the gate that the guy knows whereof he speaks just a LEETLE bit—certainly a damned sight more so than any PMSNBC clown ever will, anyway.

I swear, Velshi ought not to be allowed on the teewee at all without a bulbous red nose and a frightwig on. But then, you could say the same for the entire barnyard of PMSNBC subgenii, from Rachel Madcow on down.

Update! Schlichter wins the Innarnets:


It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Share

“Can’t Kill Enough to Win?”

Well, can we at least TRY?

Those given the awful task of combat must be able to act with the necessary savagery and purposefulness to destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide. In 2008, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Michael Mullen said, “We can’t kill our way to victory.” Ever since, many have parroted his words. But what if Admiral Mullen was wrong? The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.

Okay, we’re off to one hell of a good start as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a problem right out of the gate here—a big one—and I suspect a good many if not most of you can already guess what it is.

In addition to the overabundance of ill-trained lawyers in the force, leaders are giving too much credence to people and organizations (such as Amnesty International) with distorted views of how wars ought to be fought rather than how they truly are. For instance, the concept of proportionality under international law has nothing to do with making war a “fair fight” or using “minimum force.” Sadly, however, such human rights law language has crept into U.S. military standing rules of engagement (SROE), despite warnings from sage counsel such as international and operational law expert W. Hays Parks.

In the mid-1990s, a small cadre of combat-experienced officers began to militate against overly restrictive rules of engagement and tactical directives. They advocated that if U.S. military forces must fight in such environments these warriors should at least have the same protections that U.S. constitutional law provides police officers in the United States. This still has not happened. Sixteen years and thousands of U.S. military lives have been lost, and the military still is plagued with obtuse rules of engagement and soul-crushing investigations into every action.

While the United States may not be following the full-on nation-centric strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan to fight terrorists today, it ought to use the military primarily to forward its national interests. And that ought not be a strange or unsavory concept to any U.S. warrior or citizen.

The military’s leadership has a responsibility to push back hard when told to do anything that would dilute the fundamental responsibility to win wars. For the past two decades, the U.S. military has put more effort into combating climate change and training to prevent sexual harassment than it has into training warriors to kill the enemy.

I wrote a post the other day lamenting the sad state of the “most powerful military in the world,” which Aesop responded to at length in the comments. It’s worth examining the arguments he makes out front here a bit, I think:

We now have an army and navy nearly as small as what we had on hand around the Great Depression.

And the armed might we wielded as recently as 1990 was barely a patch on the machine we dismantled in 1946, after doing the heavy lifting to win two world wars.

That’s what happens when you cut defense spending precipitously, plow the money into stock bubbles, housing welfare, etc., and in the process crash the economy hard twice.

And between the two bubbles, we squandered a serviceable but barely adequate military on adventurism and asinine you-break-it, you-bought-it “nation building” in two of the most illiterate and utterly worthless sh*tholes on the face of the earth. We traded a family cow’s worth of military power for the magic beans of Middle Eastern democracy, and we don’t even have a beanstalk to show for it afterwards. Just a dead giant.

But we burned out the troops, burned up their airplanes, wore out their weapons, and mothballed our rusted navy, because affirmative-action generals like Colon Powell never read Alfred Thayer Mahan.

What you see now is what happens when you entrust leadership to idiots, in an organization dedicated to the Peter Principle as a promotion tool.

Militaries cost money and brains, and both Congress and the Pentagon have been short on both for decades. And there’s no easy fix for that, either place.

This is all perfectly true, sure enough. But it seems to me that the biggest problem of all is the American people, or all too many of them at least. They seem to lack the will to commit to backing their military forces all the way to complete victory; they’re soft, coddled, and insulated from the realities not just of war, but of military service itself. The concept of what victory in war might even amount to is foreign to them, and it’s near certain that the sacrifice, the real price, of victory is too.

In fact, most Americans are almost completely isolated from their military, from the soldiers themselves; a historically low percentage of the populace is personally acquainted with someone in uniform, or even with someone else who is. The idea of putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle for a hitch in service themselves seems wholly alien to them, and ludicrous. One might as well suggest that they grow gills and flippers and swim the Atlantic without coming up for air. Y’know, tomorrow morning.

As has been pointed out here before by other commenters, this state of affairs goes beyond lamentable and crosses handily over into being outright dangerous. Naturally, it’s not true of everyone; I suspect that this alienation is most prevalent by far in the big-city enclaves of the Left, and the college campuses that breed and nurture Progressivist drones by the thousands. I’d guess it would be a lot less so out in the great heartland of the country, the South generally, and the towns surrounding military bases. Such locales generally have a great respect and a high regard for their soldiery, and became far less circumspect about expressing those sympathies openly once 9/11 sort of granted permission to harbor them again.

