Liberal Democrat and Dalwhinnie exchange polite disagreement

I had the privilege of exchanging views with a very liberal democrat on another listserv. Herewith is the exchange. It did not start with anything I wrote, but we capture it in the middle, when Liberal Democrat is responding to other Republican commentators.

Liberal Democrat wrote:

I’d rather be smug than entertaining treasonous delights.
…. I have absolutely no shame in being a coastal liberal.  We’re a key cog in how this Union stays together. Last I checked, it was the states full of coastal liberals that subsidize all the poor, downtrodden, and left behind conservative states that cry about how horrible the federal government is while they use all the services and infrastructure it pays for, hand out for the next round of transfer payments. Do I complain about those payments? No. I see it as the price of national progress and a hope that the next generation of Mississippi kids might not live in abject poverty, get an education, and maybe escape the crushing cycle that has kept many citizens of these states in perpetual marginalization, which is exactly where their right-wing political leaders want them.
I, for one, am fine with the moderating effect that our two party system has on marginalizing political extremism, and will gladly vote for Hillary in November.  No, she is not my preferred candidate, but she is the only candidate qualified to be President. It is the outcome of compromise, just like it was when I begrudgingly accepted no public option in the ACA and less than ideal restrictions on Wall Street in Dodd-Frank. We can’t always get what we want. Somehow, there is a vocal minority who seem hell-bent on ignoring that reality.
But back to Crusty Conservative’s original point. I don’t think Twitter, Facebook, or traditional media should close speech because it’s abhorrent and it’s because of what I fear.  I am not afraid of ISIS. I have not need afraid of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, or any other Hitler of the week we’ve had propped up as our enemy in the past twenty years. I am afraid of the next Timothy McVeighs and Dylann Roofs, the people in our midst who want to destroy our consensus in this country because they think they’ve been left behind by history. And they have, because they seem to think our greatest days are in the past and they’ll do what it takes to force us backward, where women, minorities, LGBTQ and non-Christian people are second-class citizens and the advantages of being born white and male were enough to succeed. That is what scares me and if we close public speech to what scares us, that speech will go underground and rot. At least we know who to fear when these monsters speak.
The last paragraph caught my attention. I ventured a reply:
Greetings all:

I cite our worthy LD:

I am afraid of the next Timothy McVeighs and Dylann Roofs, the people in our midst who want to destroy our consensus in this country because they think they’ve been left behind by history. And they have, because they seem to think our greatest days are in the past and they’ll do what it takes to force us backward, where women, minorities, LGBTQ and non-Christian people are second-class citizens and the advantages of being born white and male were enough to succeed. That is what scares me and if we close public speech to what scares us, that speech will go underground and rot. At least we know who to fear when these monsters speak.

I would put it to people of this view that we all live and want to live in a reasonable, tolerant and dare I say liberal society. By liberal I mean freedom loving, not left wing conformist. At least I do. And you do too, else you would not be on this list. So in the  contest between Islamist nutcases and nutcases like Dylann Roof, Anders Breivik, Timothy McVeigh (name a few more if you can), the clear and present danger seems to be coming much more from the Islamic direction than from fundamentalist Christian direction. At least the body counts seem to be a numerical expression of the scale of risk, and from what direction.

The question for the pragmatic among us is: Who has the most power actually to “force us backward”?. I would put it to the people who are more concerned with Christian and white-nativist reaction than they are with Islam, that they are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.

My second assertion is that vastly more people agree with this view of mine than they do with the benign views of my colleague Mr LD.

My third and wholly superfluous assertion is that this group of people are becoming very tired of the net direction of society in the post-Christian world, insofar as what appears to be a tidal wave of Islamic reaction to modernity is ignored by the bien-pensant elites, while the lingering outposts of people unpersuaded by the world view of the New York Times are held to be the true enemy. To me this seems both mistaken as to fact, in a very large way, and to be the result of a failure to imagine what a truly alien political religious ideology Islam is. It is off the map, so to speak, and cannot be conceived. Since it is inconceivable, whereas Christian fundamentalism is a more familiar target, the enemy of my enemy is somehow imagined to be my friend. Here I speculate as to motive and am less certain than I am of the previous assertions

The gap between the bien-pensants  (the well-thinkers, the morally superior) and ordinary opinion has seldom been wider, and the views of the ordinary people less tolerated by the morally superior, and held in greater contempt.

I have seen this past summer normally quite conservative (that is to say sensible, centrist, moderate, well educated ) people explode in rage at the effrontery, ignorance, cretinism, red-neckery of the less educated classes in daring to disagree with the least jot and tittle of the Official View. It is stunning to see the contempt directed at the lower orders by their social betters.

It will not end well, regardless of the outcome of the current US presidential election.


