Tuesday, September 12, 2017


     Forgive me, Gentle Reader. We have houseguests from Florida at the moment, and they’re taking up an extraordinary fraction of my time and energy, so for the moment I must limit my emissions to the following small batch.

1. Schlichter Shoots, He Scores!

     Kurt Schlichter is fast becoming the most incisive voice available to American patriots. He’s been particularly scathing toward the “Never-Trump” branch of the Republican Party: i.e., that coterie of ward heelers in federal office who see their mission in life as obstructing Donald Trump’s agenda and increasing the odds against his re-election in 2020. Here’s a particularly pretty snippet from Schlichter’s latest column:

     The latest Never Trump meme is that Donald Trump has defected to the Democrats, a notion that might charitably be labeled “wishful thinking” if it actually involved any thinking. But the “wishful” part is in full effect as this tattered remnant of worshippers at the altar of Establishment Conservatism seeks to revive their failed cult and reassume their position as the priesthood of all things on the right.

     You remember Establishment Conservatism, right? It is to conservatism as Unitarians are to Christianity – “Well, I sort of believe in something, but mostly I just want whatever I do validated.” Establishment Conservatism is the sect that promised for seven years to repeal Obamacare then…didn’t. But that was Trump’s fault, of course, because reasons and because you’re a fake conservative for asking and also shut up.

     So, this week’s True Con embarrassment arose because the Republicans were somehow going to score yet another smashing victory in a debt ceiling fight, as they always do, but darn that Trump! He got in the way of their cunning scheme. Or something.

     Talk about a quill pen dipped in acid! Mencken would have been less colloquial, but he never performed a more effective evisceration. Trust a military man to get that right.

2. The Communist Takeover Of New York.

     For some years, New York – both the city and the state – has elevated ever more extreme authoritarians to its high offices. The Cuomos have been the most conspicuous of the breed at the state level, but there’s no one to take the “Best In Show” ribbon from unabashed Communist and current New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio:

     On September 4th, communist New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, aka Warren Wilhelm, boasted of his alleged successes and even suggested he deserves a parade for it during an interview with Chris Smith for NY Mag. His most telling moment is when he showed his opposition to private property. If you doubt it, read this exchange below. He is literally a communist.

     He argues against private property on basis of “each according to his needs.”

     QUESTION: In 2013, you ran on reducing income inequality. Where has it been hardest to make progress? Wages, housing, schools?

     DE BLASIO’S RESPONSE: What’s been hardest is the way our legal system is structured to favor private property. I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be. I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community, that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs. And I would, too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way of that is hundreds of years of history that have elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that’s the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.

     I’ll give you an example. I was down one day on Varick Street, somewhere close to Canal, and there was a big sign out front of a new condo saying, “Units start at $2 million.” And that just drives people stark raving mad in this city, because that kind of development is clearly not for everyday people. It’s almost like it’s being flaunted. Look, if I had my druthers, the city government would determine every single plot of land, how development would proceed. And there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents. That’s a world I’d love to see, and I think what we have, in this city at least, are people who would love to have the New Deal back, on one level. They’d love to have a very, very powerful government, including a federal government, involved in directly addressing their day-to-day reality.

     Please read the whole article. Then ask yourself what sort of future awaits the Big Apple, called the Capital of the World by so many people, should De Blasio be granted a second term in office.

3. A Practically Poetic Prognosis.

     Fictioneer Sarah Hoyt is also a popular blogger – see for yourself -- and a columnist for PJ Media. Her fiction is a bit spotty, but her op-eds are seldom short of excellent. This piece on France’s bizarre security screening of air travelers is a fine example.

     I was particularly impressed with her climax:

     In the end, it comes down to this: as with the attempts to destroy the memory of 9/11, and erase our justified anger at it, our self-proclaimed elites would rather risk being blown to pieces than admit that there are threats to the West that come from people who originate from a different (and in their minds quaint and innocent) culture.

     The “elites” across the West persist in this, though the self-abasement of the west is sure to be interpreted as surrender by the Muslim world; even though in the confines of their culture, the only thing they’ll understand, the only thing that will prevent them from attacking, the only thing that will in fact NOT generate more terrorists is forceful counterattack and treating them as responsible for policing their own community.

     It’s as though their vision of the world and their oikophobia are more important to them than saving the civilization that has enabled them to exist.

     Until we wake from this fretful dream, until we come back through the looking glass, there is no stopping either terrorism or the elites' self-reflexive virtue-signaling.

     They are, like the aristocrats before the French revolution, living in a shell of affluence and unearned superiority, not heeding the lessons of history.