All of which indirectly brings me to the problem I mentioned up top, which is with this statement: “…destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide.” That’s fine as far as it goes, and would amount to at least a good start if nothing more. But what of the millions upon millions of Moslems who are supportive of jihad without openly declaring it; who believe in the supremacy of sharia law, but who aren’t necessarily willing to commit acts of terrorism or offer material support themselves beyond, say, financial contributions to their local “moderate” mosque, from whence the money make its circuitous way into the hands of the jihadists who depend on it?

These are the “moderates” touted endlessly by our media and politicians, but according to poll after poll after poll, their beliefs aren’t anything most of us would label “moderate.” While they may not constitute a clear majority of Moslem “immigrants” just yet, they are nonetheless legion. And they have deliberately been seeded throughout the West in unsuspecting communities who are carefully kept in the dark as to the nature of their beliefs and activities, and are oblivious to the threat posed by them.

None of which even begins to address the additional problem of “refugees” from the Middle East, who ain’t necessarily coming because they dig them some freedom, tolerance, and democracy, bub (been a good, long while since I saw any of that “Democracy, whiskey, sexy!” signage being waved around by anybody at all, I’ll say that much). We aren’t told how many of them there are; that’s something our rulers don’t think we ought to know. It’s doubtful anybody, in government or out, knows where they all wind up. The government is probably way more meticulous about tracking YOUR whereabouts than they are theirs.

So considering all that, how much chance do you think there is of our ever making effective war on Moslem terrorism, and of truly winning such a war? How would we even go about such a thing? The ideas presented in the first linked piece above are good ones; I’m wholeheartedly in favor of all of ’em, and plenty more besides. But I bet Hell will freeze over good and damned solid before we ever see a one of ’em done.

Share

Trump at war

As are we all.

Steve Bannon: This is a war. This is a war for our country. This country, we’ve been in this war for a while. It’s going to take another 15, 20, 25 years and we’re going to be one thing or the other on the other side of this. We’re either going to be the country that was bequeathed to us by the 14 or 15 generations that came before us, or it’s going to be something radically different.

What do you think was the specific messaging that drove those low propensity voters to actually, at the end of the day, pull the trigger for Trump?

Pat Caddell: Yeah, as I said, my question all along had been whether those voters would respond.  Alienation can often make people depressed and not participate. What did it, I think, is if you look at the last 8 to 10 days of Trump’s message, where he said, “This isn’t about me and Hillary. This is about you and them.”  Essentially a campaign that said your country is going to hell. You have to do something. And whether it was on immigration, which was a big issue, trade, where the country had taken a huge leap, or basically the idea, which I think was the most powerful of all, of “drain the swamp” and the corruption. Enough people felt that they, with good reason, would want a change, and they took the biggest gamble in history.

By every other measure we have had, this never should have happened. But the reason it did is because the country has never been where we are except twice before. I believe in the 1820s and the Civil War – well three times – and the Great Depression.  And what we have is a new paradigm in politics. This isn’t the traditional Democrat/Republican, Liberal and Conservative. This is inside, outside, us, them and the question of who’s country it is, and I have said to Steve the other day, and I’ll end on this note: At the heart of it is a perception. The subtext is that they know that their leaders are trying to manage the decline of America.

Steve Bannon: No, the issue of the polling and the analytical work, which was so thorough — this is not some slapdash poll like is done all the time. This was really deep analytical work. The question that the American people answered — 75 percent of your countrymen think America’s in decline. And what they understand is the country is in decline, right?  Particularly vis-à-vis the rest of the world. And that’s what the elites, that was the whole contrast in the campaign. Hillary Clinton and the Republican elites are very comfortable managing that decline.

Pat Caddell: Yes, they believe their destiny, I think, is to make sure it’s soft, we’ll be like the British. I have news for them: this election in 2016 and the ones that are coming are really about the fact that this country will not go gently into that good night of decline. They will rage, rage against the dying of the light.