LD replied:
Excellent points.
I have to disagree on the Islamic fundamentalism threat, however, as I believe it is wholly related to conservative American Christianity. Whether a crusade in name or in practice, the Christian west has used the infidels in the Islamic world for a millennium as a useful rallying point for unity and a distraction from more localized concerns.
But, look on the other side of the equation? How easy is it to teach western decadence when we abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was repelled? How can you not be swayed by stories of the infidels’ crusade when planes drop bombs on your civilian neighborhood? How can you not be angry when your all-knowing occupiers failed to account for civil disturbances after de-Baathification in Iraq, leading to countless deaths?  We applauded Arab Spring, but did little to nothing to help these countries transition to democracy and establish stability.
We all know Wahhabist clerics are breeding this hate, but no one wants to mess with the flow of oil from Saudi, so it’s almost American policy to let it bleed.  And don’t get me started on Turkey, where European islamophobic policies and the unaddressed Syria threat has let it drift closer to religious-based totalitarianism.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East and Arab World–Bahrain, UAE, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi, Morocco, to name a few–and seen both the good and bad with my own eyes. They’re still humans, still just trying to survive.  They love American movies and music and, based on the Popeye’s at Amman’s airport or the Dunkin’ Donuts in Dubai, some enjoy our weaponized cuisine, but are vastly under -educated as to who is inhabiting our countries. If we spent 1/10th the money on cultural engagement as we did on military ones, both to show them our values and counteract the nutbag imams, we’d be in a different world. But, for the most part, Americans stay here and they stay there, and the only cultural references point Americans have is screaming idiots on Fox and CNN telling us how much they hate us. That’s a horrific foundation for dialogue.
I am just not as easily convinced that the creeping Islamic threat is any worse than when it was in Spain or on the steps of the Holy Roman Empire. I am convinced that, as you said, it is alien enough to Americans–who generally only had a two week crash course in Islam during high school and still think history ended after we won World War II–that it’s still a useful crutch to rile us up and I think we’re afraid to learn that our “enemy” is not that much different than us on Maslow’s hierarchy. Parents in Virginia two years ago pulled their kids out of class for learning about Islam and Arabic script, like the language, script, and the Koran are Instant Soup-style indoctrination.  That is just fear and ignorance. We are afraid of the unknown, even if it’s knowable, and I think it makes it easier to dehumanize 1/5th of the world because of it.
The greatest risk our children have from Islam today is, as it was for our generations, one thing: Al Gebra. As it seems, fear of complex math is at the center of Republican tax policy. 😉
As for our Republicans, I wish we had a Canadian-style Conservative political party. I miss the pre-Newt GOP, one that wasn’t so anti-science and anti-compromise, even if I could not align on its policies.
My final response was this:
Thank you for a civilized and well written reply.

I remain unpersuaded that the main issue of our time is somehow American ignorance, or policy errors. They exist, and Americans in their ignorance keep making errors, as any nation does. Perhaps the US elites have been making more than their fair share of late, and this is the subject of the election now underway.

In respect of Islam you wrote:

“I am convinced that, as you said, it is alien enough to Americans–who generally only had a two week crash course in Islam during high school and still think history ended after we won World War II–that it’s still a useful crutch to rile us up and I think we’re afraid to learn that our “enemy” is not that much different than us on Maslow’s hierarchy.”

I recall a liberal American official at the FCC one time complaining about Republicans, insofar as their world view and knowledge came from one book, the Bible.

I admit the justice of that critique. One book is not enough.

But we have had a Reformation, and its subsequent wars and reorganization of the European state system;  we have religious freedom, we have social freedom, we have a large measure of political freedom, even if, in your view, it is used in error.

Muslims in Islamic countries have none of these things. They still hold, in principle, that all necessary knowledge of the world, comes from one source only, given one time to one prophet, indelibly, indisputably, inerrantly, and that not a word can be revised or re-interpreted. Exclusive reliance on the Koran for guidance in all matters has led to social, intellectual, political and economic stagnation across the Islamic world. When they had strip mined the contributions of the previous Christian, Zoroastrian, pagan, Buddhist, and pre-Islamic intellectual accomplishments, they were culturally unable to generate new insights because inquiry is haram, forbidden. Most of what we call Islamic contributions to knowledge were pass-throughs from previous cultures.

At the same time, they were promised that they would be the final revelation, and that in principle and by right, they would be the conquerors of the world by now.

So they are caught in a gigantic cognitive dissonance between what they believe they ought to be doing, that is, governing the world, and as a part of their regime using its non-Muslim women as their sex toys, on the one hand, and the fact that they are at the back of the class in every dimension of accomplishment. A UN report of 2004 or thereabouts, and written exclusively by Muslim intellectuals, pointed out that the people of Finland, population 4 million, produced more absolute GDP than 77 million Arabs produced in non-petroleum exports. The economic value created by Finns, population 4 million, was greater than the economic value created by all of the Arab world, excluding petrochemicals. Arabs are excruciatingly conscious of their inferiority, and many seek simple answers, found in the Koran, as to what is to be done. Its name is jihad.