     This won’t end well. And everyone knows it but the policy makers.

     Diamond-hard and a dead-center bull’s-eye.

4. Why It Didn’t Last.

     The prerequisite for this segment is yesterday’s plaintive piece by David Harsanyi at The Federalist. He muses over what would follow a 9/11-like attack today:

     ...I can’t help but wonder whether it would go down the same way today. Would the deep cynicism so many now have about American history allow such uninhibited displays of patriotism to go on without disparagement? How long before think pieces began pointing out that Islamists aren’t nearly as dangerous or destructive as George Bush or the NRA? How long before pundits started pointing out that killing terrorists is “exactly what they want us to do?” How long before the president would be accused of Islamophobia? Or jingoism? How long before thousands would head to twitter to lay political blame for why it all happened on the other party?

     Of course, even sixteen years ago, the “moment of national unity” was hardly longer than a moment. Few persons have dared to delve into the reasons. Charles Krauthammer had some relevant thoughts in 2004:

     The hostility, resentment, envy and disdain, all superheated in Florida [i.e., by the narrow margin that made George W. Bush president], were not permitted their natural discharge. Came Sept. 11 and a lid was forced down. How can you seek revenge for a stolen election by a nitwit usurper when all of a sudden we are at war and the people, bless them, are rallying around the flag and hailing the commander in chief? With Bush riding high in the polls, with flags flying from pickup trucks (many of the flags, according to Howard Dean, Confederate), the president was untouchable.

     The Democrats fell unnaturally silent. For two long, agonizing years, they had to stifle and suppress. It was the most serious case of repression since Freud’s Anna O. went limp. The forced deference nearly killed them. And then, providentially, they were saved. The clouds parted and bad news rained down like manna: WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, [former ambassador Joseph] Wilson and, most important, continued fighting in Iraq.

     It would be easiest to summarize that as “partisanry trumping patriotism.” And it would not be entirely incorrect. But there’s a larger lesson, one that’s highly relevant to our current political tempest and its refusal to be teapotted:

     Partisanry and partisan bickering are acceptable, even constructive, when the parties sincerely hold the same ultimate agenda: i.e., the same values and priority scale for them. Under those conditions, the parties’ arguments are over methods for achieving shared goals: means rather than ends. But that hasn’t been the case for some decades. Today, the major parties are entirely cosmetic: veneers over a five-way conflict over ends that can only be resolved by combat a outrance:

  1. A great many of those who would identify with the Democrat Party are obsessed with “doing good.” They have no particular sense for consequences, and certainly none for the proper sphere of government or the Constitution’s constraints.
  2. Most of the rest of self-nominated Democrats are what Thomas Sowell has called “the anointed:” these believe themselves to be so superior to the rest of us both intellectually and morally that merely to differ with them causes one to be classified as stupid or evil – these days, more likely evil. Their moral exaltation licenses them to use any means whatsoever, however vicious or contemptible, to gain their ends.
  3. A very few persons who march under the Democrat banner are interested in power for themselves and nothing else. To these, platforms and priorities are merely tools with which to sway or seduce the electorate. Power is what matters, and they’ll gladly commit any infamy, from vote fraud to mass murder, to get and keep it.
  4. The great majority of Republican politicians are merely interested in maintaining the prestige and perquisites of high office while averting any responsibility for the actions of government. The very few Republicans who don’t belong in that group are effectively neutralized by the mass.
  5. The fifth group, in which we find a rough majority of the American people, would prefer to be left the hell alone, and to have a stable American economy and culture in which to live. These are the people who made Donald Trump the 45th president of these United States.

     The aims of those five groups, like Orwell’s High, Middle, and Low, are completely irreconcilable. Any perception of unity among them will be illusory; any peace will be ephemeral. A total, five-sided war is the only possible outcome.

     And you wondered why you can no longer talk to your neighbors or your kids.

     That’s all for the moment, Gentle Reader. It’s time to don my other hat: Chief Cook and Bottle Washer for a gaggle of visitors (and their dog) who’ll be with us until their home district in Florida is deemed “safe.” I’ll be back tomorrow.


Col. B. Bunny said...

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, the Kims were very, very good at directly addressing the day-to-day reality of their subjects. One man's day-to-day reality in a Pnom Penh hospital once was to have his surgery stopped by the Khmer Rouge. I mean, stopped right where it was. Stopped as in no further work.

This is such an obvious point that the failure to take it into account cannot be ascribed to ignorance. No, only an evil soul explains the desire to worship government power. All hail the savior state!

Col. B. Bunny said...

Phnom . . . .