We can only hope that there are enough stout American souls left among ‘us to stem the dismal tide. I especially like this part:

Pat Caddell: The issue is the country. It’s not which party. It’s going to be who owns the country, them or you. And the question is is America going to go into general night of decline or are we going to turn things around for our children and grandchildren. These are great moral questions.  And that is the new battleground that needs to be fought. And let me just say something. The media. The press, which was you could argue is adversarial, but what we have is not adversarial. We have a partisan opposition press which works hand in glove with the Democrats, which is the most corrupt media, and which, by the way, as a believer in the First Amendment, totally threatens the First Amendment, because as I have tried to say to people, when they figure out, which they have, that they can not only tell you who you must vote for, but they can tell you what truth you’re allowed to know or not to know, as we have seen in all of this other stuff with Russia, all of the stuff with the Clinton Foundation, all these things. The real question becomes why do we need a First Amendment if they’re not going to do their job, which is to be the tribune of the people and instead become the outriders of one political movement or another.

Steve Bannon: See, I look at it differently than Pat. I like having the media as the opposition party because they’re so dumb and lazy. I detest them. I detest them. Dumb, lazy, worthless. A great opponent. One last thing, we’ve got to wrap up here, is that it’s about the President. It’s about Donald J. Trump. Look, I got the great opportunity. I’ve known him for years, but I didn’t know him that well until I got into the campaign. I saw it every day. Here’s a guy, everything you see in the mainstream media is basically nonsense. Here’s a guy that was worth, I don’t know, five, six, seven, eight billion dollars. I don’t know the exact number, but a lot of money. He was 70 years old. He has a lovely wife, a great family, great kids, grandchildren. The friends he’s got from the sports and entertainment world and the business world are so close to him and such great people. He just had a perfect lifestyle. I mean here’s a guy at 70 years old that’s going around not just buying great hotels and refurbishing them and making them part of his Trump organization, but buying great golf courses and making them better and getting them in the U.S. Open or the Open Championship. It’s the kind of thing you would do, all of us would do when we’re 70 years old.  He ran for President of the United States. He’s not a narcissist and not in it for his ego or anything like that. You couldn’t do it for that. I saw this guy every day on the politics of personal destruction where they came after him hammer and tong. And you guys only saw a tenth of it. If you saw the other 90 percent, you’d just be stunned. These people know no bounds. I don’t really disagree with it because I see what they’re trying to do. They’re trying to take control of the most powerful nation on earth, and they’re prepared to do anything to do that.

Donald Trump is an American hero because he had the courage to step up and run. In that primary, if you think about it, with Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and Christie, go through all of them, 16. That was the Republican Party’s an entire generation of their best politicians that have been kind of bred for 10, 20, 30 years. And as good as those gentlemen are and Carly Fiorina, there’s not one, or even combined could they have taken on the Clinton apparatus. The Clinton apparatus is a killing machine, and it took somebody like Donald Trump, a blunt-force instrument, to defeat it.

Bang ON. You’ll want to read all of this one, gang; it’s just slap full of good, fascinating stuff. It’s a pity Bannon isn’t still working directly for Trump; this is a guy who truly gets it, with insight more penetrating than just about anybody else, and ingenuity and aplomb enough to have pulled together a cohesive, long-term vision for how to straighten out the mess fifty or sixty years of Progressivist misrule has wrought. Both Bannon and Caddell have some pretty choice things to say about Her Herness that you’ll get a solid giggle out of, too.

Share

Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown redux

I excerpted this piece back in 2011 when it ran on NRO, but it’s been reposted on Lifezette and updated a bit, and is worth another look.

While Charles Schulz’s “Peanuts” characters were well-known from the newspaper comic strip, there were fears among the creative team that the characters would not translate well to television. They’d created a pitch once before, a pilot for television recounting the story of the world’s worst baseball player, Charlie Brown — and all three major networks rejected it.

The Schulz team hoped this time would be different. Luckily for everyone, they didn’t have much time to ponder their earlier failure: They had only three months to create a working script, record voices, get a soundtrack together, and create more than 30,000 animation cells from scratch — and this was back in the days before computers.

As things ended up, the network was not pleased with the final product. The first big complaint was the lack of a laugh track, something unimaginable in 1960s television. Schulz thought the audience should be able to enjoy the show without being cued on when to laugh. CBS created a version of the program with a laugh track added anyway, just in case Schulz changed his mind.

That seems a bit bizarre to me; I’ve watched it every year I could since it first ran, and I don’t really remember ever laughing out loud at it. There are funny bits, of course, and the whole thing is light-hearted and amusing. But it’s not really something I ever thought of as a comedy, somehow. And the annoying distraction of a laugh track getting in the way would have been…well, awful.

The executives also had a problem with the jazz soundtrack by Vince Guaraldi. They thought the music would not work well for a children’s program, that it distracted from the general tone. They wanted something more … well, young.

They also thought the show plodded along, that it was too slow. There wasn’t enough action, went the thinking, in a show dedicated to children.