So here is my second point.

Weighed in the balance against the 1/5 of humanity, a large proportion of whom seem to be stuck in the cultural assumptions of tribal Arabia in the 6th century AD, or who wish they were so stuck, then purely domestic squabbles among the citizens of the US do not seem to carry the weight or importance that many Americans think (or believe passionately) that they have.

My observation is that a serious engagement with the issues requires one to step back from exclusively and parochially US partisan concerns. Even if we assume that Republicans and Democrats say largely true things about one another, we do not engage the relevant question or questions. It is of very little use to suggest to an American that they see things in excessively partisan terms. You are likely to get your head shot off. Especially in a presidential election year.

I am ducking behind a wall as I write. Thank you for an entertaining discussion.

Be well.

LD’s response was a cheerful paean to the valour of the Finns, in which we were both agreed.


Time in Chicago, time in the country

This summer I have been a submarine, surfacing rarely. I have been surrounded by Democrats and by liberal Republicans, all of whom are shocked, shocked to hear a word in favour of Trump. So by and large I have kept my mouth shut, and listened to the ranting.

I recently attended a board meeting in Chicago. One of the board’s close advisors is now a member of Hillary’s team. He was purring with satisfaction at the chances of Hillary winning. The Democratic electoral team is expecting an October surprise from Putin in some form or another, and they are confident enough of their chances that they are threatening Putin with dire consequences should  he unleash intercepted or stolen emails, after Hillary wins.

I see polls, and Hillary is generally somewhat ahead at the moment. Trump occasionally catches up. Frankly, unless there is a high degree of suppressed opinion out there, Hillary will win. I happen to believe that, like Brexit, a large number of people are holding their mouths shut lest they be mistaken for troglodytes by their more liberal neighbours. But I was equally mistaken about Romney, and was confounded by Obama’s second victory.

Stay tuned folks. Trump has an uphill battle.





Trump and down-ballot impact

This is not a prediction of Trump’s demise, but rather an opinion on Trump’s impact on down-ballot candidates in case he loses. This election, more so than other elections, is saturated with “complex, layered, and divisive issues”, to use Oban’s phrase.

In the event of a Clinton landslide, it is very unlikely that down-ballot Republican candidates will suffer. The electorate has learned their lesson from the 2008 wave election which by April 2009 had handed the Democrats a filibuster-proof 60-40 majority in the Senate. This combined with 257-178 seat majority in the House of Representatives, allowed Democrats a free reign to run amok. The electorate realized the error of its way and in January 2010 took the matter into their own hand. This led to a dramatic upset, where the thoroughly solid blue Massachusetts, handed Edward Kennedy’s old seat to the Republican Scott Brown. It is likely that the same scenario will come into play this time and with the same thought permeating through several locales, instead of just one as in January 2010, it is entirely possible that the electorate might overdo it, thus handing the Republicans larger than expected majorities in the House and the Senate. The converse scenario is also applicable in case Trump wins, with comments about Trump and his coattails leading the coverage. A Clinton landslide, along with Republican loss of House and Senate, is a view that is simplistic and based on conventional and pedestrian thinking.

If one thinks that thing are acrimonious now, then just wait. A Clinton presidency, with its Court appointments, is likely to lead to liberals controlling the Supreme Court till 2050. Republicans finding their spine by refusing the acquiesce to a replacement for Scalia, is indicative of what the future holds. Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016 and his nomination has remained before the Senate since then. This constitutes a period longer than any other Supreme Court nomination. Atlantic magazine also opines on this scenario.

It’s 2020, four years from now. The campaign is under way to succeed the president, who is retiring after a single wretched term. Voters are angrier than ever—at politicians, at compromisers, at the establishment. Congress and the White House seem incapable of working together on anything, even when their interests align. With lawmaking at a standstill, the president’s use of executive orders and regulatory discretion has reached a level that Congress views as dictatorial—not that Congress can do anything about it, except file lawsuits that the divided Supreme Court, its three vacancies unfilled, has been unable to resolve.

On Capitol Hill, Speaker Paul Ryan resigned after proving unable to pass a budget, or much else. The House burned through two more speakers and one “acting” speaker, a job invented following four speakerless months. The Senate, meanwhile, is tied in knots by wannabe presidents and aspiring talk-show hosts, who use the chamber as a social-media platform to build their brands by obstructing—well, everything. The Defense Department is among hundreds of agencies that have not been reauthorized, the government has shut down three times, and, yes, it finally happened: The United States briefly defaulted on the national debt, precipitating a market collapse and an economic downturn. No one wanted that outcome, but no one was able to prevent it.

As the presidential primaries unfold, Kanye West is leading a fractured field of Democrats. The Republican front-runner is Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame. Elected governor of Louisiana only a few months ago, he is promising to defy the Washington establishment by never trimming his beard. Party elders have given up all pretense of being more than spectators, and most of the candidates have given up all pretense of party loyalty. On the debate stages, and everywhere else, anything goes.

A parting forecast, if Clinton wins she might have to pardon herself.

The Appalling Clinton

As the lame stream media every day go on a Donald Trump bashing mission, it’s worth pausing to reflect on what an appalling creature Mrs Bill Clinton really is. For without Bill Clinton, she would still be an ambulance-chasing lawyer in partnership Rat, Shark & Bottom-Feeder Inc, in Putridville, Arkansas (provided she hadn’t been disbarred by now). Her position in American politics resembles that of Elena Ceausescu, past deputy vozhd of communist Romania, also a woman of sub-mediocre intellect, but possessed of a demonic lust for power that almost overshadowed that of her tyrannical husband, Nicolae.

Through the decades when Bill was assaulting and raping his way through the American heartland, there was the faithful Hillary calling his victims ‘trash’, ‘bimbo eruptions’ and a multitude of other names, all the while affirming her support for sexual assault victims saying that all should be believed. She learned all this from her first position in Washington on the Watergate Commission, where she was fired for lying, thereby setting a trend that would be her best known professional characteristic.

Now that she is being offered by the oligarchy as a potential president, her escapades as Secretary of State in the Hussein Administration illustrated well her main talents in lying and incompetence. After the destruction of Libya and the murder of Gaddafi, she could only manage the words, “…we came, we saw, he died” as her analysis of the situation. Such is the depth of her intellect. Apparently, her view of foreign policy is to subject any uncooperative nation to aerial bombardment, destroy its infrastructure and see its leader murdered and then walk away, leaving the rest of the population to the tender mercies of ISIS terrorists, the likes of which have not been seen since the Dark Ages (of communist China). Now that benighted country is a failed state, submerged in a continuous tribal war between various terrorist factions.

During that debacle, which constitutes her foreign policy ‘experience’, as her toadies in the media would say, American diplomats were murdered in Benghazi by terrorists and she stood by and let it happen, despite being warned by intelligence sources about what was really going on. No, invent a new scenario, some minor video made by some hapless fellow, and blame them for the criminal negligence of the State Department whose major focus was molding its own subservience to the Islamic agenda of the White House, where ‘Islamic terrorism’ does not exist. Even though she knew what was going on, that was no obstacle to lying to families of the dead.

The latest treat, almost a cadenza of duplicity, has been her reaction to the emails she so ‘carelessly’ kept on an insecure server while in the position of Secretary of State. As is well known, the US Government is a stickler for security issues. Remember how General Patraeus, a man who has given his considerable talents to his country during the Iraq war, was prosecuted for a tiny infraction with someone who also had significant security clearance. Even after that, the Hussein White House moved to try to have his rank reduced to add insult to injury. But Hillary is a different matter. Even though she compromised all the highest level communications of the State Department because she did not want her communications be on the Government record, as they all should be, the Clinton Mafia flexed its muscle and showed that Lynch, the Attorney General, courtesy of a short meeting at an airport, found that no prosecutor would be ‘rational’ if they brought a case against her. Or rather, she instructed the FBI to say that, thereby contaminating the FBI and the Justice Department in one fell swoop. Perhaps they were thinking of the horse’s head in the bed?

To further her desire to be seen as pro-Muslim, the Taliban-supporting father of the Islamic terrorist who recently murdered 49 people in a gay nightclub, was, just by chance you understand, seated right behind Clinton at a rally. Imagine, if you will, that a white supremacist has just murdered 49 blacks and his (or her) father, also a white supremacist, were seated behind Donald Trump at a rally. Every media head would explode in a blood-soaked shower of indignation. But this is exactly what happened in the Clinton case and the media whores cover for her at every turn.

The ’presstitutes’, as Paul Craig Roberts calls them, are totally, fully and irredeemably in the tank for the Democrats and Clinton. Journalism has ceased to exist in the lame stream media, all that remains is the squealing reptilian horde, swarming around her feet, each one eager and striving to be picked as the most loyal and servile Wormtongue in her Empire of Lies. They vomit forth a stifling miasma of adulatory platitudes around her, insulating her from the world and from ordinary people. ‘How wonderful are you today?’ — ‘Do you feel more historic than God?… constitute their penetrating and questioning analysis as they quiver at her feet in anticipation of being thrown a morsel of carrion.

As the chosen candidate of the corrupt oligarchy, she must not fail, else thousands of careers and reputations, the entire leftist agenda to destroy America and turn it into a Third-World hell hole may be lost. Hence, the daily assaults on Donald Trump from the Washington Pravda, the New York Slimes, the Clinton News Network, and the shower of lesser nonentities polluting the cable TV networks.