Last but not least, the executives didn’t like how Linus recited the story of the birth of Jesus Christ from the Gospel of Luke. The scene was too long, too literal. The media orthodoxy of the time assumed Americans wouldn’t want to sit through a long spoken passage from the King James Bible.

“They were freaking out about something so overtly religious in a Christmas special,” explained Melendez. “They basically wrote it off, like, ‘Hey, this just isn’t going to be interesting to anyone, and it’s just going to be like a big tax write-off.'”

Thereby demonstrating that being completely clueless about the beliefs and lifestyles of normal Americans is by no means anything new for the high muckety-mucks running the entertainment biz. You see that same disconnect today in all sorts of places, as they labor mightily to push the masses in the direction they want them to go: ambiguous war flicks with the American soldiers portrayed as deeply flawed or corrupt in some way, fighting for motives that are dubious at best, or confused and deceived by the soulless commanders who are manipulating them for their own malign purposes. Or in commercials or sitcoms wherein Dad is either a helpless, hapless, incompetent buffoon whose blunders the rest of the family patiently endure; a stupid drunk who lives only to watch sports, hooting like a gibbon with his fellow boors; or an emasculated, biddable nebbish eager to be led around by the nose by his far more capable and authoritative wife.

And that’s when the family is even still intact, rather than consisting of a courageous, gutsy single mom and a couple of plucky, extremely well-adjusted kids, all abandoned for selfish reasons by a scurrilous douchebag, Mom struggling nobly to give the kids a proper upbringing without a moment’s support from the irresponsible cad who barely even appears in the show at all, and whom nobody is glad to see if he does.

If ever they do present a more traditional-type American family, Dad is a rigid, aloof tyrant, Mom is miserable and unfulfilled, and the kids are either intimidated or destructively rebellious, depending on their ages. Never do you see a well-adjusted, happy family with parents taking on traditional roles as part of a coherent plan to assist each other in the ways they’re most suited, sharing the load to everybody’s benefit: respectful of each other; appreciative of one another’s contribution; affectionate and warm towards each other; courteous and thoughtful; firm, but supportive and loving with the kids, who are mannerly and considerate, if a little rambunctious or uncooperative sometimes, as kids will be. No, none of them were perfect at all times and in all circumstances. All anybody expected was honest effort, and expected their own effort to be rewarded appropriately—which, in the main, it was.

I grew up in just such a family, and lived in a neighborhood, a town, a county, and a region surrounded by many others. It was not at all a grim, suffocating colony of undifferentiated zombies, everyone thinking and looking and acting exactly alike in a cookie-cutter nightmare where creativity was stifled, initiative was discouraged, independence was a serious transgression, and a joyless conformity was ruthlessly enforced—a place where there was no laughter, no honesty, no humanity, and above all, no sex. None. Ever.

Discipline was maintained in part via weekly attendance at a hate-filled, bigoted, narrow-minded church, through scorching, condemning harangues from the sour prude behind the pulpit. Everyone absolutely hated it. Well, except the preacher, who enjoyed having his fearful parishioners in his thrall and exercising his power over them like any other cheap dictator would.

Most of the zombies coped with this wretched existence through strictly-closeted reliance on alcohol or prescription drugs, infidelity, or habitual brutality to the kids, the wife, or the family pet, which was also kept well-hidden, discussed only in whispers by those in the know. Anyone different or odd suffered a life of sadistic torment at the hands of the other drones, until he or she either suicided or fled to the more welcoming, tolerant environs of New York, San Francisco, or LA.

Y’know, like the Fifties, duuuude.

If all you had to go by was TV and movies from about, say, 1970 on, you’d never know such a thing as a happy traditional family ever existed at all. Yet it was the norm in most of this country until fairly recently, and worked well for most families (and for society itself) despite life’s inevitable setbacks and unpleasant surprises, or the occasional human failing of one partner or the other. Certainly our culture as a whole was by far the better for it.

Which I’m confident that Schultz himself knew quite well, thanks.

Schulz, a Sunday school teacher, pushed back against everyone. He had many doubts in his life, but few about his characters and his storytelling skills. He also had the benefit of a very tight production schedule. The suits at the network, the advertising agency  — and the show’s sponsor, Coca-Cola — had invested in this program and promoted it in TV Guide. Schulz knew he had leverage, and he wasn’t about to acquiesce on any of the creative elements — especially the Bible reading.

The network executives capitulated and aired the special as Schulz intended it. And that’s why Charles Schulz was Charles Schulz. He knew his own country and the things Americans cared (and care) about, the things that meant something to them. He also knew — really knew — that the Bible reading was the most important part of the whole show.