Even her most subservient orcs in the media have trouble explaining away the endless lying. But she is always expanding the Clinton lexicon which includes an ever-growing list of words that mean lying. ‘Short-circuited’ is the most recent addition to the Dictionary of Dishonesty. I ‘short-circuited’ when I talked to the FBI. ‘Exonerated’ in Clinton Newspeak has the same meaning as ‘I lied, made the Attorney General an offer she couldn’t refuse, and got the FBI to lie to the American people for me.’ Winston Smith, call your office.

Ignorant, stupid and malevolent are the words that best describe her experience for office. Perhaps these are positives for the Democratic Party, features, not bugs, of their political vaporware. The semi-sentient biomass of journalists, reporters and assorted lickspittles, even at maximum grovel, will eventually realize that even they are all expendable.

Donald Trump, the brash New Yorker, the loud mouth, the American patriot, is a welcome alternative to the androids of the oligarchy. The more they insult him, the better he looks.
America, awake! You have nothing to lose but your Clintons.

Rebel Yell

Issues with Globalization

In the article Globalization and its New Discontents, Joseph Stilglitz addresses some of the issues that have led to discontent with Globalization and free trade. He notes the following.

“Among the big winners were the global 1%, the world’s plutocrats, but also the middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working classes in the advanced countries.”

This is time for people to rethink their ideological beliefs.

Globalization has led it equalization of wages, i.e. decrease in wages in developed word and increase in wages in the developing world. That is not a surprise and was suppose to happen. What is a surprise is that the significant economic growth was expected to offset this. For those who believe in free trade, this has been a tough fact to digest.

Why didn’t we get the significant economic growth that was expected? Why will Obama, the smartest president ever we were told, end his term without a single year of 3% GDP growth? Well, in contemporary history the two most successful presidents were Reagan (right of center) and Clinton (left of center). Both had one thing in common during their presidency, technological innovation. Former, personal computer and latter, internet, i.e. presidential policies have very little to do with economic growth despite what leftist believe. You can only dig so many holes and then cover them up.

With people looking after their own interest, is it any surprise that the global elite are in favour of free movement of people? One reason you see Facebook’s Zuckerberg urge for increase in immigration is so people like him can have access to cheap labour. This unfettered supply of labour is contrary to the interests of the working class and it is no wonder that Trump has found a ready forum.

As for Trump, affirmative action has given us a half-black and half-woman on the Democrat side. Clowns are people too so one has to give Trump a chance. If you look at the RCP average of polls it is amazing how he closes in on his wife, err opponent, and then he falls back. There is still a lot of ambivalence about him. He is doing it right lately by sticking to the script, or as Obama fans were fond of saying about him in 2008 “staying on the message”, so he might come out ahead.

Trump is not inevitable

As of this week, with Trump 7 points behind,  it is likely that he will lose the election to Hillary. I hardly know what to think. I am torn between my liking for Trump as a goad to the opinion-shaping classes, and for his policies towards Islam, political correctness and trade deals, on the one hand, and my concern that the man is not up to the job.

[I am not going to discuss Hillary here, beyond noting she ought to be on trial for various crimes and malfeasances. Corrupt only gets to the edges of her nullity].

In the past few weeks I have seen otherwise sensible conservatives become enraged at the thought of Trump. I do not mean Republicans in Name Only; I mean sensible church-going conservatives, people whose opinions are usually reliable. People have been outraged at the idiocy of the American working classes and lower orders for supporting Trump, and have been nearly able to contemplate denying them the vote.

I have read social science bloviation that Trump supporters are authoritarians, which I dismiss out of hand. This is the usual leftist prattling that anyone who dares disagree with their Narrative must have something wrong with their souls.  Outside the 1%, American incomes have stagnated for several decades. There is no reason to believe that free trade will induce technological progress in advanced economies. Free trade has meant that your clothing and consumer goods have been made more cheaply, over time, and roughly in order, in the following countries: Japan, Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, and now Cambodia, as the great uplift of human wealth proceeds to work its magic. But the redistribution of wealth from the first world to the third has brought with it stagnation of incomes and closing opportunities for the working classes here and for the children of people who are inclined to read this blog.

I am not sure if a high tariff policy can fix this, but at least Trump is talking about the world we are experiencing.

What bothers me about Trump is the gracelessness, the inability to strike a conciliatory note, the inability to court the undecided. Trump has already got the 45% of people who are pissed off. He needs another 5, 6, or 7% to ensure his victory.

He will not achieve this victory unless unless he maintains decorum, and minds his manners. Americans are ready for a policy change, and a personnel change, but they need to be wooed, not bludgeoned.