As Charlie Brown sinks into a state of despair while trying to find the true meaning of Christmas, an unlikely character quietly saves the day. Linus walks to the center of the stage where the “Peanuts” characters have gathered, and under a narrow spotlight, quotes the second chapter of the Gospel according to Luke, verses 8 through 14:

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good will towards men.

After Linus finishes the beautiful reading, he walks across the stage and says these words: “And that’s what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown.”

And so it is—no matter what those coastal elite types might or might not believe, in spite of their own hostility to Christianity and Christians…and their mistaken assumption that normal, decent people share it, particularly back in 1965. Even disregarding that, the Bible passage is central to the story; the whole damned thing depends on it. It isn’t just what Christmas is all about—it’s what A Charlie Brown Christmas is all about, too.

I dunno, maybe they’d be closer to correct about that assumption today. In fact, it’s difficult to even imagine such a thing making it to the airwaves now at all. Which says more about us than about them, and is not a happy thought. Thankfully, Schultz stood his ground; as Habeeb winds up:

Thank God the Grinch-like executives at CBS chose to air the special back in 1965. If it had been left to their gut instincts, we would have one fewer national treasure to cherish come Christmastime.

Yep. I watched it myself the other night, as I do every year. It’s held up a heck of a lot better than a lot of things those Hollywood and New York types would have imagined to be “timeless,” and has probably had far more impact than many things they’d consider “important,” too.

Share

Pow wow chow!

Steyn is having WAY too much fun batting Fauxcahantas around like a cheap cat toy.

Why, back in 1984 she submitted some of her favorite dishes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, a “compilation of recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

The recipes sent in by “Elizabeth Warren—Cherokee” include a crab dish with tomato mayonnaise. Mrs. Warren’s fictional Cherokee ancestors in Oklahoma were renowned for their ability to spear the fast-moving Oklahoma crab.

But then the white man came and now the Oklahoma crab is extinct, and at the Cherokee clambakes they have to make do with Mrs. Warren’s traditional Five Tribes recipe for Cherokee Lime Pie…

Even in a world where everyone’s incredible, some things ought to be truly incredible. Yet Harvard Law School touted Elizabeth “Dances with Crabs” Warren as their “first woman of color”—and nobody laughed.

But, with the impertinent jackanapes of the press querying the bona fides of Harvard Lore School’s first Native American female professor, the Warren campaign got to work and eventually turned up a great-great-great-grandmother designated as Cherokee in the online transcription of a marriage application of 1894.

Hallelujah! In the old racist America, we had quadroons and octoroons. But in the new post-racial America, we have—give me a minute to fish out my calculator—duoettrigintaroons! Martin Luther King dreamed of a day when men would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their great-great-great-grandmother’s wedding-license application. And now it’s here! You can read all about it in Elizabeth Warren’s memoir of her struggles to come to terms with her racial identity, Dreams from My Great-Great-Great-Grandmother.

Unfortunately, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Gran’ma as Cherokee, but let’s cut Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Crockagawea Warren some slack here. She couldn’t be black. Like Barack Obama’s composite girlfriend, she would if she could, but she couldn’t. But she could be 1/32nd Cherokee, and maybe get invited to a luncheon with others of her kind—”people who are like I am,” 31/32nds white, and they can all sit around celebrating their diversity together. She is a testament to America’s melting pot, composite pot, composting pot, whatever.

Just in case you’re having difficulty keeping up with all these Composite-Americans, George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of endemic white racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard. George Zimmerman, redneck; Elizabeth Warren, redskin. Under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws, Mrs. Warren would have been classified as Aryan and Mr. Zimmerman as non-Aryan. Now it’s the other way round. Progress!

Of a sort, I suppose. The truly wonderful part of it is how ALL of the liberal pieties have now whirled on their creators and are chewing them to pieces. I’ll leave it to you guys to debate whether or to what extent the onset of this welcome cannibal picnic might have been driven by the above-the-odds installation in the White House of the only guy willing to actually fight back against them, and to deny the righteousness of those pieties in no uncertain terms.

See, guys? All those years the RepubliCons were telling us they just couldn’t possibly win against them, that there was no hope…and as it turns out, they’re fragile as broken eggshells, and all it really takes to crush them into powder is to just grab a hammer and start swinging.

Share

Playing rough

This. This right here, dammit.

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent #NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum. They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.” Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity. There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. We tried statesmanship. Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney? And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality and propriety, the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob.