He frightens a lot of people, some of whom need to be frightened, but others of whom need a little reassurance that he can act like an adult, like a President of the United States. Unless he can do this, I am concerned that the tired old Democratic/1%/bankers’ regime, with its anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-male bias,  will continue under  Hillary Clinton.

I  await a storm of protest from those who think I have gone soft. I have not. There is far too much truth is Donald and Hobbes, a sample of which is below.

donald and hobbes

I wan Trump to win, but I am concerned that the Trump I want is a figment of my imagination.



Nothing to do with Islam (2)

I looked through the press yesterday and today and was able to find one shooting in the western world that was not caused by Muslims, and it was caused by American black males in Florida.

Nothing to do with Islam – Muslims attack Norman church service and slit the throat of the priest.

Nothing to do with Islam – Muslim kills nine in German department store

Nothing to do with Islam – Syrian asylum seeker blows himself up in Germany after pledging allegiance to ISIL leader.



Leonid Bershidsky, writing in the National Post, now a branch of the New York Times Bloomberg News, says:

A casual racist would assume any multiple murder committed by someone with a Muslim name would be an act of Islamist terrorism, but Somboly’s case was different. Chubby, awkward, bullied at school, he would often threaten to kill his classmates. The threat was more serious than the classmates believed: Somboly was studying a German edition of Peter Langman’s “Why Kids Kill: Inside the Minds of School Shooters,” a book written using American material. On Friday, as he fired on random people at and around a Munich shopping center, he acted in full accordance with a passage in the book.

Notice the drive-by shooting embedded in Bershidsky’s comment – “a casual racist”. Islam is not a race, Mr. Bershidsky. It is a religious/social/political totalitarianism. I could be a Muslim, Bershidsky could be a Muslim, you dear reader could be a Muslim, and we could each belong to a different race. To oppose Islam is to oppose an ideology, an ideal of society (however dismal), and an idea of a demented God that governs every molecule of the universe directly by His will.

Passing over the thought-stopping “casual racist” claim, it might be possible to argue that when Muslims have a personal crisis these days, of any kind, they are empowered and authorized by their religion, by their families, and by their societies, to slaughter non-Muslims. There is a very deep sickness in Islam.

None of this bothers Bershidsky:

The recent attacks are  grouped together because of the origin and religion of the perpetrators. They have little in common, however, and they do not represent a spike in crime by the most numerous group of immigrants to arrive in Germany lately. The media frenzy will eventually quiet down if there are no major incidents and the government does a good job explaining its strategy to combat terrorism as well as be vigilant against the random acts of madness that Germany has witnessed recently. Germans seem willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt; polls suggest that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s grand coalition government would still have a majority in parliament if elections took place now, not in 2017 as scheduled.

When I spoke of the imperturbable smugness yesterday, I did not realize that I would find it so neatly expressed so soon. All is well, nothing is statistically abnormal, Muslims are committing crimes proportionate to their population in Germany, move on, nothing to see here. Why are the centres of European cities turning into rape zones against white women? Why is the peace and security of societies declining everywhere that Muslim immigration is significant?

These are forbidden questions. To ask them is to be “casually racist”. Leonid Bershidsky knows better than to write such drivel. I will give him one free pass, for he is an otherwise astute observer.

The imperturbable smugness




The sad decline of the National Post from a conservative newspaper into the Canadian voice of Wall Street continues. I take some comfort that the first rate minds, such as Conrad Black’s and Rex Murphy’s, continue to see that the impetus behind Trump is the conclusion that things have gone seriously wrong in the United States and in the world more generally. Whether they support Trump, as Conrad does, or sympathize with the reasons why others do, as Rex Murphy does, they are at least talking about the world that we see before us.

To highlight the bad news and the nonsense:

  • incomes have stagnated since 2007, and there has been no robust recovery from the looting of the economy by Wall Street;
  • factories have closed to foreign competition and those jobs are not coming back;
  • the elites seem more concerned with non-existent global warming and the benign effects of more CO2 in the atmosphere than they are with Islamic terrorism and jihad;
  • consequent to the global warming fixation, our energy polices are needlessly raising prices of home heating and lighting as massive amounts of money are transferred from ratepayers to agencies favoured by the political class;
  • American black males are killing each other in large numbers, but this has become unmentionable; it is all the white man’s fault, especially the cops’, hence the doublespeak coming out of Obama’s mouth on the subject of violence directed at American  policemen;
  • worst, the moral inversion of the ruling classes has reached such a point that right has become wrong, so for example, citing a statistic about anything contrary to the “Narrative” is a firing offence. The Narrative has become the agreed set of lies, and the agreement lasts for but a  moment. The Narrative changes, weekly if necessary, to the interests of the ruling classes, which happen to be ‘liberal’ in the American sense of the word and Democratic.
  • hence, in the Narrative, white people, particularly Christian white people, are the epicentre of the world’s evil, and they are to be held to account for the criminality, laziness, and uselessness of large portions of America’s black population, and much else besides.
  • Other people are in general, accounted to be Victims, and Victims are sacred to the leftist mind. Hence the sacralization of American blacks proceeds, despite all evidence of  disproportionate criminality and uselessness of a large portion of the African American tribe. The criminality is only the expression of resistance to white hegemony.

Today’s Post carries a clever article by Michael den Tandt, which praises Donald Trump as the ultimate scaremonger.

Quite the contrary; the United States I know is a land of peace, plenty and generosity, populated by people who are with very few exceptions friendly, courteous, law-abiding and kind to strangers.

The northeastern economy has been hit hard by factory closings, no question, and income inequality has spiked since 2008. But even so the U.S. remains the world’s most vibrant democracy and largest economy, possessed of the world’s most powerful military, by far. It has no enemy, foreign or domestic, that comes close to posing a threat to its existence.

Yet you, through the alchemy of your rage and the echo chamber of social media, have managed to persuade millions of your fellow citizens that the opposite is true. You are the first American politician to tap into the millennialism that has infused Western culture for the past 25 years. And you may just turn the world upside down as a result. Bravo sir. Bravo.

It is not what the United States is or remains, it is the perceived direction, Mr. den Tandt. It may seem to you, from the deck of whatever club you drink at in summer, that all is well in the best of all possible worlds. Maybe after a drink or two you might be compelled to admit that the Muslim Thing is worrying, or maybe not. Maybe you could be induced to admit that family incomes have been stagnant or declining in real terms for a decade. Maybe the cop assassinations in the United States would concern you.  Perhaps the energy policies being pursued to save us all from what is, to you and your kind, scientifically proven global warming might seem expensive or even foolish. Yet nothing that happens seems to penetrate the imperturbable smugness.

I have arrived at a deeper mystery than the depressing fatuity of most of the National Post. I have arrived at the core  of the question that disturbs me about politics in this time. Why, despite everything happening: stagnation, jihadist killings in Europe, uncontrolled immigration in the United States, to name the principal causative factors, why is the governing class so smug? Why?

Is my trigger level extraordinarily low? Do I perceive threats earlier than others? Is a conservative in my sense a person who smells the smoke before others, who hears the footfalls of the intruder before his sleeping wife? That could well be true. I do not deny my alarms are always ready to go off, that I am, in Mrs. Dalwhinnie’s phrase, ‘the canary in the coal mine’.

But I do not think it takes some special degree of perspicacity to be alarmed at massive Muslim immigration into Europe, or the fact that, because of Islamic immigration,  everywhere is becoming like Israel. I do not think it takes special insight to see that our children are having a tougher time than we did to establish themselves economically. I do not see how one can fail to perceive that “white people need not apply” has become unremarkable.

The left wing thing, whatever it is – and I do not really understand it – seems to think that we can invert the moral hierarchy of Victorian England: male, white, Christian, protestant, and somehow reach the egalitarian Utopia they claim to love. On the contrary, the newly inverted moral order that proclaims the female, the coloured, the pagan or the Islamic as the highest expression of humanity has merely inverted the moral order without changing it. Equality for everyone except white males, who have a special penance to perform for having invented the modern world.

The further effrontery of the Left is that we are all supposed to celebrate the end of “white privilege” that is to say, the liberal market democratic order we have built for the last two hundred years, and join in the slide into anarchy, poverty, racialism, and Venezuelan politics that Trump is fighting against.

Perhaps, when Mr. den Tandt considers politics from this perspective, he might agree with me that Trump is at least talking to some broadly shared concerns that do not derive from scaremongering by Trump, but from objective conditions in the political sphere.

But then he would not be so imperturbably smug.




Newspeak for Everyone (2)

As I’m sitting in the cool shade of a large maple, letting the .375 H&H Magnum cool off while we sip mint juleps, here are few other important Newspeak words to pepper your cocktail party chit-chat with. Oldspeak meanings and explanations are given for all of you still with minds that function. Mind your usage when at the Faculty Club.

1. Vibrant. As in “a vibrant multicultural community in Cologne on New Year’s Eve”. If a crowd of White people rape hundreds of women in public, on the city streets, this is a heinous act of barbarism, whereas, if it’s Muslim “refugees”, the police would like you forget about it, even though it’s “vibrant multiculturalism”.

2. Non-judgmental. As in “What’s wrong with female genital mutilation in Islamic societies? Oh, I’m very non-judgmental”. As long as any act is carried out by non-White, non-Western, non-Christians then no criticism is allowed and you are non-judgmental. However, if a Mom and Pop bakery declines to make a wedding cake for lesbians, then you can be as judgmental as you like, preferably with multiple hissy fits and law suits to drive them out of business. But be careful, they have to be Christian; Muslims are allowed to decline to do anything for homosexuals due to their “cultural sensitivity”.