I don’t find anything “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper” about Barack Obama’s lying about what went down on the streets of Ferguson in order to ramp up racial hatreds because racial hatreds serve the Democratic Party. I don’t see anything “dignified” in lying about the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and imprisoning an innocent filmmaker to cover your tracks. I don’t see anything “statesman-like” in weaponizing the IRS to be used to destroy your political opponents and any dissent. Yes, Obama was “articulate” and “polished” but in no way was he in the least bit “dignified,” “collegial” or “proper.”

I’d say “articulate” is off, as is made apparent by any of the multiple YouTube clips of the hilarious stuttering clusterfuck that ensues every time his Teleprompter crashes on him. His reputation as a “great orator” was never anything more than a useful deceit perpetrated and maintained by his Praetorian Media props, and one look at those YouTube vids establish him beyond debate as nothing more than a bumbling, witless boob in far over his head, that frightened deer-in-the-headlights stare washing over his face and the “Uh, uh, uh, uh, ah, um, uh”s piling up faster and higher.

“Polished,” I’ll grant; his handlers buffed him to a fine chamois as an essential element of the whole con—which, given his prickly, unjustified arrogance and inexplicable egomania, must have been a mighty tough job indeed, one that even Mike Rowe would find too odious to accept. But the most apt descriptors of him are the ones I’ve always used: cunning, oleaginous, sneaky, and slick. Anyway, onwards.

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s. To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale. It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war. While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way, the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end. Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War.

During wartime, things like “dignity” and “collegiality” simply aren’t the most essential qualities one looks for in their warriors. Ulysses Grant was a drunk whose behavior in peacetime might well have seen him drummed out of the Army for conduct unbecoming. Had Abraham Lincoln applied the peacetime rules of propriety and booted Grant, the Democrats might well still be holding their slaves today. Lincoln rightly recognized that, “I cannot spare this man. He fights.”

Great stuff—GREAT fucking stuff—from a guy who clearly Gets It. And incredible as it may seem, it just gets better from there. Read every deliciously satisfying word of it.

This brilliant, incandescent rip was posted by Evan Sayet, who I have to admit to being not too familiar with. But I’m fully “woke” to him now, and I’ll sure be keeping a sharper lookout for his work from here on out.

Share

“Drain the swamp” won’t even BEGIN to cover it

Codevilla weighs in on GrabAssGate.

During my eight years on the Senate staff, sex was a currency for renting rungs on ladders to power. Uninvolved and with a hygroscopic shoulder, I listened to accounts of the trade, in which some one-third of senators, male senior staff, and corresponding numbers of females seemed to be involved. I write “trade,” because not once did I hear of anyone forcing his attention. Given what seemed an endless supply of the willing, anyone who might feel compelled to do that would have been a loser otherwise unfit for survival in that demanding environment.

This, I wager, is not so different from others’ experiences in Washington. Senior female staffers were far more open than secretaries in describing their conquests of places up the ladder, especially of senators. There was some reticence only in talking about “relationships” with such as John Tower (R-Texas) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) because they were the easiest, and had so many. The prize, of course, was Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.)—rooster over a veritable hen house that was, almost literally, a “chick magnet.” Access to power, or status, or the appearance thereof was on one side, sex on the other. Innocence was the one quality entirely absent on all sides.

In the basic bargain, the female proposes. The power holder has the prerogative to say “no,” or just to do nothing. By a lesser token, wealthy men need not offer cash to have female attention showered on them. Money is silver currency. Power is gold. A few, occasionally, get impatient and grab. But taking egregious behavior as the norm of the relationship between power and sex willfully disregards reality. Banish the grabbing, and the fundamental reality remains unchanged.

Which is one reason why, as I’ve said, my sympathy for most of these “victims” is limited, to say the least. Of course, that’s excluding any truly innocent women who have in fact been raped. But I have serious doubts as to them being anything but a tiny minority, more or less the exception that proves the rule.

What this all still looks like to me is a Uniparty scheme to get at Trump via Moore which has blown up in the plotters’ faces. Now the Democrat Socialists, always the Uniparty branch harboring far more degenerates than the Repubs could ever get away with, are in the unaccustomed position of being hoist on their own petard, of being embarrassed by having the chasm between what they profess and what they do brought right out in the open.

And it reminds me again of the futility of campaigns to “get money out of politics.” As long as we’re saddled with a government as overgrown, powerful, and intrusive as this one, it will never happen. Both sex and money will continue to be the means by which people will attempt to purchase influence or favors from any entity so entangled with every facet of our lives—even if that favor is only to be left alone.

A properly limited federal government operating within Constitutional constraints simply wouldn’t have as much to sell, and therefore wouldn’t inspire nearly as much corruption. Not none, of course. But nothing like the impenetrable and almost incomprehensible web of sleaze and degeneracy woven about Mordor on the Potomac now.

The Clintons and the Weinsteins, yesterday’s ruling class paragons, are useful foils. When, inadvertently, photos implicate a member of the current ruling class leadership, such as Senator Al Franken (D-Minn.) in beastly behavior, ruling class colleagues and media give him a pass (“he apologized!”) and use his case unfavorably to contrast the real enemies—always on the Right: President Donald Trump and Alabama U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore. “They are disqualified from office because they haven’t even admitted their guilt!”

In short, penalties for breaches of any item of political correctness are and will remain what they have been in the past, without exception: thinly veiled excuses to harm whoever stands in the way of the ruling class’s members.

The conclusion Codevilla reaches might not be at all what you’d expect; I confess to having been quite taken aback by it myself. But he’s far too smart and perceptive, and has been right far too many times already, for me to even think of betting against him before giving it some serious thought. If he has the right of it, the rot goes far deeper than even I in my cynicism ever imagined…and will be damned near impossible to root out without just burning the whole damned place to the ground and starting over.

Share

UNEXPECTED!

A good summary of Trump’s accomplishments to date.

This Thanksgiving, Americans in general — and free-market conservatives in particular — have plenty for which to be grateful. And much of it would be absent had the White House’s current occupant not become president on November 8, 2016.

The day after Donald J. Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, Princeton University economist Paul Krugman called Trump’s victory “the mother of all adverse effects.” He predicted “very probably…a global recession, with no end in sight.”

Yeah, well, he was hardly the only one—a fact whose delicious pertinence I will reveal in just a minute. In the meantime, indulge me.

  • The Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ, and S&P 500 all hit record highs on Tuesday. The Wilshire 5000 Index calculates that some $3.4 trillion in new wealth has been created since President Trump’s inauguration and $5.4 trillion since his election. Fueled by the reality of deregulation, expectations of lower taxes, and a new tone in Washington that applauds free enterprise rather than excoriate it, the economy is on fire.
  • Atop the second quarter’s 3.1 percent increase in real GDP, and 3.0 in 3Q, the New York Federal Reserve Bank predicts that 4Q output will expand by 3.8 percent. This far outpaces the feeble average-annual GDP growth rate of 1.5 percent on President Obama’s watch. Meanwhile, the IMF expects global GDP to rise by 3.5 percent this year. So much for a Trump-inspired “global recession.”
  • Obama’s War on Coal is gone with the wind.
  • Trump wisely extricated America from the bogus Paris “global-warming” deal.
  • Obama’s “Clean Power Plan,” a $993 billion act of economic self-sabotage, now rots — with Communism — atop the ash heap of history.
  • For every new regulation that Trump has imposed, 16 have been erased.
  • The FCC has begun to dismantle Obama’s “Net Neutrality” takeover of the Internet, which functioned marvelously, thank you, before his needless e-power-grab.

There’s more—lots more, a veritable shit-ton more—at the link. But that isn’t the important part, nor is it my point in excerpting (and linking—most especially linking) this piece. The conclusion:

The Never Trump faction still claims that the president of the United States “is no conservative.” And yet, with rare deviations (such as free trade), he spends nearly every day implementing the conservative agenda. Ideas that center-Right activists have demanded for decades are becoming public policy, one after another — to the pleasant surprise of even some of Donald J. Trump’s most enthusiastic supporters.

Ten months down. Thirty-eight to go. The best is yet to come.

Thank you, Mr. President!

Now just guess where all the above came from. Yes, all of it, right down to that last line.

Go on, guess.

I know, right?

If this doesn’t qualify as a jumbo-super-triple-scoop of WINNING!™ with whipped cream and a cherry on top, I sure don’t know what would. But I’ll refrain from making too much sport of them for now, so as not to scare them off just as the light finally looks like coming fully on at last. Bill Kristol, on the other hand—well, I’m afraid I’m going to have to see a good bit more groveling than this from him.

Best. Fucking. Presidency. EVER.

Share

Delenda. Est

Or, put more, ummm, directly: Bug. Fucking. Nuts.

The 2014 death of Eric Garner spurred Black Lives Matter protests. In fact, Garner’s final words — “I can’t breathe” — became a rallying cry for the movement designed to combat overly aggressive police behavior. Garner was approached by police for allegedly selling “loosies” — individual cigarettes sold without the proper tax stamps. He died after being held in a chokehold.