3. Inclusive. As in “our university ensures that all activities are inclusive”. All activities must include members of all races, communities and cultural background, except, of course, Whites, Jews, Christians and Asian students acing their physics exams. With them, their inclusion is optional.

4. Safe space. As in “we require a safe space to protect us from the trauma of Donald Trump”. A “safe space” is usually a room where the afflicted SJWs can gather to beat their breasts, whine, cry and snivel for hours while they are fully insulated from reality. Usually supplied free of charge by supine university administrations.

5. Dark. A very new addition to the vocabulary, engendered by the Washington Pravda, under the new dominion of its Insect Overlord, Bezos, the New York Slimes, and their robots in the TV media, as a descriptor of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the recent Republican National Convention. After Trump laid out the problems facing America (crime, illegal immigration, bad trade policies, lawlessness and a destructive foreign policy) and then vowing to lead the nation to rejuvenation and greater glory, the speech was labelled “dark”.  Note how the word appeared in all Party organs at the same time. “Light” speeches, on the other hand, talk endlessly of unicorns, pixie dust and building bridges, and are deemed “insightful, healing and inclusive” (aka Democrat piffle).

6. Racist. As in “I think it’s a nice day. That’s racist!” Or, supporting law and order is “racist” as Chris (legs all a-tingle) Matthews would say. Only applies to White people with whom you disagree on any subject under the Sun. All non-White races are non-racist. Has largely replaced “fascist” in usage.

7. Diversity. The property of being inclusive, of course. There are even officers for diversity on university campuses to enforce such. Diversity only applies to outward appearance in matters racial or cultural, certainly not to ideas and opinions which must conform to the multicultural norm. Oldspeak meaning: “conformity”.

I hope you were paying attention, there will be a short quiz before your next lesson.

That’s enough for today; must be off to put a few more rounds through the old .375 H&H Mag, she needs it, and so do I.

Rebel Yell

Newspeak for Everyone

Deep in the bowels of the Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith toiled away editing the past to bring it up to date with the current Party line. The Party sees all and knows all. Any deviant thought will be expunged from society and, along with it, the deviant thinker. Newspeak, the language designed by the Inner Party, was constructed to render all thoughtcrime impossible by steadily reducing the number of words in the language and declaring arbitrary meanings for any words it chose. Thereby, thoughtcrime, that is, all independent thought, even consciousness itself, would be rendered impossible.
Beginning to sound familiar? That’s right, it’s the behavior of the PC crowd, the cadres of the Thought Police, who today form the body of the Party and attempt to force, cajole, intimidate, threaten and browbeat all and sundry who actually believe there is an objective reality and words do not have arbitrary meanings.
Not only is this carried on by the political arm of the Establishment Party, but its malign influence has poisoned our educational system and made most of our universities organs of PC propaganda, particularly in the joke departments such as sociology and most of the “liberal arts” as it used to be known. For those of you who feel that you are failing to keep up and particularly for young students desperate not to transgress the Party line and not compromise their cultural Marxist integrity, I present a modest example of some Oldspeak translations of common words of our evolving Newspeak:
1. Nuance. As in “a more nuanced foreign policy” from Swift Boat Kerry, the current Secretary of State. It used to mean a fine distinction or shade of meaning, but now it means “I don’t have to explain anything as you rubes are too dumb to understand it.” The results of this type of foreign policy are usually military defeats or political disasters.
2. Misspoke. As when Mrs Bill Clinton “misspoke” when she said that she wanted to see all coal miners lose their jobs. And then denied it. In Oldspeak, this is “lie”. Remember this next time she gives one of her “misspeeches”. The word is frequently used by talking heads on NBC, ABC, the Clinton News Network and other Party organs to signify obeisance to the Party by protecting the reputation of Comradess Clinton.
3. Media analyst. Talking heads on TV political shows who take remarks by any conservative politician out of context to imply that the opposite meaning was intended.
4. Narrative. As in “the President’s message was consistent with his current narrative on the crime issue”. An example of a narrative might be “Islam is a religion of peace” or “the racial disparities in law enforcement” or a generally accepted and promulgated lie amplified by the media analysts and other toadies of the Party line. Almost always something in direct contradiction to the facts.
5. Divisive. As in “Donald Trump’s speech was divisive”. That is, he drew attention to some relevant facts that the Party would prefer to be undiscussed and kept hidden, such as real crime statistics, Mrs Bill Clinton’s aversion to truth, Islamic terrorist violence etc. Also, a difference of opinion between free citizens.
More to come, but I have to leave for a weekend in the country with powerful guns and glorious patriotic singing. Stay tuned.

Rebel Yell