The ensuing national debate — if you can call a series of protests, riots and football-game kneeling a debate — has been remarkable given the degree to which both entrenched sides have avoided discussing the main causes of the problem.

Conservatives instinctively defend the police while ignoring the way police unions (which often back Democrats, by the way) protect bad behavior and bad policies in the same way as teachers’ unions make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent and misbehaving “educators.” Progressives would have us believe that such problems are entirely the product of racism.

And progressives are unable to answer the obvious question: What were police doing arresting someone for possibly selling a few loose cigarettes? It’s simple: New York City and other liberal locales are intent on regulating virtually every aspect of human behavior. The more piddling rules they pass, the more those rules invite potentially dangerous police encounters.

Think of that in the context of New York’s leftist Mayor Bill de Blasio, a harsh police critic who recently held a press conference with the city’s police leadership announcing a crackdown on that budding “menace” of people who ride environmentally friendly electric-assisted bicycles. We’ve reached the point where it’s impossible to tell which things the professional uplifters want to subsidize — and which things they want to punish and ban.

The real hilarity begins when they’ve banned so many things nobody can really keep track of them all anymore. We’ll just leave aside the stunning, self-contradictory hypocrisy of advocating for marijuana legalization even as they’re winding up the final stages of their decades-long Holier-Than-Thou War against tobacco.

But there’s a reason all right. I repeat: Bug. Fucking. Nuts.

Do not be deceived: Leftism is an enigma. We need a theorem that explains not one or two aspects of Leftism, but all their traits.

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

Umm…honesty? DECENCY? Seriously? John’s being way more generous than I would ever be.

And, while we are at it, if we could also explain why the Rich, who are routinely vilified by the Left number among its most ardent supporters, or the secular Jews, our theory would be very potent in its explanatory power.

There is such an explanation. I make no claim to have discovered this theory. It was discovered by Alan Bloom, back in the 1980’s, in his book THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, which he wrote to explain why the generation of the 1970’s was suddenly and remarkably stupider than any previous decade of his students.

The theory was popularized recently by Evan Sayet in his book KINDER GARDEN OF EDEN. Roots of this theory go back further yet: you will find an early articulation by C.S. Lewis in his seminal THE ABOLITION OF MAN, written a generation prior. And no doubt he learned his ideas from G.K. Chesterton in his ORTHODOXY, who wrote a generation prior again, and first diagnosed the error involved in Freethinkers (as they were called then) doubting one’s own ability to think.

Let us examine each one in order.

And he goes on to do just that, quite well. Although I do think he misses the mark a little here and there, and leaves a thing or two out, as comprehensive and well-thought-out as this piece is overall. For instance:

Now, having turned their back on reason, evidence, facts and reality, the only thing they have to go on is emotion. And the one emotion necessary to their desire not to think is sanctimony. They must regard themselves as so high-minded and compassionate that even reality must give way.

Sanctimony, certainly; I wouldn’t for a moment argue that they suffer any lack of it. But there are two others that I would insist are of at least equal importance: envy, and resentment. Resentment I covered the other day; envy could be said to be a precursor to that, and their having it in great sloshing bucketloads ought to be plenty obvious to any honest observer of their antics by now. In fact, you could make a good case that envy is a prerequisite for succumbing to full-on Leftism; it inspires it, breeds it, and then goes on to nurture it—right up until such time as the Leftist grows weary of being constantly, inchoately miserable, and of blaming his misery on everybody else.

This bit, too, covers something I’ve mused about here recently:

This philosophy is corrupt and hypocritical to it core.

It is not based on lying, it is lying. It is the very essence of lying.

It is the art of filling one’s thoughts with symbols that have no relation to reality, and with words that make no sense and form no internally consistent statements. If human nature were utterly pliant and plastic, as their theory says human nature is, there would be no reaction nor retaliation from this gross self deception.

But human nature exacts a terrible and divine revenge. You bend human nature so far, and it snaps back.

Exactly as I alluded to briefly in the same CF post I just linked to above, and have pontificated on here at greater length many times over the years. Indeed, the idea of the malleability of human nature (and of the desirability of tinkering with it, and their fitness to do so) has been a core plank of Progressivism right from its inception—its central assumption, and its most fundamental ambition.

Please don’t let my picking of piddling nits with John’s ambitious piece keep you from reading it; it’s a damned fine one, as well-crafted and enjoyable as you’d rightly expect anything by John C Wright to be if you’re familiar with his work at all. He covers one hell of a lot of ground herein, and not one word of it is false or inaccurate. Hats off to him for his effort in putting it all together.

Share

Categories

Archives

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



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix