The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew J. Bacevich Archive
The Decay of American Politics
An Ode to Ike and Adlai
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

My earliest recollection of national politics dates back exactly 60 years to the moment, in the summer of 1956, when I watched the political conventions in the company of that wondrous new addition to our family, television. My parents were supporting President Dwight D. Eisenhower for a second term and that was good enough for me. Even as a youngster, I sensed that Ike, the former supreme commander of allied forces in Europe in World War II, was someone of real stature. In a troubled time, he exuded authority and self-confidence. By comparison, Democratic candidate Adlai Stevenson came across as vaguely suspect. Next to the five-star incumbent, he seemed soft, even foppish, and therefore not up to the job. So at least it appeared to a nine-year-old living in Chicagoland.

Of the seamy underside of politics I knew nothing, of course. On the surface, all seemed reassuring. As if by divine mandate, two parties vied for power. The views they represented defined the allowable range of opinion. The outcome of any election expressed the collective will of the people and was to be accepted as such. That I was growing up in the best democracy the world had ever known — its very existence a daily rebuke to the enemies of freedom — was beyond question.

Naïve? Embarrassingly so. Yet how I wish that Election Day in November 2016 might present Americans with something even loosely approximating the alternatives available to them in November 1956. Oh, to choose once more between an Ike and an Adlai.

Don’t for a second think that this is about nostalgia. Today, Stevenson doesn’t qualify for anyone’s list of Great Americans. If remembered at all, it’s for his sterling performance as President John F. Kennedy’s U.N. ambassador during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Interrogating his Soviet counterpart with cameras rolling, Stevenson barked that he was prepared to wait “until hell freezes over” to get his questions answered about Soviet military activities in Cuba. When the chips were down, Adlai proved anything but soft. Yet in aspiring to the highest office in the land, he had come up well short. In 1952, he came nowhere close to winning and in 1956 he proved no more successful. Stevenson was to the Democratic Party what Thomas Dewey had been to the Republicans: a luckless two-time loser.

As for Eisenhower, although there is much in his presidency to admire, his errors of omission and commission were legion. During his two terms, from Guatemala to Iran, the CIA overthrew governments, plotted assassinations, and embraced unsavory right-wing dictators — in effect, planting a series of IEDs destined eventually to blow up in the face of Ike’s various successors. Meanwhile, binging on nuclear weapons, the Pentagon accumulated an arsenal far beyond what even Eisenhower as commander-in-chief considered prudent or necessary.

In addition, during his tenure in office, the military-industrial complex became a rapacious juggernaut, an entity unto itself as Ike himself belatedly acknowledged. By no means least of all, Eisenhower fecklessly committed the United States to an ill-fated project of nation-building in a country that just about no American had heard of at the time: South Vietnam. Ike did give the nation eight years of relative peace and prosperity, but at a high price — most of the bills coming due long after he left office.

The Pathology of American Politics

And yet, and yet…

To contrast the virtues and shortcomings of Stevenson and Eisenhower with those of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump is both instructive and profoundly depressing. Comparing the adversaries of 1956 with their 2016 counterparts reveals with startling clarity what the decades-long decay of American politics has wrought.

In 1956, each of the major political parties nominated a grown-up for the highest office in the land. In 2016, only one has.

In 1956, both parties nominated likeable individuals who conveyed a basic sense of trustworthiness. In 2016, neither party has done so.

In 1956, Americans could count on the election to render a definitive verdict, the vote count affirming the legitimacy of the system itself and allowing the business of governance to resume. In 2016, that is unlikely to be the case. Whether Trump or Clinton ultimately prevails, large numbers of Americans will view the result as further proof of “rigged” and irredeemably corrupt political arrangements. Rather than inducing some semblance of reconciliation, the outcome is likely to deepen divisions.

How in the name of all that is holy did we get into such a mess?

How did the party of Eisenhower, an architect of victory in World War II, choose as its nominee a narcissistic TV celebrity who, with each successive Tweet and verbal outburst, offers further evidence that he is totally unequipped for high office? Yes, the establishment media are ganging up on Trump, blatantly displaying the sort of bias normally kept at least nominally under wraps. Yet never have such expressions of journalistic hostility toward a particular candidate been more justified. Trump is a bozo of such monumental proportions as to tax the abilities of our most talented satirists. Were he alive today, Mark Twain at his most scathing would be hard-pressed to do justice to The Donald’s blowhard pomposity.

Similarly, how did the party of Adlai Stevenson, but also of Stevenson’s hero Franklin Roosevelt, select as its candidate someone so widely disliked and mistrusted even by many of her fellow Democrats? True, antipathy directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some of its energy from incorrigible sexists along with the “vast right wing conspiracy” whose members thoroughly loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.

Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She shrugs off her misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003, while serving as senator from New York. She neither explains nor apologizes for pressing to depose Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most notable “accomplishment” as secretary of state. “We came, we saw, he died,” she bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen into anarchy and become a haven for ISIS.

She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server for State Department business compromised no classified information. Now opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she once described as the “gold standard in trade agreements,” Clinton rejects charges of political opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the TPP was helping Bernie Sanders win one Democratic primary after another is merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from banks and Wall Street as well as the tech sector for minimal work and the bigger money still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her acceptance of such largesse won’t reduce by one iota her support for “working class families” or her commitment to a just peace settlement in the Middle East.

Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald Trump. Yet together they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to war and peace would be the height of folly. Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence.

When it comes to foreign policy, Trump’s preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose his staggering ignorance.

By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized “Washington playbook” that President Obama himself has disparaged — a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world may be changing and heedless of costs.

On the latter point, note that Clinton’s acceptance speech in Philadelphia included not a single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war there will have passed its 15th anniversary. One might think that a prospective commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest conflict in American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet, with the Washington playbook offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to remain silent on the subject.

So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving off a cliff, a Clinton presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging one’s head against a brick wall without evident effect, wondering all the while why it hurts so much.

Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era

But let’s not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances that neither created. As candidates, they are merely exploiting a situation — one relying on intuition and vast stores of brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent studying how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in securing the nominations of their parties is evidence of far more fundamental forces at work.

In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something pathological. Unless Americans identify the sources of this disease, it will inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm of national security. After all, back in Eisenhower’s day, the IEDs planted thanks to reckless presidential decisions tended to blow up only years — or even decades — later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered coup that restored the Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran overnight from ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed. In our own day, however, detonation occurs so much more quickly — witness the almost instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences of Washington’s post-9/11 military interventions in the Greater Middle East.

So here’s a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of intensive fundraising, the debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries, the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls have produced two presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number of rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?

Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing to the erosion of American politics, offered from the conviction that, for Americans to have better choices next time around, fundamental change must occur — and soon.

First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and verse? For a tutorial, see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard: Republic Lost, Version 2.0. Those with no time for books might spare 18 minutes for Lessig’s brilliant and deeply disturbing TED talk. Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States radically changes the way it finances political campaigns, we’re pretty much doomed to see our democracy wither and die.

Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing arrangements take a different view and collaborate to maintain the status quo. As a result, political life has increasingly become a pursuit reserved for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their purses, with all that implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the subsequent repayment of favors.

Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy: Observers make much of the fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major party, Hillary Clinton has shattered yet another glass ceiling. They are right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends with gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer than Clinton — even if his version of “fresh” tends to be synonymous with wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether hair-raising.

The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary Clinton is utterly conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of America’s role in the world) that originated during the Cold War, reached its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the planet’s “sole superpower,” and persists today remarkably unaffected by actual events. On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by routinely reaffirming her belief in American exceptionalism, paying fervent tribute to “the world’s greatest military,” swearing that she’ll be “listening to our generals and admirals,” and vowing to get tough on America’s adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of the contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived need for the first female candidate for president to emphasize her pugnacity.

A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same — muscle-flexing and armed intervention to demonstrate American global leadership — albeit marketed with a garnish of diversity. Instead of different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a different look, touting this as evidence of positive change.

Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with effectiveness. A national security team that “looks like America” (to use the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does not necessarily govern more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhower’s. What matters is getting the job done.

Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions in the upper echelons of the national security apparatus. Although we have not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three women have served as secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have filled Adlai Stevenson’s old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries of like gender abound, along with a passel of female admirals and generals.

So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy improved compared to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots? Using as criteria the promotion of stability and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable), the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might entertain a different view, actually existing conditions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the Greater Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.

The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely the fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive difference. It turns out that identity does not necessarily signify wisdom or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence in the State Department or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation — as Clinton will assuredly do — may well gratify previously disenfranchised groups. Little evidence exists to suggest that doing so will produce more enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least not so long as adherence to the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to employment. (Should Clinton win in November, don’t expect the redoubtable ladies of Code Pink to be tapped for jobs at the Pentagon and State Department.)

In the end, it’s not identity that matters but ideas and their implementation. To contemplate the ideas that might guide a President Trump along with those he will recruit to act on them — Ivanka as national security adviser? — is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet the prospect of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably diverse team of advisers who share her own outmoded views is hardly cause for celebration.

Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself amend the defects exhibited in recent years. For that, the obsolete principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington remains enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without a clue as to a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that; Hillary Clinton does not.

Third, the substitution of “reality” for reality: Back in 1962, a young historian by the name of Daniel Boorstin published The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. In an age in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton vie to determine the nation’s destiny, it should be mandatory reading. The Image remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing in the night.

According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a “thicket of unreality.” By relentlessly indulging in ever more “extravagant expectations,” they were forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin wrote, “We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality.”

While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the process.

“The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.”

This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent allure of Facebook, Google, fantasy football, “Real Housewives of_________,” selfies, smartphone apps, Game of Thrones, Pokémon GO — and, yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom, The Apprentice.

“The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America,” wrote Boorstin. It’s also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some sort of (un)reality show.

Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstin’s famous term, “pseudo-events” that stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans know better than to take at face value anything candidates say or promise along the way. We’re in on the joke — or at least we think we are. Reinforcing that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have abandoned mere reporting in favor of enhancing the spectacle of the moment. This is especially true of the cable news networks, where talking heads serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the office-seeker’s stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that we know it’s all staged and contrived, as long as — a preening Megyn Kelly getting under Trump’s skin, Trump himself denouncing “lyin’ Ted” Cruz, etc., etc. — it’s entertaining.

This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary knack — a sort of post-modern genius — for turning this phenomenon to his advantage. Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to explain a national convention organized around the idea of “reintroducing to the American people” someone who served eight years as First Lady, was elected to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the presidency, and completed a term as secretary of state? The just-ended conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded it, a pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a new “image” for the Democratic candidate.

The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It’s an identifiable set of arrangements — laws, habits, cultural predispositions — that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few Americans seem to mind.

At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we got Ike and Adlai. Today, with almost double the population, we get — well, we get what we’ve got. This does not represent progress. And don’t kid yourself that things really can’t get much worse. Unless Americans rouse themselves to act, count on it, they will.

Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is the author most recently of America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. fnn says:

    The last gasp of American decency was the anti-interventionist America First movement of 1940-41. You know, murricans who were adamant about *not* wanting an empire. Even the super-holy Civil Rights Movement was to a large extent about countering Soviet propaganda points and thereby preserving and extending the American Empire.

    Of course mass murder, chaos and general decivilizing ensued when the CRM was exported to Africa:

    https://adarkwindhowls.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/when-progs-attack-fall-of-the-portuguese-empire-edition/

    … in 1973 the Cathedral octopus struck hard against the Portuguese military efforts in Mozambique. Some soldiers, mostly black, in the Portuguese army on a routine search mission in a FRELIMO infiltrated village in Dec 1972 killed around 150-300 civilians in what appeared to be a classic case of war frustration retaliation to an ambush they’d suffered that had killed 6 of their own. The “Wiriyamu Massacre”(dwarfed by equivalent actions by FRELIMO throughout its existence) was divulged by a Cambridge (check) educated anti-colonial (check) Vatican II supporting (triple check) anti celibacy (and in fact later married) enthusiast priest Adrian Hastings. Hastings relayed the information to uber-prog Louis Heren, at The Times, and later would speak at the UN on it. The revelation, coming within a few years of My Lai, was timed perfectly one week before Caetano (Salazar’s succesor) visited England in commemoration of the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. It shocked the “respectable international community” and corroded Portuguese educated opinion on the war. Heren incidentally is a BINGO if I ever saw one of prog checklist: anti-Thatcher, supportive of commie spy Anthony Blunt, accompanied MLK on his ‘freedom’ rides, friends with LBJ, etc.

    The Cathedral’s propaganda victory in Mozambique would overwhelm the military victory accomplished by the Portuguese forces in the face of a ruthless terrorist campaign at the cost of 3.5k Portuguese soldiers, and was a large contributor to the Carnation Revolution that would lead to the destruction of the Empire. UK Labor leader and later PM Harold Wilson for instance called the Portuguese regime guilty of “genocide” and “with no parallel since Nazi times” (conveniently forgetting the largest massacre in history, the 30-40 mio casualties Mao had just committed in 1959-1961) due to the revelation of a couple hundred civilians killed. Kaulza’s one mistake was not realizing that the real war was not against FRELIMO but a much more powerful enemy, the international prog community.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/the-decay-of-american-politics/#comment-1517768
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Not a word about 2 of the 3 main problems facing America: the massive 3rd World immigration and the $10 trillion trade deficits caused by adherence to globalism. Very little on the relentless military interventions and their aim to make the Middle East safe for Israel.
    YOU REALLY ARE A USELESS CUCK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. This is pretty pathetic. Trump’s boorishness is set against Clinton’s appalling policy positions. I don’t see a single substantive criticism of Trump’s stated positions. Apparently Bacevich the anti-war guru cares more about Trump’s uncouthness than Clinton’s Syria no fly zone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Bacevich has permitted his intense personal dislike of the Donald TRUMP everything else, if you pardon the pun. In his articles on Trump, there is an almost complete absence of rational analysis. Indeed, Bacevich often fails to mention Trump's major policy positions at all.
    Given that Bacevich is a senior academic, these articles are an embarrassment and a disgrace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    “Trump is a bozo of such monumental proportions as to tax the abilities of our most talented satirists. Were he alive today, Mark Twain at his most scathing would be hard-pressed to do justice to The Donald’s blowhard pomposity.”

    “So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving off a cliff, a Clinton presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging one’s head against a brick wall without evident effect, wondering all the while why it hurts so much.”

    “When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer than Clinton — even if his version of ‘fresh’ tends to be synonymous with wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether hair-raising.”

    I disagree. Trump may be a bozo and a blowhard, but he’s not pompous. If anything, Eisenhower was sort of pompous, though in a gracious and stately way. And Jeb Bush was pompous Mr. Dynastic Candidate. “Illegal immigration is an act of love”. That is pompous. And Ted Cruz is pompous with this highfalutin talk of God and Constitution.

    The reason why Trump appeals to many Americans is the lack of pomposity. He has the bomp and the pomp but without the pompousness. He comes across as a straight-talker. He’s rich and privileged, and he enjoys luxury. He’s honest about it. He talks and acts like an American in the street. And I think this part of Trump is real. It’s not put-on uh-shucks George H.W. Bush claiming to like pork rinds or Bush II as ‘beer buddy’. Trump is no saint, and I wouldn’t trust him. He may be a phony, but like Holly Golightly, he is a real phony. He plays this brand called ‘Trump’ and really believes in it.

    Also, the paradox of Trump is only a ‘crazy person’ can be sane and sound in today’s politics. Why? Cuz of the power of globo-PC and so many rules on what can be said and cannot be said. To be ‘sane’ and ‘sound’ is to just go by the script.
    Now, in a sane world, following the script may be perfectly fine. But in an insane world, the script itself is nuts. So, to be ‘sane’ and ‘sound’ means to go along with the script without missing a beat.
    Under communism in the USSR, the party members and bureaucrats all spoke and acted ‘sanely’. They didn’t throw fits and didn’t talk like blowhards. They seemed proper and dignified. But they were all speaking from a nutty script of Leninism-Stalinism. Solzhenitsyn, in contrast, seemed like a madman, but he was right. Now, I’m not saying Trump is Solzy. Trump is a blowhard and a narcissist and a fool. But he has balls, and it takes a big pair to do the Randall McMurphy thing in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST. US is a funny farm of PC and globalism. And the GLOB has appointed Hillary to be Nurse Ratched. In the movie, most of the patients act proper and sane. They are respectful of authority. They don’t realize that the place that is supposed to cure them is keeping them even more insane through dependence and weakness. This is why so many conservatives responded well to Trump in the GOP debates. It was like watching that scene in CUCKOO’S NEST.

    [MORE]

    Propriety and Dignity are good under most circumstances, but there are times when someone has to howl like a wolf. With the likes of Jeb, Kasich, Fiorina, and etc reading from the same script of the Donor Class, someone had to howl and talk big to break through the PC fog. And Trump did that. Style mattered to break the ice.

    In a sane world, propriety and dignity is about mutual respect and preservation of just order. But in a insane world, they are tools of corrupt power like in the former Soviet Union where the bureaucrats acted properly but dared not speak the truth that communism was a horror show and a vast prison.

    In a crazy world, there has to some passion, some rage, some counter-craziness.
    Look at Obama as the perfect specimen of slimeball dignity. He’s a smooth operator. He has this presidential style. He acts sane and sound. White folks were happy to have a Nice Negro with manners and intelligent style than boors like Sharpton and Jackson. But Obama is a total phony, a weasel, a skunk. He’s a globalist tool of Wall Street, open borders, more wars. And he is surely the most pompous president ever. His talk of his ‘profound humility’ or his speeches where everything is about ‘me’, even at the funeral of Daniel Inoue of Hawaii. And his pompous-ass book Dreams of My Father. Pure weasel-talk.
    You can’t blame just Hillary for Libya and Syria and Ukraine. Obama totally went along with that stuff. Obama’s style may come across as clean and crisp, but he is just going along with the crazy globalist script. His policies messed up Middle East and set off massive ‘refugee’ problem. And then this jerk pressures EU to take in all these people. And the media just go along with this. And where the anti-war left? It is all but gone. It’s like the dignified and clean-seeming authorities in SANJURO are the real villains while ruffian-seeming hero is closer to the truth.

    Now, it’s true that Trump’s style is fresh and boorish. Sometimes, he can be overbearing and even stupid. He made overstatements about Mexicans that was unnecessary. But is it worse than Obama fanning racial flames that burned down entire cities like Ferguson and Baltimore and encouraging a Lie Machine like BLM movement? Didn’t such rhetoric get innocent cops killed? And hasn’t there been increased policing and more tensions between cops and blacks precisely because urban Progs have been trying to revive cities by getting touch on black crime?
    Also, if Trump’s side is so crazy, how come virtually all Trump supporters are well-behaved? How come all the violence is from the other side? They stormed a Trump rally in Chicago and aborted it. They physically assaulted Trump supporters. Where is the media on this? Media throw fits about ‘hate hoaxes’ from the Right but overlook ‘leftist’ violence as forgivable or even justified.

    At any rate, we must not mistake style with real substance of the Trump Campaign. The idea that Trump is some nutjob who is going to blow the world up as president is pure nonsense. Trump’s style may be brash, but his positions are remarkably sane.
    There is a massive immigration and illegal immigration problem in the US. Something must be done about it. Wall or no wall, we cannot let things go on as usual. Forcing Mexico to be responsible with the border is crazy? Only a crazy world would say that is crazy.
    Trump also calls for economic policies that produce jobs for the middle class and working class. Why is that crazy? While the upper class are doing so well, middle class and working class are not. Is it so crazy to end the outsourcing of US jobs overseas? Where is insanity in this?
    On the Muslim Issue, I think Trump went too far. But he still sounds more sane than Hillary. He is saying we need to stop foreign wars that set off these ‘refugees’ in the first place. Obama and Hillary, weasels that they are, pose as humanitarians with open arms to ‘refugees’, but they(along with media) overlook the fact that the ‘refugees’ are the product of conditions they created in the Middle East and North Africa by direct or indirect intervention. Why are Trump’s views crazy?

    Now, it may well be Trump is less well-versed and informed about the details of other nations and crises around the world, but he sees the Big Picture more sanely than others. Stop messing other nations and creating crises that set off tons of refugees and migrants. The fact that Obama and Hillary could destroy so much of the world and then pose as ‘saviors’ goes to show how sick our media really are. It’d be like Hitler invading Poland and then offering aid to Polish rerfugees to show how wonderful he is. It’d be like Stalin displacing entire populations and then offering them food and cloting to show that he is a real humanitarian.

    On the NATO and Russian issue, Trump is totally sane. NATO had a necessary purpose during the Cold War. But it has no use today. The idea of EU needing US protection is a joke. The idea of Russian invading the Baltic states, let alone Poland and Hungary and the rest, is complete fantasy, 1000x crazier than anything cooked up by Joe McCarthy. Russia didn’t even take Georgia when Suckassvillain attacked South Ossetia. It is about time Europeans took care of themselves. It is about time US got along with Russia.
    The only purpose of NATO since the end of the Cold War has been to fight Wars for Israel. It is just an imperialist organization. It not only keeps EU as a vassal of the US, but it makes EU go along with every cockamamie plot cooked up by Jewish globalists.

    So, how is Trump going to drive us ‘over the cliff’ by asking Europeans to build up their own militaries and by making peaceful overtures to Russia?

    On every major issue, Trump is calling for sanity and common sense. He is no foreign policy expert, but he knows well enough that the Washington Pros have been in the neo-imperialist globalist game that is doing harm to US and the world.

    Trump IS nutty about Iran, but he’s just playing to the Zionist crowd. In the US, you must find some way to appeal to Jewish Power(and now even holy homo power).

    To sum up, Trump had to play ‘crazy’ to break through the fog of PC and globo-elite consensus that are suffocating this country. It was this brashness that allowed him to say and get away with what the cuckservatives like Jeb and others were afraid to do.
    That said, Trump’s style is not his substance. His substance in terms of his policy proposals are common-sensical, realist, and even moral. A nation must defend its borders and have rule of law. We can’t just let illegals storm in and then reward them with amnesty, thereby encouraging more future invaders. I mean how did Reagan’s amnesty turn out? It only encouraged more for a second round.
    Also, the Cold War is long over. There is NO REASON for the US to be enemies of Russia. That is just Jewish supremacist vanity at work. And we need to stop messing up Middle East and Muslim nations. If anything, Trump is really the pro-Muslim candidate. He may not be crazy about Muslims coming over here, but at least he doesn’t want to blow them over there.
    He said some brash things about fighting ISIS, but it’s just red meat for the audience. Rambo talk. But the substance of his policy calls for minding our own business and making peace and making deals than invoking ‘human rights’ and other BS to mess up entire nations at the behest of Globalists.

    Also, Trump is right to denounce Wall Street, though being a NY’er, I doubt he will or could do much about the banks. Banks, being ‘too big too fail’, can sink the economy if any politician tries to get tough with them. Also, both banks and media are owned by Jews. So, if any president decided to get tough with Wall Street, WS will set off market tremors and cause panic. And then the Jewish-controlled media will serve Wall Street by blaming the president for causing the crisis. So, WS essentially holds a gun to the head of the president.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    I think I sort of know where Bacevich is coming from.

    He is an academic, and he works in an environment where proper manners and form matter a lot. Professors are expected to dress, talk, and act in a certain way.
    Whatever the ideology, studies, specialty, department, or function, there is the Professional and Professorial style. It is supposed to be objective, intellectual, cerebral, restrained, and cautious. Of course, there are differences. Some professors have pony tails. Some dress loudly. Some talk shit in class. But there is an predominant Academic Culture. It is pervasive and becomes a way of thinking, acting, feeling, and being.

    To an academe, Trump’s style is all wrong. Professors are not supposed to talk or even move like him. Serious students are not supposed to see him as model. And with PC dictating college values, no one is supposed to say the sort of things Trump has said. Serious academic types(professors and students) hate the party fraternities, and Trump acts like one-man Animal House. He rubs academes the wrong way like Rodney Dangerfield did in BACK TO SCHOOL.

    Academes are devoted to studying the world, and they become specialists in certain fields. But because they function in a social bubble, they don’t rub up against reality like Trump and the Dangerfield character do in the REAL WORLD. It’s the difference between a boxer who’s been in the ring and the locker room AND the scholar of sports who knows statistics and such but don’t know what it’s like to have a punch in the face and blood spurt out of the nose.

    In the academic world, proper form matters at all times. Professors must dress properly and talk properly. And there is rules of classroom conduct. This is all very good and necessary. But such a culture creates a false impression that the world should be like the school environment, where theory and reality are complementary.

    Paradoxically however, it is the very culture of proper form that had led to the takeover of certain colleges by the lunatic fringe of PC-triggered madness. We see how this happens in David Mamet’s OLEANNA. In the film, a Liberal College professor is into being very professional and academic. He is part of that culture, and he lives it, inhales it, exhales it. He probably thinks and acts academic even at home, like Dustin Hoffman’s character in STRAW DOGS.
    So, when a crazed feminist wench in OLEANNA makes a crazy accusation against the professor, he doesn’t know what to do. He’s so committed to maintaining the proper form that he hasn’t the guts to get angry and call her a vile, disgusting, stupid, ludicrous, lying, hag bitch. Why, such an emotional response would mean loss of form and dignity. It would seem barbaric in the eyes of academic culture, just like Barry Lyndon’s loss of temper in front of the aristocratic folks.

    [MORE]

    Professorial dignity is closely tied to proper form. So, even when up against great pressure, one’s respect depends on maintaining that form. Lose it, and you’re seen as a boor. So, rather than risking one’s loss of form and respect, many academics just have let the crazies run rampant on the campus. (This is why British society is so defenseless against PC lunacy. When one see nuttiness, one must show anger and take rough action. But such boorish behavior is beneath the dignity of the preening British elites. So, they just choose to make gentle assurances and accommodate the craziness by offering it a place in the power structure. That way, the British elites get to be ‘good whites’ and the radicals direct their ire at the ‘bad whites’ who aren’t so accommodating and offering of bribes. Social Justice Cult is just an extortion racket. The rich can keep their style of ‘dignity’ by buying off the radicals to attack something else. In the UK, the ‘bad whites’ are the ‘working class racists’ who voted for Brexit.)
    Indeed, when the professor finally loses it in OLEANNA and strikes the no-good bitch,
    he knows he’s lost everything, just like Barry Lyndon. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If you must live by the culture of form, you can’t fight back against lunatics who insult and impugn you. You must take the smears and taunts. But if you do lose it and fight back, it will only confirm the taunts and smears that you’re an oppressive brute and barbarian. (It’s like radicals often provoked cops into violent reaction and then cried foul.)

    The elite worlds of academia, military, and government all rely on the culture of form, propriety, and dignity. Necessarily so. But such emphasis on form has a constricting effect on the thoughts and emotions of people in it.
    This is why academic types usually don’t make great artists. To be an artist, you have to be free, wild, imaginative, and passionate. To be an intellectual, one’s emotions have to be checked and controlled, and the mind has to be focused on critical assessment. If Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando, Sam Peckinpah, and Elia Kazan had taken an academic course in life, they never would have been artists. On the other hand, intellectuals, scholars, and critics must be more cerebral and objective than passionate and subjective.

    Bacevich worked in military, government, and academia. He went from a culture of form to culture of form to culture of form. He is about control, order, system, form, and dryness. His culture is different from the culture that made Trump, the wheeler-dealer who had to be shifty, ‘artful’, bluffy, clever, crafty, bullying, and etc.
    Trump is a player in the very game of money and power. Also, Trump had to be more savvy to rise up in his field. If one works in military, government, and academia, there are clearer rules as to what you must do to rise up the ranks. In business, so much depends on the ‘art of the deal’, charisma, handshakes, and instinct.

    Trump’s world is about the play. You have to play to win.

    Bacevich’s is about the program. You follow the program to rise up.

    It’s the difference between Belfort and the Fed in Wolf of Wall Street.

    Now, I’m not saying Trump is a douche like Belfort(though he could be, what with the Trump Chump University scandal) but merely making a point about the difference of personalities in different endeavors.

    Anyway, people like Bacevich feel somewhat superior to the rest of us. They feel superior to us unschooled dummies because we don’t have Ph.D’s and other credentials. We don’t read books and don’t have access to special information in departments and archives. Also, people like Bacevich are wealthier than we are.

    But people like Bacevich also feel superior to rich folks like Trump. They see people like Trump as having hustled and swindled their way to great wealth. Or even if super-rich folks didn’t cheat to rake in the dough, all they ever cared about is money, money, money. It’s like Bill Gates never got much respect as anyone other than a businessman. Even Steve Jobs said Gates got no culture, no taste. He only knows geekery and money and business.

    People like Bacevich see themselves as Human Ideals. They are wealthy(or wealthy enough) and deserving of privilege. But they are not all about money. They are about knowledge and truth. They devoted their lives to studying the world and coming up with useful theories. They play the role of scholars and critics of power. And they have mastered a proper form of manners and behavior that epitomize dignity, seriousness, maturity, and integrity.
    From their angle, there is nothing lower than someone like roguish Trump. Even if Trump agreed with them 100%, his talk-radio-like populist style would rub them the wrong way. It’d be like Rush Limbaugh coming on NPR. The only kind of conservative that such folks can maybe tolerate is Bill Buckley or some tweedy type with proper manners. Trump is too much like the Wild One in the Brando movie. Or maybe like the Lee Marvin character. It’s like how Jimmy Stewart reacts to the tough guys in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. It’s like how Gregory Peck the Eastern elitist reacts to the boors of Texas in THE BIG COUNTRY. Reagan was more bearable because he was more like John Wayne than Lee Marvin.

    But, with all due respect, let us knock people like Bacevich down a few pegs.

    For one thing, despite the culture of form, dignity, and propriety — and all those POMPOUS ceremonies with tassels, real and honorary degrees, highfalutin titles in Latin, graduation speeches, and etc — , much of the academia is corrupt, crazy, repressive, dishonest, radical, careerist, opportunistic, privileged, lazy, demented, partisan, nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, tribal, fiendish, scummy, and no good.
    Bacevich says Trump is pompous. No, he’s boorish. Pompous would be something like all those graduation speeches where honorary guests make bloated statements about hope and etc. Pompous would be the 2008 election that presented Obama as The One, the messiah, the black jesus, ‘like god’(as one reporter said), the second coming of MLK and Camelot, and etc. Pompous would be all those ‘esteemed’ professors talking like they are philosopher kings. Pompous would be all those armchair revolutionaries with millions of dollars in their bank accounts but yammering about Marx and Social Justice. Consider Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.

    So many academics are actually cowards who don’t want to face the real world. So, they hide in the bubble, in the ivory tower. But they tell themselves that they are committed to studying the real world and critiquing what is wrong with it. But most professors have no idea of human nature since they have no contact with real people. They live with theories of reality. Many of them have no sense of reality beyond what they got from PC from cradle. Many are children of privilege pretending to be fighting privilege. But of course, they need privilege to study and oppose privilege. Just look at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. They are filled with kids of privilege and elitism, but they pose as ‘progressives’ and talk of equality and social justice.

    Bacevich assumes that since Trump’s style is wild, his substance must be crazy. But in fact, the substance of Trump’s proposals are some of the most sane we’ve heard in many yrs. Indeed, they may sound crazy precisely because they sound TOO SANE. Fix our borders. No more crazy wars. Favor national interests of American people than globalist interests of elites. Stop with the new cold war business.

    In contrast, so many academics have the form of integrity and dignity. They seem and sound so smart, balanced, thoughtful, critical, skeptical, and retrospective.
    But, we must judge people by what they do, not what they say.

    Weren’t the financial instruments that nearly brought down US finance in 2008 the creation of Ivy League-trained academics, economists, and investors?
    Aren’t the people in the US intelligence, US military, and US state department mostly the graduates of top elite universities? Yet, the so-called Best and Brightest gave us stuff like Iraq War, War on Terror that actually aids terrorists, the disaster in Libya and Syria?
    Bacevich speaks of Trump’s bad manners. Well, Colin Powell was one of the best-mannered men in government. Yet, he sat before the UN council and lied through his teeth that Hussein had nuclear weapons program using aluminum beer cans. John Yoo, the well-mannered professor from Berkeley argued that US could torture prisoners. The Best and Brightest planned for Iraq War that led to Abu Grahib, endless escalation, the looting of Iraq museum, civil war that no one anticipated(or maybe they did and wanted it), and etc.

    And who were the advisers to the privatization in Russia in the 90s? It wasn’t Trump and such boors. No, it was the philosopher kings, the professors of the best schools. Larry Summers. Jeffrey Sachs. It was the Harvard Team. (To Sach’s credit, he must be feeling some remorse since he is opposed to Hillary’s nutty call for New Cold War against Russia.) And what happened to Russia as a result? Didn’t Larry Summers also push deregulation of Wall Street? And Yale-educated Clinton signed on it.

    People say Obama is so smart and knowledgeable. But what has he accomplished in office? He didn’t know jack shit about Wall Street and just gave the banks everything they asked for. He got Obamacare only by lying to the public, and we don’t know how it will turn out. Almost surely badly. His foreign policy has been a total mess. Middle East and North Africa got worse than during Bush yrs when only Afghanistan and Iraq were burning. Now it also Libya, Yemen, Syria. And it may well spread to Turkey. And then, there is the massive ‘refugee’ crisis and terror attacks spreading all over.
    Crime is up due to Ferguson effect. Whatever economic recovery has been largely due to printing money and borrowing, with debt now at over 20 trillion. Illegal immigration is totally out of control, worse than in Bush yrs. Obama’s SC appointees are PC commissars, not defenders of any Rule of Law based on Constitution. A ‘wise Latina’ and some Jewish lesbian who, in her stint at Harvard, filled the Law school with her tribesmen while bitching about ‘white privilege’.

    Obama certainly perfected the academic style, and he became the darling of white/Jewish Libs who want to appear pro-black but had problems finding Negroes of real caliber. But as smart as Obama is, what has he done academically or professionally prior to becoming a politician? Zilch. He got by on style. He didn’t even become a professor at University of Chicago. He just hung around and made connections with the right kind of people who found him useful as ‘our Negro’. Jews went so far as to call him the ‘first Jewish president’. So, even though Obama did absolutely nothing as instructor and politician, he got to be president because he had the right kind of ‘style’ and knew the right kind of people.

    So, before Bacevich gets all high and mighty about the academic world and its nice manners of civility and dignity, he should ask himself how so much of the academic style and prestige have been used for some of the most insane, irresponsible, reckless, stupid, vile, hideous, nasty, ugly, sick, and demented policies one can think of.
    This is true of finance. Wall Street is run by Ivy League graduates. And there is a open door policy between Wall Street and Ivy League business schools. Those who work on Wall Street later become academics. Academics find plush positions in Wall Street.

    And look at foreign policy. You’d think academics would be honest and tough critics of power and politics. But we’ve seen so many academics whore themselves out to Republican and Democrat warmongers. There were plenty of academics advising the Bush administration in the reckless Iraq War. And there were plenty of highfalutin academics supporting and making excuses for Obama-Hillary’s war in Libya and subversion in Syria and Ukraine. Victoria Nuland is related to a Yale academic.
    So much for honest critics of power. They act so professorial and dignified, but so many are partisan hacks or tribal opportunists(mostly of the Zionist kind). Jewish money and media pressure are so pervasive that Norman Finkelstein was robbed of a job at Depaul(and other universities) because the odious Alan Dershowitz made phone calls. And Steven Salaita couldn’t get a gig at U of I because of impassioned remarks during the Gaza massacre.

    And do law schools really teach the law? Just how does law school produce idiots like Sonia Sotomayor the ‘wise Latina’? Just how does the academia justify something so bogus as ‘hate speech’ laws? I mean who decides what is hate and not hate? The powers that be, right? And how can any serious person say stuff like “I believe in free speech but not hate speech”? And how is it that the best law schools produce people who reinterpret and redefine marriage as between a man and man and between woman and woman? How is that the leading academic theories of justice advised NY to fine businesses for $250,000 if they confuse a ‘he’ with ‘she’? What are they teaching at Harvard Law School when they say a guy with a woman’s wig should use a woman’s washroom? What is this, farce?

    And if academic life is about truth, dignity, and sanity, how is it that some of the craziest ideas in recent yrs came out of the academia? And if the academia has such high standards, how did it allow so many moronic or crazy lunatics to become tenured professors? How did colleges come up with stuff like ‘trigger warnings’ and ‘micro-aggressions’ and other hysteria? And how do universities react to stuff like false KKK sighting at Oberlin? They treat them as if they’re real. And when the Milo the homo poofter was interrupted and threatened at Depaul, where was the principle of freedom of speech? If anything, the Depaul administration sided with the thugs. How did Emma Sulkowicz get away with such rot. Even after she was exposed as a nut and fraud, NOW gave her the courage award. But this is a nation where Bruce Jenner won both the courage award and woman of the year award. And we live in a world where Obama got the Nobel prize for nothing. Well, how much peace did Obama spread around the world since then?

    And look at the media. A massive lie machine. Now, so many journos are products of top journalism schools. So, how come so many are more committed to PC, the Narrative, and BS than to the truth? How come black thugs are called ‘teens’ and ‘youths’? Why did NBC’s Diane Sawyer say bombed out Gaza is Israel. How come Helen Thomas lost her job for saying European Zionists should return to Europe? How come NYT and rest of media cheer-lead the Iraq War? Why have they let Obama get away with so much spying, lack of transparency, and war-mongering? Why did they go easy on Wall Street that fleeced us blind in 2009 with bailouts? How did the whole media fall for the UVA rape hoax? If not for a handful of bloggers who exposed the fraud, the whole world would still be believing the story and the crazy bitch who wrote it probably would have won the Pulitzer.

    And as I’ve said before, the academia has been either too cowardly or too complicit in the rise of PC craziness and hysteria in the campuses. The cowards didn’t speak out against the rise of PC lunacy and witch-hunt mentality. The complicit were the very professors — mostly in sociology, humanities, political science, and law — who filled the minds of millennial morons with paranoid lunacy about Evil White Males, Patriarchy, KKK, ‘homophobia’, and etc. If academic environment is so sane and rational, how come some of the most vile, aggressive, hateful, and bilious movements have emerged from the universities?

    And what has come of college debates? Now, winners are usually shucking and jiving black wanna-be rappers. This is what US colleges allow, and the likes of Andrew Bacevich never lodged a complaint. Yet, he is bitching about Trump’s ill manners and craziness?

    When Bacevich saw PC lunacy on his campus, did he ever speak out? Or did he just keep his head low and walk away because he didn’t want to lose his proper form as a dignified academic? If we want craziness, we don’t need Trump. We only need to look at colleges newspaper to see what the latest hysteria, craze, fad, or nutjobbery is.
    But, the crazy stuff in colleges is cloaked with the conceit of intellectualism, rationalism, critical theory, or some such. So, it gets a pass while Trump is said to be crazy, extreme, and nutty because he said… let’s fix our borders(how mad!!!), end the stupid new cold war with Russia(how loony!!!), let’s stop messing up Muslim nations(how ludicrous!!!), let’s be careful about which Muslims we allow into America(how frightening!!!), let’s think about the American worker and not just the globalist urban class(how supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!!).

    What is truly crazy about America is that a NY real estate hustler and blowhard makes more common sense, moral sense, and good sense than all the experts of media, academia, military, and government combined. But in a world where the law of the land says 2 + 2 = 5, someone who insists it is 2 + 2 = 4 must be mad.

    Trump is not the emperor who has no clothes. He is one who notices that the Empire has no clothes. Also, unlike the ridiculous expectations of Pompous Hope and Change of Obama that couldn’t be fulfilled(not least because they lacked specificity), what Trump is calling for can be achieved.
    They are realistic about the real world. We can fix our borders if we really want to. We can lower immigration to give US workers time to breathe and catch up. We can end the stupid new cold war with Russia. It’s easy cuz Russia doesn’t want it. We can let EU carry a bigger burden with NATO. We need to stop seeing EU as a vassal state of US. We can stop the wars in the Muslim world and let Muslims and Arabs pick up their own pieces. It was US intervention and its collusion with allies that led to hell in Libya and Syria. Dealing with the big banks is a much tougher call.
    Despite Trumps overstatements and boorish style, what he is calling for is doable, sensible, and right.
    But then, we have too many people feeding on crisis caused by globalist interventions. They don’t want a fix to the problems. They thrive on problems. And that is why they see Trump as a threat.

    The remarkable thing about Trump is his style is sometimes over-the-top and ‘crazy’, but he is, at the core, totally sane. He’s not like the man in NETWORK who really loses it and screams ‘I’m mad as hell’.
    The way of Trump is to be ‘Sane as Hell’. In a world gone nuts as the new normal, he is wildly… sane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @workforlivn
    Yup
    , @silly billy
    Absolutely brilliant. Maybe the best political piece I have ever read. This guy should be a columnist, not just a commenter.

    Anybody like Bacevich, who has virtually unlimited access to the mainstream media should be treated very warily. Heck, even a very politically correct, crypto Zionist like Amy Goodman of the program Democracy Now considers him a reliable source.

    , @Anon
    Form and Composure are good, but so much of academia is about Composeur.

    It has the form and style of civility but nakedly pursues power and advantage through lies, politicking, and all sorts of dirty maneuvering. And if you don't play the by the Rules of the Game(not unlike in Renoir's film), you're out.

    Trump won't play by the Rules of the Game.

    Alinsky understood this. He knew that wild radical style was wrong in the halls of power. He taught leftists to become expert 'composeurs'. In time, many of these 'long m archers' came to prefer power and privilege over their original agenda of revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Simon in London
    This is pretty pathetic. Trump's boorishness is set against Clinton's appalling policy positions. I don't see a single substantive criticism of Trump's stated positions. Apparently Bacevich the anti-war guru cares more about Trump's uncouthness than Clinton's Syria no fly zone.

    Bacevich has permitted his intense personal dislike of the Donald TRUMP everything else, if you pardon the pun. In his articles on Trump, there is an almost complete absence of rational analysis. Indeed, Bacevich often fails to mention Trump’s major policy positions at all.
    Given that Bacevich is a senior academic, these articles are an embarrassment and a disgrace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Simon in London
    I agree. Should be titled "The decay of Andrew Bacevich". He was happy when he could attack crazy neocon Invade the World Republicans; when there's an anti-neocon, non-invade-the-world Republican his brain gets a does-not-compute message.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Verymuchalive
    Bacevich has permitted his intense personal dislike of the Donald TRUMP everything else, if you pardon the pun. In his articles on Trump, there is an almost complete absence of rational analysis. Indeed, Bacevich often fails to mention Trump's major policy positions at all.
    Given that Bacevich is a senior academic, these articles are an embarrassment and a disgrace.

    I agree. Should be titled “The decay of Andrew Bacevich”. He was happy when he could attack crazy neocon Invade the World Republicans; when there’s an anti-neocon, non-invade-the-world Republican his brain gets a does-not-compute message.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. We know how the author feels about Trump, so I am curious how he can quote the “We came, we saw, he died” cackle and still reach the conclusion that there is at least one adult in this race.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    He is talking about style.

    But style isn't substance.

    But I must say.. even Hillary's style isn't adult.

    She's been a nasty entitled brat-bitch all her life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @The Alarmist
    We know how the author feels about Trump, so I am curious how he can quote the “We came, we saw, he died" cackle and still reach the conclusion that there is at least one adult in this race.

    He is talking about style.

    But style isn’t substance.

    But I must say.. even Hillary’s style isn’t adult.

    She’s been a nasty entitled brat-bitch all her life.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. woodNfish says:

    Yet while diversity may be a good thing…

    It isn’t and we have more than enough proof of that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Good one.

    It's a grovelin concession one runs across all the time. E.g., "While Black Lives Matter has a few valid points . . . ."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. woodNfish says:

    You can’t argue against Trump based on his platform can you Bacevich? You just use the same tired and worn out BS the rest of the LLSM uses. It doesn’t work dumbass! We know you have no argument. You’re an empty suit. Fuck off and die.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Bacevich doesn't seem to know the meaning of 'pompous'.

    I think he has it confused with bombastic and self-promoting. Trump is certainly that. He has a salesman's instincts, and he knows how to throw a pitch. But the salesman style generally isn't pompous. It can be boastful and swaggering, and Trump can be that too.

    Pompous would be Obama, writing books with titles like 'Dreams from My Father' and ..... ROTFL 'Audacity of Hope'. LOL. It must be more awesome than the mere City of Hope.
    Awe-Day-City of Hope. Shoo!
    Obama's father was some drunken lout who stuck his dong into anything that moved. I don't what kind of 'dream' Obama got from him. The lout didn't even raise his own son and left his other sons to be raised fatherless too. Typical black male behavior.
    But didn't King tell us that he had a Dream? Obama is so pompous that he calls Illegal Aliens the 'dreamers'. And even PC can be awful pompous. Consider terms like this: "Justice-Involved Individuals"
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/27/doj-coins-new-term-for-convicted-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/

    It's like gentrification of PC. 'Body positivity movement' for fatkins. 'Vertically challenged' for munchkins.

    But then, we live in a nation where discrimination in favor of rich blacks over poor whites is called 'Affirmative Action'. Shoo.

    Just think. What in the hell is 'audacity of hope'? Why would it take any audacity to hope? If I hope I have a million dollars, is that audacious? Did Obama get to where he did by hoping? Or did he scheme and make cold-blooded decisions with the backing of people with billions and control of media?

    Trump is rich and shows off his wealth. But his nouveau-riche style lacks pomposity. It's a honest way of saying, "I got it and I like it." The really pompous ones are people like George Clooney and Bill Clinton who have it all but pretend like they are global saviors of poor and helpless and make pleas for the 'refugees' whom they themselves don't have to deal with.

    Trump's rich style is more transparent. He makes no bones about it.
    Pompous would be like Chelsea Clinton who married the son of some billionaire. She yammers about how she doesn't care about money. Yeah, cuz she doesn't have to think about it cuz she's surrounded by it. Her hubby lost 100s of millions of dollars for an investment firm, but he is well-connected and taken for.
    It's like in THE AVIATOR. Those with money can pretend they don't care about money. Pompous would be Mitt Romney, a real shark who claims to oppose Trump out of some higher principle. Mr. Bane cares about higher principles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-ljup5Bow

    Also, there is a sense of fun and irony around the Trump campaign. All that stuff about 'god emperor trump' is supposed to be campy. It is meant as circus. It is a kind of shtick.
    They are not like the gushing fools who fainted at Obama's rallies in 2008 as if they were face to face with messiah as some smooth jazz operator.
    Trump is just being flattered as big boss, chieftain of the hour.
    Obama was hailed and revered as if descended from heaven or born miraculously.

    And whenever there was some crisis in or outside the nation, Obama could be counted on to deliver the most pompous utterances that may sound lofty but mean absolutely nothing in their highfalutin bathos. Indeed, no presidency has been as bathetic as Obama's. Obama has been to politics what Oprah was to TV.

    Also, the Obama camp is so deep into kitsch that they have lost all sense of irony about themselves. They don't even know how ludicrously pompous their 'vision' is.
    I mean the association of homosexuality with the rainbow. The lighting up of the white house with homo rainbow colors. Bruce Jenner in wig and woman's panties as a figure of courage.
    And who can forget this precious picture?

    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1077461.1336950482!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/gay14n-1-web.jpg

    So, the very people who call themselves secular and rational promote obama the slimy snake as some messiah(the one) who is blessed with homo holiness from.... god?

    Does Bacevich see nothing pompous in all this?

    Trump is more like the Big Bad Wolf who is going huff puff and blow the PC house down.

    He is a blowhard, but I prefer it to PC blowtard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @woodNfish
    You can't argue against Trump based on his platform can you Bacevich? You just use the same tired and worn out BS the rest of the LLSM uses. It doesn't work dumbass! We know you have no argument. You're an empty suit. Fuck off and die.

    Bacevich doesn’t seem to know the meaning of ‘pompous’.

    I think he has it confused with bombastic and self-promoting. Trump is certainly that. He has a salesman’s instincts, and he knows how to throw a pitch. But the salesman style generally isn’t pompous. It can be boastful and swaggering, and Trump can be that too.

    Pompous would be Obama, writing books with titles like ‘Dreams from My Father’ and ….. ROTFL ‘Audacity of Hope’. LOL. It must be more awesome than the mere City of Hope.
    Awe-Day-City of Hope. Shoo!
    Obama’s father was some drunken lout who stuck his dong into anything that moved. I don’t what kind of ‘dream’ Obama got from him. The lout didn’t even raise his own son and left his other sons to be raised fatherless too. Typical black male behavior.
    But didn’t King tell us that he had a Dream? Obama is so pompous that he calls Illegal Aliens the ‘dreamers’. And even PC can be awful pompous. Consider terms like this: “Justice-Involved Individuals”

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/27/doj-coins-new-term-for-convicted-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/

    It’s like gentrification of PC. ‘Body positivity movement’ for fatkins. ‘Vertically challenged’ for munchkins.

    But then, we live in a nation where discrimination in favor of rich blacks over poor whites is called ‘Affirmative Action’. Shoo.

    Just think. What in the hell is ‘audacity of hope’? Why would it take any audacity to hope? If I hope I have a million dollars, is that audacious? Did Obama get to where he did by hoping? Or did he scheme and make cold-blooded decisions with the backing of people with billions and control of media?

    Trump is rich and shows off his wealth. But his nouveau-riche style lacks pomposity. It’s a honest way of saying, “I got it and I like it.” The really pompous ones are people like George Clooney and Bill Clinton who have it all but pretend like they are global saviors of poor and helpless and make pleas for the ‘refugees’ whom they themselves don’t have to deal with.

    Trump’s rich style is more transparent. He makes no bones about it.
    Pompous would be like Chelsea Clinton who married the son of some billionaire. She yammers about how she doesn’t care about money. Yeah, cuz she doesn’t have to think about it cuz she’s surrounded by it. Her hubby lost 100s of millions of dollars for an investment firm, but he is well-connected and taken for.
    It’s like in THE AVIATOR. Those with money can pretend they don’t care about money. Pompous would be Mitt Romney, a real shark who claims to oppose Trump out of some higher principle. Mr. Bane cares about higher principles.

    Also, there is a sense of fun and irony around the Trump campaign. All that stuff about ‘god emperor trump’ is supposed to be campy. It is meant as circus. It is a kind of shtick.
    They are not like the gushing fools who fainted at Obama’s rallies in 2008 as if they were face to face with messiah as some smooth jazz operator.
    Trump is just being flattered as big boss, chieftain of the hour.
    Obama was hailed and revered as if descended from heaven or born miraculously.

    And whenever there was some crisis in or outside the nation, Obama could be counted on to deliver the most pompous utterances that may sound lofty but mean absolutely nothing in their highfalutin bathos. Indeed, no presidency has been as bathetic as Obama’s. Obama has been to politics what Oprah was to TV.

    Also, the Obama camp is so deep into kitsch that they have lost all sense of irony about themselves. They don’t even know how ludicrously pompous their ‘vision’ is.
    I mean the association of homosexuality with the rainbow. The lighting up of the white house with homo rainbow colors. Bruce Jenner in wig and woman’s panties as a figure of courage.
    And who can forget this precious picture?

    So, the very people who call themselves secular and rational promote obama the slimy snake as some messiah(the one) who is blessed with homo holiness from…. god?

    Does Bacevich see nothing pompous in all this?

    Trump is more like the Big Bad Wolf who is going huff puff and blow the PC house down.

    He is a blowhard, but I prefer it to PC blowtard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Excellent piece of journalism, Mr A. Mr Unz should be paying you for it.
    Unlike Bacevich, who should have had his fee withheld.
    , @Richard Steele
    I second the notion--Mr. Anonymny should have a column here. If there was a gold standard for comments that perfectly described the disconnect between the regular people and the academicians (like Dr. Bacevich, et al.), then this is definitely it
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. epebble says:

    Philosophically speaking, “The Decay of American Politics” is not really a problem of persons running for office but due to laws of nature; Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    We had 45 years of carefully balanced Statecraft due to Cold War; That kept the stakes high and forced us to select great leaders. Once that was over, we Regressed to mean leadership. We got Clinton, W Bush, Obama and now Clinton/Trump.

    Worse things happened to USSR – they disintegrated and have now Regressed to the mean of Putin.

    Anyway, 240 years is long in the usual life of empires. This 21st Century is ours to dissipate.

    So what you see as “The Decay of American Politics” is just a Tip of the Iceberg. The Real problem is “The Decay of American Nation”. And no force of man can stop it because it is foretold by the laws of nature – Everything happens in Cycles.

    Greeks, Romans, Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans, British, Soviets all bit the dust. It is simply our turn now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cletus Rothschild
    "Worse things happened to USSR – they disintegrated and have now Regressed to the mean of Putin."

    Going from the Soviet leaders to Russia's Putin is anything but a regression in my book.
    , @Ace
    We chose to grovel before and raise up the lowest class who now provide the crucial swing vote always and forever for the Dems. Dems slobber over them in return and no better example of that is Hillary.

    Whites must generate unnatural support to overcome the Dem pandering. Ambitious Republicans trim their sails to try to break off some sliver of black support or keep from inflaming black/leftist rabble rousers.

    Politics constantly gets pulled left and down. Blacks have distorted our politics from the git. Integration and assimilation are pipe dreams.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. I’ve never watched a video (don’t have a teevee) or heard a speech by either candidate, haven’t lived in the US for nearly twenty years, but I’m old enough (70) to remember the Clintons and the memories aren’t good. That notwithstanding, what interests me are what I understand to be the policy issues that go beyond the person occupying what I perceive as a now near-ceremonial public relations position. The policies that Mr. T claims (based entirely on what I read) to support make him the only reasonable choice for me; however I’ve learned to my chagrin that reason is in short supply in electoral politics and societies in general, thanks in no small measure to the nefarious Gramscian subversion found in education and the nearly-monopolized MSM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    You have a computer; you can watch videos.

    Had to look up your Gramsci reference. From Wikipedia:

    Gramsci gave much thought to the role of intellectuals in society. He saw modern intellectuals not as talkers, but as practically-minded directors and organisers who produced hegemony through ideological apparatuses such as education and the media.
     
    Exactly as you stated. I doubt Gramsci was the only commie who thought schools were an excellent place for brainwashing. Infiltration seems to be their SOP. This is why our society is rotting from the inside out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. “To contrast the virtues and shortcomings of Stevenson and Eisenhower with those of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald Trump is both instructive and profoundly depressing.”

    ouch

    “Trump is a bozo of such monumental proportions as to tax the abilities of our most talented satirists.”

    ouch

    “Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined with a nearly complete absence of accountability.”

    As does Obama… although in his case I would also add vanity.

    “Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald Trump.”

    Sadly, bingo.

    “When it comes to foreign policy, Trump’s preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose his staggering ignorance.”

    ouch

    “But let’s not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances that neither created.”

    Sadly, bingo.

    “In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something pathological.”

    Belligerent victimhood. Trump’s acolytes are SJWs that got rejected by SJWs. Will they ever get it.

    “A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same…”

    Drone-muscled politics and pretend hugs.

    “So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy improved compared to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots?”

    Men have never exclusively called the shots on anything. It’s not the way humanity works.

    “The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely the fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive difference.”

    Sadly, true. This is the only feminist premise that ever mattered, namely, that women are superior to men. The brutal, unequivocal fact is that they have proven to be no better.

    Of course, individualists (among others) knew this all along through normal everyday experience.

    “The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping.”

    The lot our government puts on our shoulders is too heavy a burden. Folks are doubled over by neurosis. Just look at these comment threads. Many are unhinged, some are completely gone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Many good comments already.

    Once again, Mr. Bacevich comes across as — excuse the expression– a useful idiot, still smitten with Mr. Obama, for whom he apparently voted twice. And there seems little doubt that he’ll be doing so for Mrs. Clinton, too, just like the sheeple rounded up by Mr. Sanders. Many of us know the type: nice, articulate folks who refuse to see that they’re watching another act of the same old puppet show.

    The article really sticks out on a website like UR, doesn’t it? Various flavors of the same overlong, hand-wringing, elitist rationalization of Voting Blue drips daily from the NYT, WaPo, et al. And only the remarkable diversion of Mr. Trump has this time altered the corollary crap that leads “conservative” voters to support the likes of Romney.

    Rot, indeed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    If you're part of the academic community, you better not vote for someone like Trump.

    You will be shunned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @epebble
    Philosophically speaking, "The Decay of American Politics" is not really a problem of persons running for office but due to laws of nature; Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    We had 45 years of carefully balanced Statecraft due to Cold War; That kept the stakes high and forced us to select great leaders. Once that was over, we Regressed to mean leadership. We got Clinton, W Bush, Obama and now Clinton/Trump.

    Worse things happened to USSR - they disintegrated and have now Regressed to the mean of Putin.

    Anyway, 240 years is long in the usual life of empires. This 21st Century is ours to dissipate.

    So what you see as "The Decay of American Politics" is just a Tip of the Iceberg. The Real problem is "The Decay of American Nation". And no force of man can stop it because it is foretold by the laws of nature - Everything happens in Cycles.

    Greeks, Romans, Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans, British, Soviets all bit the dust. It is simply our turn now.

    “Worse things happened to USSR – they disintegrated and have now Regressed to the mean of Putin.”

    Going from the Soviet leaders to Russia’s Putin is anything but a regression in my book.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. My recollection is that Eisenhower restrained military spending, which could have ballooned since the U.S. knew very little about Soviet capabilities until the U-2 reconnaisance flights began and revealed how genuinely weak the USSR was. John Kennedy won on a phony “missile gap,” and proceeded to an aggressive program of nuclear weapons production.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. The Decay of American Politics

    “The” decay?

    Ya gotta be kidding. Politics is a result of decadence and aways has been.

    And 3,300 words on a truly nothing topic? Have some respect for your readers’ time, will ya?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Priss Factor
    I think I sort of know where Bacevich is coming from.

    He is an academic, and he works in an environment where proper manners and form matter a lot. Professors are expected to dress, talk, and act in a certain way.
    Whatever the ideology, studies, specialty, department, or function, there is the Professional and Professorial style. It is supposed to be objective, intellectual, cerebral, restrained, and cautious. Of course, there are differences. Some professors have pony tails. Some dress loudly. Some talk shit in class. But there is an predominant Academic Culture. It is pervasive and becomes a way of thinking, acting, feeling, and being.

    To an academe, Trump's style is all wrong. Professors are not supposed to talk or even move like him. Serious students are not supposed to see him as model. And with PC dictating college values, no one is supposed to say the sort of things Trump has said. Serious academic types(professors and students) hate the party fraternities, and Trump acts like one-man Animal House. He rubs academes the wrong way like Rodney Dangerfield did in BACK TO SCHOOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

    Academes are devoted to studying the world, and they become specialists in certain fields. But because they function in a social bubble, they don't rub up against reality like Trump and the Dangerfield character do in the REAL WORLD. It's the difference between a boxer who's been in the ring and the locker room AND the scholar of sports who knows statistics and such but don't know what it's like to have a punch in the face and blood spurt out of the nose.

    In the academic world, proper form matters at all times. Professors must dress properly and talk properly. And there is rules of classroom conduct. This is all very good and necessary. But such a culture creates a false impression that the world should be like the school environment, where theory and reality are complementary.

    Paradoxically however, it is the very culture of proper form that had led to the takeover of certain colleges by the lunatic fringe of PC-triggered madness. We see how this happens in David Mamet's OLEANNA. In the film, a Liberal College professor is into being very professional and academic. He is part of that culture, and he lives it, inhales it, exhales it. He probably thinks and acts academic even at home, like Dustin Hoffman's character in STRAW DOGS.
    So, when a crazed feminist wench in OLEANNA makes a crazy accusation against the professor, he doesn't know what to do. He's so committed to maintaining the proper form that he hasn't the guts to get angry and call her a vile, disgusting, stupid, ludicrous, lying, hag bitch. Why, such an emotional response would mean loss of form and dignity. It would seem barbaric in the eyes of academic culture, just like Barry Lyndon's loss of temper in front of the aristocratic folks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDaWEh_NFeg

    https://youtu.be/TbUYRAS7XI8?t=2m43s

    Professorial dignity is closely tied to proper form. So, even when up against great pressure, one's respect depends on maintaining that form. Lose it, and you're seen as a boor. So, rather than risking one's loss of form and respect, many academics just have let the crazies run rampant on the campus. (This is why British society is so defenseless against PC lunacy. When one see nuttiness, one must show anger and take rough action. But such boorish behavior is beneath the dignity of the preening British elites. So, they just choose to make gentle assurances and accommodate the craziness by offering it a place in the power structure. That way, the British elites get to be 'good whites' and the radicals direct their ire at the 'bad whites' who aren't so accommodating and offering of bribes. Social Justice Cult is just an extortion racket. The rich can keep their style of 'dignity' by buying off the radicals to attack something else. In the UK, the 'bad whites' are the 'working class racists' who voted for Brexit.)
    Indeed, when the professor finally loses it in OLEANNA and strikes the no-good bitch,
    he knows he's lost everything, just like Barry Lyndon. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you must live by the culture of form, you can't fight back against lunatics who insult and impugn you. You must take the smears and taunts. But if you do lose it and fight back, it will only confirm the taunts and smears that you're an oppressive brute and barbarian. (It's like radicals often provoked cops into violent reaction and then cried foul.)

    The elite worlds of academia, military, and government all rely on the culture of form, propriety, and dignity. Necessarily so. But such emphasis on form has a constricting effect on the thoughts and emotions of people in it.
    This is why academic types usually don't make great artists. To be an artist, you have to be free, wild, imaginative, and passionate. To be an intellectual, one's emotions have to be checked and controlled, and the mind has to be focused on critical assessment. If Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando, Sam Peckinpah, and Elia Kazan had taken an academic course in life, they never would have been artists. On the other hand, intellectuals, scholars, and critics must be more cerebral and objective than passionate and subjective.

    Bacevich worked in military, government, and academia. He went from a culture of form to culture of form to culture of form. He is about control, order, system, form, and dryness. His culture is different from the culture that made Trump, the wheeler-dealer who had to be shifty, 'artful', bluffy, clever, crafty, bullying, and etc.
    Trump is a player in the very game of money and power. Also, Trump had to be more savvy to rise up in his field. If one works in military, government, and academia, there are clearer rules as to what you must do to rise up the ranks. In business, so much depends on the 'art of the deal', charisma, handshakes, and instinct.

    Trump's world is about the play. You have to play to win.

    Bacevich's is about the program. You follow the program to rise up.

    It's the difference between Belfort and the Fed in Wolf of Wall Street.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IKbkjs8xd0

    Now, I'm not saying Trump is a douche like Belfort(though he could be, what with the Trump Chump University scandal) but merely making a point about the difference of personalities in different endeavors.

    Anyway, people like Bacevich feel somewhat superior to the rest of us. They feel superior to us unschooled dummies because we don't have Ph.D's and other credentials. We don't read books and don't have access to special information in departments and archives. Also, people like Bacevich are wealthier than we are.

    But people like Bacevich also feel superior to rich folks like Trump. They see people like Trump as having hustled and swindled their way to great wealth. Or even if super-rich folks didn't cheat to rake in the dough, all they ever cared about is money, money, money. It's like Bill Gates never got much respect as anyone other than a businessman. Even Steve Jobs said Gates got no culture, no taste. He only knows geekery and money and business.

    People like Bacevich see themselves as Human Ideals. They are wealthy(or wealthy enough) and deserving of privilege. But they are not all about money. They are about knowledge and truth. They devoted their lives to studying the world and coming up with useful theories. They play the role of scholars and critics of power. And they have mastered a proper form of manners and behavior that epitomize dignity, seriousness, maturity, and integrity.
    From their angle, there is nothing lower than someone like roguish Trump. Even if Trump agreed with them 100%, his talk-radio-like populist style would rub them the wrong way. It'd be like Rush Limbaugh coming on NPR. The only kind of conservative that such folks can maybe tolerate is Bill Buckley or some tweedy type with proper manners. Trump is too much like the Wild One in the Brando movie. Or maybe like the Lee Marvin character. It's like how Jimmy Stewart reacts to the tough guys in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. It's like how Gregory Peck the Eastern elitist reacts to the boors of Texas in THE BIG COUNTRY. Reagan was more bearable because he was more like John Wayne than Lee Marvin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI_BKLpSFQg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZp6EmVqq5o

    But, with all due respect, let us knock people like Bacevich down a few pegs.

    For one thing, despite the culture of form, dignity, and propriety --- and all those POMPOUS ceremonies with tassels, real and honorary degrees, highfalutin titles in Latin, graduation speeches, and etc --- , much of the academia is corrupt, crazy, repressive, dishonest, radical, careerist, opportunistic, privileged, lazy, demented, partisan, nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, tribal, fiendish, scummy, and no good.
    Bacevich says Trump is pompous. No, he's boorish. Pompous would be something like all those graduation speeches where honorary guests make bloated statements about hope and etc. Pompous would be the 2008 election that presented Obama as The One, the messiah, the black jesus, 'like god'(as one reporter said), the second coming of MLK and Camelot, and etc. Pompous would be all those 'esteemed' professors talking like they are philosopher kings. Pompous would be all those armchair revolutionaries with millions of dollars in their bank accounts but yammering about Marx and Social Justice. Consider Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.

    So many academics are actually cowards who don't want to face the real world. So, they hide in the bubble, in the ivory tower. But they tell themselves that they are committed to studying the real world and critiquing what is wrong with it. But most professors have no idea of human nature since they have no contact with real people. They live with theories of reality. Many of them have no sense of reality beyond what they got from PC from cradle. Many are children of privilege pretending to be fighting privilege. But of course, they need privilege to study and oppose privilege. Just look at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. They are filled with kids of privilege and elitism, but they pose as 'progressives' and talk of equality and social justice.

    Bacevich assumes that since Trump's style is wild, his substance must be crazy. But in fact, the substance of Trump's proposals are some of the most sane we've heard in many yrs. Indeed, they may sound crazy precisely because they sound TOO SANE. Fix our borders. No more crazy wars. Favor national interests of American people than globalist interests of elites. Stop with the new cold war business.

    In contrast, so many academics have the form of integrity and dignity. They seem and sound so smart, balanced, thoughtful, critical, skeptical, and retrospective.
    But, we must judge people by what they do, not what they say.

    Weren't the financial instruments that nearly brought down US finance in 2008 the creation of Ivy League-trained academics, economists, and investors?
    Aren't the people in the US intelligence, US military, and US state department mostly the graduates of top elite universities? Yet, the so-called Best and Brightest gave us stuff like Iraq War, War on Terror that actually aids terrorists, the disaster in Libya and Syria?
    Bacevich speaks of Trump's bad manners. Well, Colin Powell was one of the best-mannered men in government. Yet, he sat before the UN council and lied through his teeth that Hussein had nuclear weapons program using aluminum beer cans. John Yoo, the well-mannered professor from Berkeley argued that US could torture prisoners. The Best and Brightest planned for Iraq War that led to Abu Grahib, endless escalation, the looting of Iraq museum, civil war that no one anticipated(or maybe they did and wanted it), and etc.

    And who were the advisers to the privatization in Russia in the 90s? It wasn't Trump and such boors. No, it was the philosopher kings, the professors of the best schools. Larry Summers. Jeffrey Sachs. It was the Harvard Team. (To Sach's credit, he must be feeling some remorse since he is opposed to Hillary's nutty call for New Cold War against Russia.) And what happened to Russia as a result? Didn't Larry Summers also push deregulation of Wall Street? And Yale-educated Clinton signed on it.

    People say Obama is so smart and knowledgeable. But what has he accomplished in office? He didn't know jack shit about Wall Street and just gave the banks everything they asked for. He got Obamacare only by lying to the public, and we don't know how it will turn out. Almost surely badly. His foreign policy has been a total mess. Middle East and North Africa got worse than during Bush yrs when only Afghanistan and Iraq were burning. Now it also Libya, Yemen, Syria. And it may well spread to Turkey. And then, there is the massive 'refugee' crisis and terror attacks spreading all over.
    Crime is up due to Ferguson effect. Whatever economic recovery has been largely due to printing money and borrowing, with debt now at over 20 trillion. Illegal immigration is totally out of control, worse than in Bush yrs. Obama's SC appointees are PC commissars, not defenders of any Rule of Law based on Constitution. A 'wise Latina' and some Jewish lesbian who, in her stint at Harvard, filled the Law school with her tribesmen while bitching about 'white privilege'.

    Obama certainly perfected the academic style, and he became the darling of white/Jewish Libs who want to appear pro-black but had problems finding Negroes of real caliber. But as smart as Obama is, what has he done academically or professionally prior to becoming a politician? Zilch. He got by on style. He didn't even become a professor at University of Chicago. He just hung around and made connections with the right kind of people who found him useful as 'our Negro'. Jews went so far as to call him the 'first Jewish president'. So, even though Obama did absolutely nothing as instructor and politician, he got to be president because he had the right kind of 'style' and knew the right kind of people.

    So, before Bacevich gets all high and mighty about the academic world and its nice manners of civility and dignity, he should ask himself how so much of the academic style and prestige have been used for some of the most insane, irresponsible, reckless, stupid, vile, hideous, nasty, ugly, sick, and demented policies one can think of.
    This is true of finance. Wall Street is run by Ivy League graduates. And there is a open door policy between Wall Street and Ivy League business schools. Those who work on Wall Street later become academics. Academics find plush positions in Wall Street.

    And look at foreign policy. You'd think academics would be honest and tough critics of power and politics. But we've seen so many academics whore themselves out to Republican and Democrat warmongers. There were plenty of academics advising the Bush administration in the reckless Iraq War. And there were plenty of highfalutin academics supporting and making excuses for Obama-Hillary's war in Libya and subversion in Syria and Ukraine. Victoria Nuland is related to a Yale academic.
    So much for honest critics of power. They act so professorial and dignified, but so many are partisan hacks or tribal opportunists(mostly of the Zionist kind). Jewish money and media pressure are so pervasive that Norman Finkelstein was robbed of a job at Depaul(and other universities) because the odious Alan Dershowitz made phone calls. And Steven Salaita couldn't get a gig at U of I because of impassioned remarks during the Gaza massacre.

    And do law schools really teach the law? Just how does law school produce idiots like Sonia Sotomayor the 'wise Latina'? Just how does the academia justify something so bogus as 'hate speech' laws? I mean who decides what is hate and not hate? The powers that be, right? And how can any serious person say stuff like "I believe in free speech but not hate speech"? And how is it that the best law schools produce people who reinterpret and redefine marriage as between a man and man and between woman and woman? How is that the leading academic theories of justice advised NY to fine businesses for $250,000 if they confuse a 'he' with 'she'? What are they teaching at Harvard Law School when they say a guy with a woman's wig should use a woman's washroom? What is this, farce?

    And if academic life is about truth, dignity, and sanity, how is it that some of the craziest ideas in recent yrs came out of the academia? And if the academia has such high standards, how did it allow so many moronic or crazy lunatics to become tenured professors? How did colleges come up with stuff like 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions' and other hysteria? And how do universities react to stuff like false KKK sighting at Oberlin? They treat them as if they're real. And when the Milo the homo poofter was interrupted and threatened at Depaul, where was the principle of freedom of speech? If anything, the Depaul administration sided with the thugs. How did Emma Sulkowicz get away with such rot. Even after she was exposed as a nut and fraud, NOW gave her the courage award. But this is a nation where Bruce Jenner won both the courage award and woman of the year award. And we live in a world where Obama got the Nobel prize for nothing. Well, how much peace did Obama spread around the world since then?

    And look at the media. A massive lie machine. Now, so many journos are products of top journalism schools. So, how come so many are more committed to PC, the Narrative, and BS than to the truth? How come black thugs are called 'teens' and 'youths'? Why did NBC's Diane Sawyer say bombed out Gaza is Israel. How come Helen Thomas lost her job for saying European Zionists should return to Europe? How come NYT and rest of media cheer-lead the Iraq War? Why have they let Obama get away with so much spying, lack of transparency, and war-mongering? Why did they go easy on Wall Street that fleeced us blind in 2009 with bailouts? How did the whole media fall for the UVA rape hoax? If not for a handful of bloggers who exposed the fraud, the whole world would still be believing the story and the crazy bitch who wrote it probably would have won the Pulitzer.

    And as I've said before, the academia has been either too cowardly or too complicit in the rise of PC craziness and hysteria in the campuses. The cowards didn't speak out against the rise of PC lunacy and witch-hunt mentality. The complicit were the very professors --- mostly in sociology, humanities, political science, and law --- who filled the minds of millennial morons with paranoid lunacy about Evil White Males, Patriarchy, KKK, 'homophobia', and etc. If academic environment is so sane and rational, how come some of the most vile, aggressive, hateful, and bilious movements have emerged from the universities?

    And what has come of college debates? Now, winners are usually shucking and jiving black wanna-be rappers. This is what US colleges allow, and the likes of Andrew Bacevich never lodged a complaint. Yet, he is bitching about Trump's ill manners and craziness?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    When Bacevich saw PC lunacy on his campus, did he ever speak out? Or did he just keep his head low and walk away because he didn't want to lose his proper form as a dignified academic? If we want craziness, we don't need Trump. We only need to look at colleges newspaper to see what the latest hysteria, craze, fad, or nutjobbery is.
    But, the crazy stuff in colleges is cloaked with the conceit of intellectualism, rationalism, critical theory, or some such. So, it gets a pass while Trump is said to be crazy, extreme, and nutty because he said... let's fix our borders(how mad!!!), end the stupid new cold war with Russia(how loony!!!), let's stop messing up Muslim nations(how ludicrous!!!), let's be careful about which Muslims we allow into America(how frightening!!!), let's think about the American worker and not just the globalist urban class(how supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!!).

    What is truly crazy about America is that a NY real estate hustler and blowhard makes more common sense, moral sense, and good sense than all the experts of media, academia, military, and government combined. But in a world where the law of the land says 2 + 2 = 5, someone who insists it is 2 + 2 = 4 must be mad.

    Trump is not the emperor who has no clothes. He is one who notices that the Empire has no clothes. Also, unlike the ridiculous expectations of Pompous Hope and Change of Obama that couldn't be fulfilled(not least because they lacked specificity), what Trump is calling for can be achieved.
    They are realistic about the real world. We can fix our borders if we really want to. We can lower immigration to give US workers time to breathe and catch up. We can end the stupid new cold war with Russia. It's easy cuz Russia doesn't want it. We can let EU carry a bigger burden with NATO. We need to stop seeing EU as a vassal state of US. We can stop the wars in the Muslim world and let Muslims and Arabs pick up their own pieces. It was US intervention and its collusion with allies that led to hell in Libya and Syria. Dealing with the big banks is a much tougher call.
    Despite Trumps overstatements and boorish style, what he is calling for is doable, sensible, and right.
    But then, we have too many people feeding on crisis caused by globalist interventions. They don't want a fix to the problems. They thrive on problems. And that is why they see Trump as a threat.

    The remarkable thing about Trump is his style is sometimes over-the-top and 'crazy', but he is, at the core, totally sane. He's not like the man in NETWORK who really loses it and screams 'I'm mad as hell'.
    The way of Trump is to be 'Sane as Hell'. In a world gone nuts as the new normal, he is wildly... sane.

    Yup

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Bacevich’s description of Clinton and the establishment is spot on. However, Mr. Trump is a defector from the oligarchical tyranny we find ourselves in. He is roundly hated because of very specific criticisms he has leveled at the establishment of both parties, and Bacevich has glossed over this. Border control and security is not a trivial subject. Nor is the continuing drain of valuable manufacturing jobs to Asia and Mexico. Trump really hit a nerve when he suggested that NATO is simply defunct. It was Eisenhower who wanted to end the US troop presence in Europe in order for Europeans to mature into nation states capable of defending themselves. We didn’t follow Ike’s recommendation and our propping up of NATO has resulted in the creation of feckless European welfare states who cannot even defend their borders from a third world invasion. And we think NATO is still necessary? And what of Trump’s call for ending the federal role in local education? Is this trivial? I think not. What about the call to end the crony capitalist association with Wall Street and Washington? Is this trivial? Definitely not. And how about the supreme court justices that are going to be chosen? Is this trivial to you? Trump has already provided a list of solidly constitutionalist justices that conservatives agree would be outstanding. With Hillary, we are going to get more Ginsburgs. Ponder that.

    You may not like Trump’s tone, but you are definitely going to SUFFER from Clinton’s presidency, if she gets elected. And the results will last well into mid century and beyond.

    If you are a Cruz or Bush supporter, you would be insane to vote for Hillary or even sit out the election. INSANE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "We didn’t follow Ike’s recommendation and our propping up of NATO has resulted in the creation of feckless European welfare states who cannot even defend their borders from a third world invasion."

    This is really a matter of elite agenda and matter of will.

    US is a military superpower but can't defend its borders either.

    Elites want it that way, and worship of Diversity weakens all resistance.

    Rule of Law loses to Mob Rule of Flow engineered by globo-elite rule of minority-supremacism.

    But where there is a will and national pride, the flow is easily checked.

    Israel!!

    It's funny. Israel is in a far more dangerous neighborhood than EU nations are, but it alone defends itself and then some.

    Why can't EU nations Israelize?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Trump addresses the issues that are of greatest concern to the survival of this country and proposes reasonable solutions. He has a track record of success in the private sector. Clinton not only fails to address these issues, she has doubled down on supporting policies that created these problems in the first place. Furthermore she has a record of vile corruption and consistent, epic failures at every level of government. Most recently she has been caught out blatantly lying about the readily available contents of a public release by the Director of the FBI which allowed instant fact checking. Finally, at least on this occasion she was grudgingly forced to admit a discrepancy between what she spoke and the truth. This level of deception, practiced consistently throughout her public life, is a standard clinical marker of a sociopathic personality disorder.

    Lest other readers have forgotten, I append a sample of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s well documented instances of corruption and incompetence:

    Denied recommendations because of dishonesty and other unethical behavior when her position with the House Judiciary Committee investigating Watergate ended http://savannahnow.com/news/2015-12-21/fact-check-was-hillary-clinton-fired-watergate-investigation

    While Bill was governor of Arkansas he and Hillary made an under-the-table profit selling HIV tainted blood from Arkansas
    prisons to Canada. Estimates of the AIDS deaths caused by this homicidal scam range from 4,000 to 10,000. Even for the Clintons this is so appalling – and the MSM cover up so thorough – that I will provide a link for the
    lazy: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1999/may/15/tainted-plasma-traced-to-arkansas-prison-bill-clintons-blood-trails/

    Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the
    possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;

    Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.]

    Started ill-advised US foray into Somalia. The documentary “Black Hawk Down” describes an especially poignant episode in this adventure, a foreshadowing of Benghazi: While a large contingent of US troops were being decimated in a Mogadishu ambush, Clinton’s Secretary of Defense. Les Aspin, who had originally denied US forces the armored vehicles that might have prevented this disaster, was too busy attending a DC soiree to faciitate the military action that might have saved many of these soldiers lives. Les Aspin may be the most loathed SecDef to ever hold that title.

    Was complicit with her husband in the pardoning of Marc Rich; (Shame on you if you do not remember this. Look it up.)

    Stole furniture from the White House and lied when caught red-handed;

    Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;

    Lost a “sure thing” presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;

    When Hillary Rodham Clinton became Secretary of State one of her legal obligations was to appoint an Inspector General for the State Department. She never did and for her entire term in office the State Department lacked an IG. This was a gross and utterly unprecedented violation of federal law. It strongly suggests that Clinton was planning illegal conduct in office before she even took her oath and was preparing mechanisms to enable her planned criminal acts.

    Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplmatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long “special relation” between the UK and the USA;

    A bit later her incredibly stupid “reset button” gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;

    Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called “Arab Spring” which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;

    Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for
    Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;

    Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the
    role she played in it;

    While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly
    several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint intelligence sources [people may have died as a result];

    Continuously lied to the Congress, the Secretary of State Inspector General (appointed by Sec. Kerry soon after he took his oath of office), and the American public about every aspect of this situation.

    While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her
    “foundation” had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    Clinton-inspired and directed interventions in Kosovo which led to the establishment of an anarchic region on the southern
    flank of Europe engaged in a massive narcotics trade and serving as a reservoir and exporter of Islamo-fascism and terrorism

    While Secretary of State Clinton oversaw an engineered putsch which overthrew the legitimate and elected government of
    Ukraine and replaced it with a corrupt, unstable, and illegitimate successor regime. As a result, and as might have been expected, Russia supported the secession of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine from this state resulting in a
    simmering civil war.

    Perhaps not coincidentally just before this one of the Ukrainian oligarch beneficiaries of this disaster had made a donation of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which is basically a slush fund for Bill and Hill to pillage at will.

    To me the vote for who will be our next President seems clear.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Wowsa! USA-USA-USA is so worshipful of Homomania and Diversity that even war-mongering imperialism and militarism are justified in the eyes of so-called ‘progressives’(and war-worshiping conservatives) if the US military is seen as colorful in skin and homo ‘rainbow’

    This is funeral of the anti-war left. The new ‘progressivism’ sits well with global-militarism. “We are ‘progressive’, so that gives us the right to invade and destroy and threaten the whole world.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Progressives and leftists used to be anti-military and universities.

    Military and academia are about order, hierarchy, and control.

    So, when the military and academia accepts progressivism, the latter takes on modes of hierarchy, conformism, and consensus.

    Diversity used to mean opposition to the militarism of Wasp war machine. Now it marches lockstep behind the globo-war-machine.

    Progs took over the war machine, but the war machine turned them into obedient drones.

    As for immigrants like Khan, personal self-interest beats all. He doesn't seem to care that Zio-US is destroying the Muslim world and that Hillary is the war-monger.

    Between Trump keeping Muslims out and ending wars AND Hillary expanding wars and letting Muslims in, the likes of Khan prefer the latter because his personal interest is to live well in the US.

    His ilk doesn't mind Muslim immigrant kids turning into MTV-addicted trash and US dropping bombs in the Muslim world as long as they get a ticket to come and live in the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Rehmat says:

    “Ike, someone of real stature…..” LOL…..

    Gen. Eisenhower had a controversial career both as Allied commander and as US President. His ancestory is disputed. Some US internet sites claim that Eisenhower had a Swedish Jewish family roots ( David Jacob Eisenhower and Ida Elizabeth Stover) while the Israel lobby says that he was born into a German Protestant family. However, the West Point 1915 year book, The Howitzer, describes him: “This is Senor Dwight David Eisenhower, gentlemen, the terrible Swedish-Jew, as big as life and twice as natural. He claims to have the best authority for the statement that he is the handsomest man in the Corps and is ready to back up his claim at any time“.

    Some writers believe that Gen. Eisenhower starved to death 1.7 million Germans at the end of WW II – while some believe that President Eisenhower was able to convince British and French governments not to join Israeli war with Egypt over control of Suez Canal in 1956. American blogger and author Jeff Gates wrote in September 2010: “Though Ike was distracted by presidential politics, London and Paris were quickly persuaded to abandon their efforts. Not Tel Aviv. Then as now, Jewish fanatics were not inclined to listen to a US commander-in-chief regardless of the impact of their behavior on our national interests.”

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/07/29/the-eisenhower-memorial/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. KA says:

    Dressing like a professor and talking like a profession is nowhere in the gorged veins of Donald Trump.
    Mouthing like Colin Powell same time lying like him isn’t also his way of behaving . He doesn’t lie but angrily confabulate while dressing like a well heeled citizen . He believes in his own lies and he wants to believe in his own lies . This differentiate it from delusion and from lying. It is ego syntonic .he does not get stressed out over those lies . Citizen takes wrong lessons from history all the time . One has to be talking smoothly and dressed perfectly like Colin Powell but has to utter the truth . Trumps fails often on both counts .
    Every station of life has it’s inbuilt customs – how to talk,how to dress,how to negotiate,how to disagree Trump knows it well . He can summarily dismiss a Mexican at the daily wage construction site hiring site if he didn’t wear the dress or speak the lango/ cant or agree to the wages that are expected of the daily wage laborer ( Or the way he says: ” you ate fired ” on TV)

    He knows the value of the language and the dress because he sells million dollars home to the rich clientele and he sure doesnt shout or scream . He can switch between many facades and he sure does .
    It is the degeneracy of the political context that has convinced him that he can only succeed by assuming the personality that fits the construction site hiring area .

    But Donald Trump has major problem . He doesn’t have great executive functioning . He could not shift set . He can’t smoothly move from one set to another . He gets stuck . He can’t move from one script to the next . He can’t alternate between different paradigms,between different scenarios,between different possibilities . His answer becomes perseverative error of the dementia afflicted person. He repeats the theme emotions,or both . His inefficiency leads him to repeat to same error and neglect . He could have trounced Clinton on many points . He couldn’t because of his inability to seize the moment without anger but with informed reflection.
    Again no one will ever be able to seize those moments . Seizing those moments ( questioning on speech fees, questioning on trade,questioning on military adventures ,questioning on foreign entanglements ) will elicit vigorous counter attacks from those pillars that hold this country afloat . Given his monetary independence , he could have made an effort . He couldn’t because he is not that brilliant and not that unemotional. Neither are his base who thinks being arrogant and iconoclastic are the signs by which Prophet operates and should operate .
    Arrogance hides his stupidity and lack of curiosity . Stupidity is the measure by which his base is positively guided .
    The attacks on Trump by the media and the tendency of the large number of the people to believe those attacks remind me of the pre – 2003 Iraq war atmosphere . That period was full of anxiety uncertainty,anger,frustration and confusion. This period is reminiscent of that time. Media failed then . Media is failing now . Citizen put their analytical thinking on hold in 2004 . A rebuke to war in 2004 election could have achieved that no grass root movement today can,no demonstration,no Tea Party no Occupy Wall Street can . A defeat of Bush in 2004 election could have created a different world both abroad and at home . It could have neutered the violent regressive Neo con dominated cultures that both parties find themselves today wrapped around by those vipers who are the actual winners of this war on terror .
    Today Trump will be defeated by the same citizen on a ground that has no relevance and Clinton will be elected on grounds that have no merit or value . It will be seen as a bizarre situation unless we look back and see how the citizen have allowed themselves to be guided by the Neo cons during both good times and bad times .

    Other day my physician kind of demurred thinking how the control of decision making has moved out of the turf of his profession into the money making insurance and pharmaceuticals . Yes,I said because during those ” good old days of 1990″ you didn’t bother to fight back because your pockets were getting still lined to your hundred percent satisfaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "The attacks on Trump by the media and the tendency of the large number of the people to believe those attacks remind me of the pre – 2003 Iraq war atmosphere . " - I think it's worse. In 2003 comedians did not attack people who were skeptical of war. Now it is full spectrum attack against Trump. No mercy, no pity, no prisoners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Durruti says:

    The Decay of American Politics
    An Ode to Ike and Adlai, by
    ANDREW J. BACEVICH – is a longish essay that loosely covers American politics from 1952 to the present.

    In the course of this longish essay that politely critiques the downward trajectory of American political Culture, Bacevich manages to do one amazing thing.

    Bacevich fails to mention the Presidency of John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), and the assassination of the last Constitutional President of the United States on November 22, 1963, and he fails to discuss, even briefly, or in passing, The Coup D’etat in Dallas, and the destruction, by force and violence of the American Republic! Imagine that!!! He leaves that part out. And by leaving that (Pink Elephant in the room), out, he manages to queer his entire thesis.

    Bacevich fails to discuss post 1963 American History. He just manages to lightly critique Hilary Clinton. Nowhere does he elucidate that she is a War Criminal, a Psychotic Mass Murderer, in essence, as with her husband, an immoral bought puppet of the Zionist American Oligarchs and their Military Financial Complex. Casino Trump is an old friend of the Clintons, and he is performing, as does Hollywood Obomber, in elaborate – pretend democracy Electoral Circus, that is designed to overawe the Rubes with the lie that America remains a democracy.

    Bracevich even fails to mention former President Jimmy Carter’s insistence that America is no longer a democracy. Surely that has some relevance to his thesis?

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiohMue_qzOAhUD1B4KHVIPA9oQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmic.com%2Farticles%2F125813%2Fjimmy-carter-tells-oprah-america-is-no-longer-a-democracy-now-an-oligarchy&usg=AFQjCNFQ4DV0IbmHpRuivbQpKzJ90hyWRA&sig2=pm11rdKvPwyn28hsxOGG6Q

    Post Republic American Oligarchs, and their evil minions, have butchered:

    [MORE]

    2 million in Vietnam

    1 million in Indonesia-1965

    100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala

    1 million in Iraq

    250,000 in Afghanistan

    250,000 in Syria

    several million in sub-Saharan Africa,

    And that is the short list, and does not include the wounded & maimed, and nations with their infrastructure destroyed.

    The final nation being destroyed, morally as well as physically, is ours, our America.

    Food for Thought: link to a fine article discussing American political Culture:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju-ovF1qvOAhXEXh4KHW_qAo8QFgg_MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.larsschall.com%2F2013%2F08%2F20%2Fjfks-death-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic%2F&usg=AFQjCNHfPhKIGuJRUJ3W_9KfpjEH8imNMA&sig2=J7XeLm94Db6fHI77PtetMg

    For the Restoration of the American Republic!

    Durruti

    Read More
    • Replies: @Durruti
    Administrators at UNZ,

    Was it necessary to cut my not too lengthy comment in half, by hiding the concluding comments, under [MORE]?

    The KA comment directly above mine is much longer (800 words to my 300), and his entry was not cut in half.

    All my comments were relevant to the Bacevich article, & contained no profanity, disrespect, or abuse of the author, only critique followed by my view.

    Durruti
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Epaminondas
    Bacevich's description of Clinton and the establishment is spot on. However, Mr. Trump is a defector from the oligarchical tyranny we find ourselves in. He is roundly hated because of very specific criticisms he has leveled at the establishment of both parties, and Bacevich has glossed over this. Border control and security is not a trivial subject. Nor is the continuing drain of valuable manufacturing jobs to Asia and Mexico. Trump really hit a nerve when he suggested that NATO is simply defunct. It was Eisenhower who wanted to end the US troop presence in Europe in order for Europeans to mature into nation states capable of defending themselves. We didn't follow Ike's recommendation and our propping up of NATO has resulted in the creation of feckless European welfare states who cannot even defend their borders from a third world invasion. And we think NATO is still necessary? And what of Trump's call for ending the federal role in local education? Is this trivial? I think not. What about the call to end the crony capitalist association with Wall Street and Washington? Is this trivial? Definitely not. And how about the supreme court justices that are going to be chosen? Is this trivial to you? Trump has already provided a list of solidly constitutionalist justices that conservatives agree would be outstanding. With Hillary, we are going to get more Ginsburgs. Ponder that.

    You may not like Trump's tone, but you are definitely going to SUFFER from Clinton's presidency, if she gets elected. And the results will last well into mid century and beyond.

    If you are a Cruz or Bush supporter, you would be insane to vote for Hillary or even sit out the election. INSANE.

    “We didn’t follow Ike’s recommendation and our propping up of NATO has resulted in the creation of feckless European welfare states who cannot even defend their borders from a third world invasion.”

    This is really a matter of elite agenda and matter of will.

    US is a military superpower but can’t defend its borders either.

    Elites want it that way, and worship of Diversity weakens all resistance.

    Rule of Law loses to Mob Rule of Flow engineered by globo-elite rule of minority-supremacism.

    But where there is a will and national pride, the flow is easily checked.

    Israel!!

    It’s funny. Israel is in a far more dangerous neighborhood than EU nations are, but it alone defends itself and then some.

    Why can’t EU nations Israelize?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Why can’t EU nations Israelize?" - What if it is planned already? Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right. The Neo-Right is very pro-Israel. Kind like Breivik. The attack in Munich was by Breivik admirer - German of Iranian descent. No ethnic Germans were killed. Why Brexit? There are other devils working on The Plan. They are not the ones that always have a starring role in your tirades. What if Trump and Putin are part of that Plan?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @anonymous
    Many good comments already.

    Once again, Mr. Bacevich comes across as -- excuse the expression-- a useful idiot, still smitten with Mr. Obama, for whom he apparently voted twice. And there seems little doubt that he'll be doing so for Mrs. Clinton, too, just like the sheeple rounded up by Mr. Sanders. Many of us know the type: nice, articulate folks who refuse to see that they're watching another act of the same old puppet show.

    The article really sticks out on a website like UR, doesn't it? Various flavors of the same overlong, hand-wringing, elitist rationalization of Voting Blue drips daily from the NYT, WaPo, et al. And only the remarkable diversion of Mr. Trump has this time altered the corollary crap that leads "conservative" voters to support the likes of Romney.

    Rot, indeed.

    If you’re part of the academic community, you better not vote for someone like Trump.

    You will be shunned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. I truly wish that a dignified, erudite statesman beyond all moral or “ethical” reproach would emerge, and enunciate many of the nationalist sentiments given utterance by Donald Trump. Alas, such an unfortunate personage would, much like Jim Webb (the Virginia Democrat who, among all the 2016 contenders for the Presidency, comes closest to that description*), be driven out of the nominating process before the Iowa caucuses. So while I do regret various aspects of Trump’s often grating persona, if the choice is between this man, who adheres to positions I have been yearning to hear enunciated for the last quarter of a century, or some war-mongering, plutocrat-serving, habitual felon of whom I have no doubt would lock her critics in prison just as soon as her Supreme Court appointees managed to find the “hate speech” exception to our sacred right to freedom of speech (doubtlessly emanating from the penumbra of the First Amendment), I am forced to vote for Trump. Yes, with some serious reservations, yet also no small degree of genuine enthusiasm.

    *I did contribute several hundred dollars to Senator Webb’s ill-fated campaign, prior to my shift into the Trump camp.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Similar theme

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/06/the-return-of-history/

    Politics is shaped by culture, and just look at American culture.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epebble
    Exactly; "Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite"* We get Trump/Clinton because that is what we deserve.

    See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

    *Joseph de Maistre:

    Every nation gets the government it deserves.

    Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules. The English translation has several variations, including "Every country has the government it deserves" and "In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Priss Factor
    Wowsa! USA-USA-USA is so worshipful of Homomania and Diversity that even war-mongering imperialism and militarism are justified in the eyes of so-called 'progressives'(and war-worshiping conservatives) if the US military is seen as colorful in skin and homo 'rainbow'

    This is funeral of the anti-war left. The new 'progressivism' sits well with global-militarism. "We are 'progressive', so that gives us the right to invade and destroy and threaten the whole world."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mt5-TQv0tbg

    Progressives and leftists used to be anti-military and universities.

    Military and academia are about order, hierarchy, and control.

    So, when the military and academia accepts progressivism, the latter takes on modes of hierarchy, conformism, and consensus.

    Diversity used to mean opposition to the militarism of Wasp war machine. Now it marches lockstep behind the globo-war-machine.

    Progs took over the war machine, but the war machine turned them into obedient drones.

    As for immigrants like Khan, personal self-interest beats all. He doesn’t seem to care that Zio-US is destroying the Muslim world and that Hillary is the war-monger.

    Between Trump keeping Muslims out and ending wars AND Hillary expanding wars and letting Muslims in, the likes of Khan prefer the latter because his personal interest is to live well in the US.

    His ilk doesn’t mind Muslim immigrant kids turning into MTV-addicted trash and US dropping bombs in the Muslim world as long as they get a ticket to come and live in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Muslims are human too.

    One of the great achievements of the modern propaganda is the ability to convince people to like,enjoy,love,and welcome all those things that hurt them most. { I am paraphrasing somebody here }
    , @Rehmat
    If Khan is bad because he looks after his personal interests - then how about the all the thousands of White, Christiana and Jewish American lawmakers and politicians who look after their interests by supporting a foreign Zionist entity an anti-Iran terrorist organizations?

    For example, in March 2012, US Treasury Department issued subpoenas into an investigation against over three dozen former US high ranking government and military officials for accepting large sum of money in return for lobbying for an anti-Tehran government terrorist militant group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), known as ‘Munafiqun-e-Khalq (or People’s traitors) in Iran. The group is listed as a ‘terrorist organization’ by the State Department. Allegedly, these Judeo-Christians sold their souls to the devil for $30,000 to $160,000.

    All under investigation are the ‘Israel-Firsters’ belonging to the Republican, Democratic and Tea parties. The list includes former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell (Jewish) of Pennsylvania and currently MSNBC contributor, Democratic Gov. Howard Dean (Jewish) of Vermont; former Republican Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush and currently CNN’s resident terror expert, Frances Townsend (Jewish), Bush’s Attorney General, Michael Mukasey (Jewish), and former UN ambassador John Bolton (crypto-Jew); former Republican Mayor of New York, Rudolph Guiliani (Zionist Christian); and ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh (crypto Jew) and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton (friend of Jewish Army).

    Several of these evil-doers have been advocating tirelessly to get the MEK removed from the US terrorist list. Howard Dean, Gens. Hugh H. Shelton, Peter Pace, Wesley K. Clark, James L. Jones and Rudolph Guiliani and several others went to Paris to meet MEK’s boss, Maryam Rajavi, who told these Muslim haters to urge Washington to recognize her as the President of Iran.

    Both MEK and Jundallah terrorist groups are linked with Israel which has used them to destablize Iran by bombing civilian and military targets and assassination of country’s top nuclear scientists.

    According to a ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2010 – a DOJ interpretation of the ‘material support’ statute, the MEK’s listing as a terror organization makes it illegal to coordinate with, provide assistance to, or take payment from the group.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/03/19/us-leaders-charged-for-accepting-money-from-anti-iran-terrorist-group/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Durruti says:
    @Durruti
    The Decay of American Politics
    An Ode to Ike and Adlai, by
    ANDREW J. BACEVICH - is a longish essay that loosely covers American politics from 1952 to the present.

    In the course of this longish essay that politely critiques the downward trajectory of American political Culture, Bacevich manages to do one amazing thing.

    Bacevich fails to mention the Presidency of John F. Kennedy (1961-1963), and the assassination of the last Constitutional President of the United States on November 22, 1963, and he fails to discuss, even briefly, or in passing, The Coup D'etat in Dallas, and the destruction, by force and violence of the American Republic! Imagine that!!! He leaves that part out. And by leaving that (Pink Elephant in the room), out, he manages to queer his entire thesis.

    Bacevich fails to discuss post 1963 American History. He just manages to lightly critique Hilary Clinton. Nowhere does he elucidate that she is a War Criminal, a Psychotic Mass Murderer, in essence, as with her husband, an immoral bought puppet of the Zionist American Oligarchs and their Military Financial Complex. Casino Trump is an old friend of the Clintons, and he is performing, as does Hollywood Obomber, in elaborate - pretend democracy Electoral Circus, that is designed to overawe the Rubes with the lie that America remains a democracy.

    Bracevich even fails to mention former President Jimmy Carter's insistence that America is no longer a democracy. Surely that has some relevance to his thesis?

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiohMue_qzOAhUD1B4KHVIPA9oQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmic.com%2Farticles%2F125813%2Fjimmy-carter-tells-oprah-america-is-no-longer-a-democracy-now-an-oligarchy&usg=AFQjCNFQ4DV0IbmHpRuivbQpKzJ90hyWRA&sig2=pm11rdKvPwyn28hsxOGG6Q

    Post Republic American Oligarchs, and their evil minions, have butchered:

    2 million in Vietnam

    1 million in Indonesia-1965

    100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala

    1 million in Iraq

    250,000 in Afghanistan

    250,000 in Syria

    several million in sub-Saharan Africa,

    And that is the short list, and does not include the wounded & maimed, and nations with their infrastructure destroyed.

    The final nation being destroyed, morally as well as physically, is ours, our America.

    Food for Thought: link to a fine article discussing American political Culture:

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju-ovF1qvOAhXEXh4KHW_qAo8QFgg_MAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.larsschall.com%2F2013%2F08%2F20%2Fjfks-death-marked-the-end-of-the-american-republic%2F&usg=AFQjCNHfPhKIGuJRUJ3W_9KfpjEH8imNMA&sig2=J7XeLm94Db6fHI77PtetMg

    For the Restoration of the American Republic!

    Durruti

    Administrators at UNZ,

    Was it necessary to cut my not too lengthy comment in half, by hiding the concluding comments, under [MORE]?

    The KA comment directly above mine is much longer (800 words to my 300), and his entry was not cut in half.

    All my comments were relevant to the Bacevich article, & contained no profanity, disrespect, or abuse of the author, only critique followed by my view.

    Durruti

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Big Bill says:

    How did the party of Eisenhower, an architect of victory in World War II, choose as its nominee a narcissistic TV celebrity who, with each successive Tweet and verbal outburst, offers further evidence that he is totally unequipped for high office?

    1. Because it isn’t the party of Eisenhower. 2. Because it is the party of neocon. 3. Because it is the party of globalist. 4. Because it is the party of universalist. 5. Because it is the party of eternal war. 6. Because the interests who own the party were too slow to purge the party of real Americans. And because the party members have had enough … as have a huge number of Democrats.

    Don’t play stupid, Andy. You know exactly why Trump is running for office and why tens of millions of real Americans are supporting him.

    If the best you and your fellow Republicans could come up with are the legion of mealy-mouthed gutless losers and political hacks that Trump bested, how on earth can you call yourselves The Party of Eisenhower — the architect of Operation Wetback.

    And how can the Democrats call themselves the party of Roosevelt — the architect of Manzanar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    What is truly appalling is Obama sticking his nose into the race and calling Trump ‘unfit’ and telling the GOP to dump him.

    Where does he get the nerves? Why does the media give him a pass on such boorish and a**hole behavior? This is huge breach of political protocol.

    Bush II, jerk that he is, didn’t butt into the contest between McCain and Obama.
    If he had, media would have trashed him as unstatesmanlike.

    Reagan didn’t butt in between Bush I and Dukakis.

    Obama acted like Kanye West interrupting Swift at the Grammies. He feels so entitled.
    He’s acting like Jar Jar Binks.

    Now, why is Trump ‘unfit’ to rule? Because he questions and challenges some of the Establishment agenda and positions? To be ‘fit to rule’ is to suck up to the donor class? I suppose Jeb and Rubio are ‘fit to rule’.

    Of course, what Obama really means is that the president is supposed to be ruled by the globo-oligarchs. He’s been a good boy. And Hillary will be a good girl. And Jeb and Rubio would have been good boys too. Part of the GLOB CLUB or GLUB.

    ‘Unfit to rule’ is codeword for ‘difficult to be ruled by the GLUB.’
    It’s what a house negro might say about a field negro to his master. “Massuh, you gots to watch dat ni****. He don’t do like Massuh say. Like I do cuz I always obey Massuh.”

    And why doesn’t the GOP tell Obama to go to hell? Did Bush II tell the Dems that Obama, the member of Wright’s church and friend of bill Ayers, is unfit to rule? Had he said such, the Dems would have been up in arms. But GOP is mum about Obama’s rude interruption.
    You see, the GOP Estab is all part of the GLUB.

    Obama has been ‘fit to rule’ only in the sense that he’s been a smooth liar and operator of the GLOB agenda pushed by the cosmopolitan Zio-Anglo-Homo Oligarchs.

    It is incredible how the US messes up the world but then charges Russia of bad faith and lack of trust.

    Get a load of this.

    The very lowlife Obama who created the conditions for ISIS all over the Middle East is saying that Russia isn’t serious about defeating ISIL when, if not for Russia, the terrorists would be laying waste to all of Syria.

    Because Hillary is such a lackluster zero, the Dems have told Obama to play an active role in the election to make Clinton’s run seem like Obama’s term. It’s like Trump vs Hillary as Obama’s shadow. (Trump has been muted about Obama because he wants some of the black vote.)

    Obama’s presidency has been a total fiasco, but his Hollywood hero style has many idiots fooled that he’s been a steady and firm hand in the world during troubled times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Did Bush II tell the Dems that Obama, the member of Wright’s church and friend of bill Ayers, is unfit to rule?" - He did not because his handlers told him that Obama was fit, was the one, was approved by the masters. But Trump is not, so Obama does what he does.
    , @utu
    "Obama’s presidency has been a total fiasco" - I agree except (1) he dragged his feet about bombing Syria in 2013 and (2) he negotiated and signed a deal with Iran. I haven't figured why? Was it personal ambition to live up to the Nobel Peace Prize he got for nothing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. KA says:
    @Priss Factor
    Progressives and leftists used to be anti-military and universities.

    Military and academia are about order, hierarchy, and control.

    So, when the military and academia accepts progressivism, the latter takes on modes of hierarchy, conformism, and consensus.

    Diversity used to mean opposition to the militarism of Wasp war machine. Now it marches lockstep behind the globo-war-machine.

    Progs took over the war machine, but the war machine turned them into obedient drones.

    As for immigrants like Khan, personal self-interest beats all. He doesn't seem to care that Zio-US is destroying the Muslim world and that Hillary is the war-monger.

    Between Trump keeping Muslims out and ending wars AND Hillary expanding wars and letting Muslims in, the likes of Khan prefer the latter because his personal interest is to live well in the US.

    His ilk doesn't mind Muslim immigrant kids turning into MTV-addicted trash and US dropping bombs in the Muslim world as long as they get a ticket to come and live in the US.

    Muslims are human too.

    One of the great achievements of the modern propaganda is the ability to convince people to like,enjoy,love,and welcome all those things that hurt them most. { I am paraphrasing somebody here }

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Priss Factor
    Bacevich doesn't seem to know the meaning of 'pompous'.

    I think he has it confused with bombastic and self-promoting. Trump is certainly that. He has a salesman's instincts, and he knows how to throw a pitch. But the salesman style generally isn't pompous. It can be boastful and swaggering, and Trump can be that too.

    Pompous would be Obama, writing books with titles like 'Dreams from My Father' and ..... ROTFL 'Audacity of Hope'. LOL. It must be more awesome than the mere City of Hope.
    Awe-Day-City of Hope. Shoo!
    Obama's father was some drunken lout who stuck his dong into anything that moved. I don't what kind of 'dream' Obama got from him. The lout didn't even raise his own son and left his other sons to be raised fatherless too. Typical black male behavior.
    But didn't King tell us that he had a Dream? Obama is so pompous that he calls Illegal Aliens the 'dreamers'. And even PC can be awful pompous. Consider terms like this: "Justice-Involved Individuals"
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/27/doj-coins-new-term-for-convicted-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/

    It's like gentrification of PC. 'Body positivity movement' for fatkins. 'Vertically challenged' for munchkins.

    But then, we live in a nation where discrimination in favor of rich blacks over poor whites is called 'Affirmative Action'. Shoo.

    Just think. What in the hell is 'audacity of hope'? Why would it take any audacity to hope? If I hope I have a million dollars, is that audacious? Did Obama get to where he did by hoping? Or did he scheme and make cold-blooded decisions with the backing of people with billions and control of media?

    Trump is rich and shows off his wealth. But his nouveau-riche style lacks pomposity. It's a honest way of saying, "I got it and I like it." The really pompous ones are people like George Clooney and Bill Clinton who have it all but pretend like they are global saviors of poor and helpless and make pleas for the 'refugees' whom they themselves don't have to deal with.

    Trump's rich style is more transparent. He makes no bones about it.
    Pompous would be like Chelsea Clinton who married the son of some billionaire. She yammers about how she doesn't care about money. Yeah, cuz she doesn't have to think about it cuz she's surrounded by it. Her hubby lost 100s of millions of dollars for an investment firm, but he is well-connected and taken for.
    It's like in THE AVIATOR. Those with money can pretend they don't care about money. Pompous would be Mitt Romney, a real shark who claims to oppose Trump out of some higher principle. Mr. Bane cares about higher principles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-ljup5Bow

    Also, there is a sense of fun and irony around the Trump campaign. All that stuff about 'god emperor trump' is supposed to be campy. It is meant as circus. It is a kind of shtick.
    They are not like the gushing fools who fainted at Obama's rallies in 2008 as if they were face to face with messiah as some smooth jazz operator.
    Trump is just being flattered as big boss, chieftain of the hour.
    Obama was hailed and revered as if descended from heaven or born miraculously.

    And whenever there was some crisis in or outside the nation, Obama could be counted on to deliver the most pompous utterances that may sound lofty but mean absolutely nothing in their highfalutin bathos. Indeed, no presidency has been as bathetic as Obama's. Obama has been to politics what Oprah was to TV.

    Also, the Obama camp is so deep into kitsch that they have lost all sense of irony about themselves. They don't even know how ludicrously pompous their 'vision' is.
    I mean the association of homosexuality with the rainbow. The lighting up of the white house with homo rainbow colors. Bruce Jenner in wig and woman's panties as a figure of courage.
    And who can forget this precious picture?

    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1077461.1336950482!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/gay14n-1-web.jpg

    So, the very people who call themselves secular and rational promote obama the slimy snake as some messiah(the one) who is blessed with homo holiness from.... god?

    Does Bacevich see nothing pompous in all this?

    Trump is more like the Big Bad Wolf who is going huff puff and blow the PC house down.

    He is a blowhard, but I prefer it to PC blowtard.

    Excellent piece of journalism, Mr A. Mr Unz should be paying you for it.
    Unlike Bacevich, who should have had his fee withheld.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. epebble says:
    @Priss Factor
    Similar theme

    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/06/the-return-of-history/

    Politics is shaped by culture, and just look at American culture.

    Exactly; “Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite”* We get Trump/Clinton because that is what we deserve.

    See http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

    *Joseph de Maistre:

    Every nation gets the government it deserves.

    Letter 76, on the topic of Russia’s new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules. The English translation has several variations, including “Every country has the government it deserves” and “In a democracy people get the leaders they deserve.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Priss Factor
    I think I sort of know where Bacevich is coming from.

    He is an academic, and he works in an environment where proper manners and form matter a lot. Professors are expected to dress, talk, and act in a certain way.
    Whatever the ideology, studies, specialty, department, or function, there is the Professional and Professorial style. It is supposed to be objective, intellectual, cerebral, restrained, and cautious. Of course, there are differences. Some professors have pony tails. Some dress loudly. Some talk shit in class. But there is an predominant Academic Culture. It is pervasive and becomes a way of thinking, acting, feeling, and being.

    To an academe, Trump's style is all wrong. Professors are not supposed to talk or even move like him. Serious students are not supposed to see him as model. And with PC dictating college values, no one is supposed to say the sort of things Trump has said. Serious academic types(professors and students) hate the party fraternities, and Trump acts like one-man Animal House. He rubs academes the wrong way like Rodney Dangerfield did in BACK TO SCHOOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

    Academes are devoted to studying the world, and they become specialists in certain fields. But because they function in a social bubble, they don't rub up against reality like Trump and the Dangerfield character do in the REAL WORLD. It's the difference between a boxer who's been in the ring and the locker room AND the scholar of sports who knows statistics and such but don't know what it's like to have a punch in the face and blood spurt out of the nose.

    In the academic world, proper form matters at all times. Professors must dress properly and talk properly. And there is rules of classroom conduct. This is all very good and necessary. But such a culture creates a false impression that the world should be like the school environment, where theory and reality are complementary.

    Paradoxically however, it is the very culture of proper form that had led to the takeover of certain colleges by the lunatic fringe of PC-triggered madness. We see how this happens in David Mamet's OLEANNA. In the film, a Liberal College professor is into being very professional and academic. He is part of that culture, and he lives it, inhales it, exhales it. He probably thinks and acts academic even at home, like Dustin Hoffman's character in STRAW DOGS.
    So, when a crazed feminist wench in OLEANNA makes a crazy accusation against the professor, he doesn't know what to do. He's so committed to maintaining the proper form that he hasn't the guts to get angry and call her a vile, disgusting, stupid, ludicrous, lying, hag bitch. Why, such an emotional response would mean loss of form and dignity. It would seem barbaric in the eyes of academic culture, just like Barry Lyndon's loss of temper in front of the aristocratic folks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDaWEh_NFeg

    https://youtu.be/TbUYRAS7XI8?t=2m43s

    Professorial dignity is closely tied to proper form. So, even when up against great pressure, one's respect depends on maintaining that form. Lose it, and you're seen as a boor. So, rather than risking one's loss of form and respect, many academics just have let the crazies run rampant on the campus. (This is why British society is so defenseless against PC lunacy. When one see nuttiness, one must show anger and take rough action. But such boorish behavior is beneath the dignity of the preening British elites. So, they just choose to make gentle assurances and accommodate the craziness by offering it a place in the power structure. That way, the British elites get to be 'good whites' and the radicals direct their ire at the 'bad whites' who aren't so accommodating and offering of bribes. Social Justice Cult is just an extortion racket. The rich can keep their style of 'dignity' by buying off the radicals to attack something else. In the UK, the 'bad whites' are the 'working class racists' who voted for Brexit.)
    Indeed, when the professor finally loses it in OLEANNA and strikes the no-good bitch,
    he knows he's lost everything, just like Barry Lyndon. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you must live by the culture of form, you can't fight back against lunatics who insult and impugn you. You must take the smears and taunts. But if you do lose it and fight back, it will only confirm the taunts and smears that you're an oppressive brute and barbarian. (It's like radicals often provoked cops into violent reaction and then cried foul.)

    The elite worlds of academia, military, and government all rely on the culture of form, propriety, and dignity. Necessarily so. But such emphasis on form has a constricting effect on the thoughts and emotions of people in it.
    This is why academic types usually don't make great artists. To be an artist, you have to be free, wild, imaginative, and passionate. To be an intellectual, one's emotions have to be checked and controlled, and the mind has to be focused on critical assessment. If Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando, Sam Peckinpah, and Elia Kazan had taken an academic course in life, they never would have been artists. On the other hand, intellectuals, scholars, and critics must be more cerebral and objective than passionate and subjective.

    Bacevich worked in military, government, and academia. He went from a culture of form to culture of form to culture of form. He is about control, order, system, form, and dryness. His culture is different from the culture that made Trump, the wheeler-dealer who had to be shifty, 'artful', bluffy, clever, crafty, bullying, and etc.
    Trump is a player in the very game of money and power. Also, Trump had to be more savvy to rise up in his field. If one works in military, government, and academia, there are clearer rules as to what you must do to rise up the ranks. In business, so much depends on the 'art of the deal', charisma, handshakes, and instinct.

    Trump's world is about the play. You have to play to win.

    Bacevich's is about the program. You follow the program to rise up.

    It's the difference between Belfort and the Fed in Wolf of Wall Street.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IKbkjs8xd0

    Now, I'm not saying Trump is a douche like Belfort(though he could be, what with the Trump Chump University scandal) but merely making a point about the difference of personalities in different endeavors.

    Anyway, people like Bacevich feel somewhat superior to the rest of us. They feel superior to us unschooled dummies because we don't have Ph.D's and other credentials. We don't read books and don't have access to special information in departments and archives. Also, people like Bacevich are wealthier than we are.

    But people like Bacevich also feel superior to rich folks like Trump. They see people like Trump as having hustled and swindled their way to great wealth. Or even if super-rich folks didn't cheat to rake in the dough, all they ever cared about is money, money, money. It's like Bill Gates never got much respect as anyone other than a businessman. Even Steve Jobs said Gates got no culture, no taste. He only knows geekery and money and business.

    People like Bacevich see themselves as Human Ideals. They are wealthy(or wealthy enough) and deserving of privilege. But they are not all about money. They are about knowledge and truth. They devoted their lives to studying the world and coming up with useful theories. They play the role of scholars and critics of power. And they have mastered a proper form of manners and behavior that epitomize dignity, seriousness, maturity, and integrity.
    From their angle, there is nothing lower than someone like roguish Trump. Even if Trump agreed with them 100%, his talk-radio-like populist style would rub them the wrong way. It'd be like Rush Limbaugh coming on NPR. The only kind of conservative that such folks can maybe tolerate is Bill Buckley or some tweedy type with proper manners. Trump is too much like the Wild One in the Brando movie. Or maybe like the Lee Marvin character. It's like how Jimmy Stewart reacts to the tough guys in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. It's like how Gregory Peck the Eastern elitist reacts to the boors of Texas in THE BIG COUNTRY. Reagan was more bearable because he was more like John Wayne than Lee Marvin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI_BKLpSFQg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZp6EmVqq5o

    But, with all due respect, let us knock people like Bacevich down a few pegs.

    For one thing, despite the culture of form, dignity, and propriety --- and all those POMPOUS ceremonies with tassels, real and honorary degrees, highfalutin titles in Latin, graduation speeches, and etc --- , much of the academia is corrupt, crazy, repressive, dishonest, radical, careerist, opportunistic, privileged, lazy, demented, partisan, nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, tribal, fiendish, scummy, and no good.
    Bacevich says Trump is pompous. No, he's boorish. Pompous would be something like all those graduation speeches where honorary guests make bloated statements about hope and etc. Pompous would be the 2008 election that presented Obama as The One, the messiah, the black jesus, 'like god'(as one reporter said), the second coming of MLK and Camelot, and etc. Pompous would be all those 'esteemed' professors talking like they are philosopher kings. Pompous would be all those armchair revolutionaries with millions of dollars in their bank accounts but yammering about Marx and Social Justice. Consider Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.

    So many academics are actually cowards who don't want to face the real world. So, they hide in the bubble, in the ivory tower. But they tell themselves that they are committed to studying the real world and critiquing what is wrong with it. But most professors have no idea of human nature since they have no contact with real people. They live with theories of reality. Many of them have no sense of reality beyond what they got from PC from cradle. Many are children of privilege pretending to be fighting privilege. But of course, they need privilege to study and oppose privilege. Just look at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. They are filled with kids of privilege and elitism, but they pose as 'progressives' and talk of equality and social justice.

    Bacevich assumes that since Trump's style is wild, his substance must be crazy. But in fact, the substance of Trump's proposals are some of the most sane we've heard in many yrs. Indeed, they may sound crazy precisely because they sound TOO SANE. Fix our borders. No more crazy wars. Favor national interests of American people than globalist interests of elites. Stop with the new cold war business.

    In contrast, so many academics have the form of integrity and dignity. They seem and sound so smart, balanced, thoughtful, critical, skeptical, and retrospective.
    But, we must judge people by what they do, not what they say.

    Weren't the financial instruments that nearly brought down US finance in 2008 the creation of Ivy League-trained academics, economists, and investors?
    Aren't the people in the US intelligence, US military, and US state department mostly the graduates of top elite universities? Yet, the so-called Best and Brightest gave us stuff like Iraq War, War on Terror that actually aids terrorists, the disaster in Libya and Syria?
    Bacevich speaks of Trump's bad manners. Well, Colin Powell was one of the best-mannered men in government. Yet, he sat before the UN council and lied through his teeth that Hussein had nuclear weapons program using aluminum beer cans. John Yoo, the well-mannered professor from Berkeley argued that US could torture prisoners. The Best and Brightest planned for Iraq War that led to Abu Grahib, endless escalation, the looting of Iraq museum, civil war that no one anticipated(or maybe they did and wanted it), and etc.

    And who were the advisers to the privatization in Russia in the 90s? It wasn't Trump and such boors. No, it was the philosopher kings, the professors of the best schools. Larry Summers. Jeffrey Sachs. It was the Harvard Team. (To Sach's credit, he must be feeling some remorse since he is opposed to Hillary's nutty call for New Cold War against Russia.) And what happened to Russia as a result? Didn't Larry Summers also push deregulation of Wall Street? And Yale-educated Clinton signed on it.

    People say Obama is so smart and knowledgeable. But what has he accomplished in office? He didn't know jack shit about Wall Street and just gave the banks everything they asked for. He got Obamacare only by lying to the public, and we don't know how it will turn out. Almost surely badly. His foreign policy has been a total mess. Middle East and North Africa got worse than during Bush yrs when only Afghanistan and Iraq were burning. Now it also Libya, Yemen, Syria. And it may well spread to Turkey. And then, there is the massive 'refugee' crisis and terror attacks spreading all over.
    Crime is up due to Ferguson effect. Whatever economic recovery has been largely due to printing money and borrowing, with debt now at over 20 trillion. Illegal immigration is totally out of control, worse than in Bush yrs. Obama's SC appointees are PC commissars, not defenders of any Rule of Law based on Constitution. A 'wise Latina' and some Jewish lesbian who, in her stint at Harvard, filled the Law school with her tribesmen while bitching about 'white privilege'.

    Obama certainly perfected the academic style, and he became the darling of white/Jewish Libs who want to appear pro-black but had problems finding Negroes of real caliber. But as smart as Obama is, what has he done academically or professionally prior to becoming a politician? Zilch. He got by on style. He didn't even become a professor at University of Chicago. He just hung around and made connections with the right kind of people who found him useful as 'our Negro'. Jews went so far as to call him the 'first Jewish president'. So, even though Obama did absolutely nothing as instructor and politician, he got to be president because he had the right kind of 'style' and knew the right kind of people.

    So, before Bacevich gets all high and mighty about the academic world and its nice manners of civility and dignity, he should ask himself how so much of the academic style and prestige have been used for some of the most insane, irresponsible, reckless, stupid, vile, hideous, nasty, ugly, sick, and demented policies one can think of.
    This is true of finance. Wall Street is run by Ivy League graduates. And there is a open door policy between Wall Street and Ivy League business schools. Those who work on Wall Street later become academics. Academics find plush positions in Wall Street.

    And look at foreign policy. You'd think academics would be honest and tough critics of power and politics. But we've seen so many academics whore themselves out to Republican and Democrat warmongers. There were plenty of academics advising the Bush administration in the reckless Iraq War. And there were plenty of highfalutin academics supporting and making excuses for Obama-Hillary's war in Libya and subversion in Syria and Ukraine. Victoria Nuland is related to a Yale academic.
    So much for honest critics of power. They act so professorial and dignified, but so many are partisan hacks or tribal opportunists(mostly of the Zionist kind). Jewish money and media pressure are so pervasive that Norman Finkelstein was robbed of a job at Depaul(and other universities) because the odious Alan Dershowitz made phone calls. And Steven Salaita couldn't get a gig at U of I because of impassioned remarks during the Gaza massacre.

    And do law schools really teach the law? Just how does law school produce idiots like Sonia Sotomayor the 'wise Latina'? Just how does the academia justify something so bogus as 'hate speech' laws? I mean who decides what is hate and not hate? The powers that be, right? And how can any serious person say stuff like "I believe in free speech but not hate speech"? And how is it that the best law schools produce people who reinterpret and redefine marriage as between a man and man and between woman and woman? How is that the leading academic theories of justice advised NY to fine businesses for $250,000 if they confuse a 'he' with 'she'? What are they teaching at Harvard Law School when they say a guy with a woman's wig should use a woman's washroom? What is this, farce?

    And if academic life is about truth, dignity, and sanity, how is it that some of the craziest ideas in recent yrs came out of the academia? And if the academia has such high standards, how did it allow so many moronic or crazy lunatics to become tenured professors? How did colleges come up with stuff like 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions' and other hysteria? And how do universities react to stuff like false KKK sighting at Oberlin? They treat them as if they're real. And when the Milo the homo poofter was interrupted and threatened at Depaul, where was the principle of freedom of speech? If anything, the Depaul administration sided with the thugs. How did Emma Sulkowicz get away with such rot. Even after she was exposed as a nut and fraud, NOW gave her the courage award. But this is a nation where Bruce Jenner won both the courage award and woman of the year award. And we live in a world where Obama got the Nobel prize for nothing. Well, how much peace did Obama spread around the world since then?

    And look at the media. A massive lie machine. Now, so many journos are products of top journalism schools. So, how come so many are more committed to PC, the Narrative, and BS than to the truth? How come black thugs are called 'teens' and 'youths'? Why did NBC's Diane Sawyer say bombed out Gaza is Israel. How come Helen Thomas lost her job for saying European Zionists should return to Europe? How come NYT and rest of media cheer-lead the Iraq War? Why have they let Obama get away with so much spying, lack of transparency, and war-mongering? Why did they go easy on Wall Street that fleeced us blind in 2009 with bailouts? How did the whole media fall for the UVA rape hoax? If not for a handful of bloggers who exposed the fraud, the whole world would still be believing the story and the crazy bitch who wrote it probably would have won the Pulitzer.

    And as I've said before, the academia has been either too cowardly or too complicit in the rise of PC craziness and hysteria in the campuses. The cowards didn't speak out against the rise of PC lunacy and witch-hunt mentality. The complicit were the very professors --- mostly in sociology, humanities, political science, and law --- who filled the minds of millennial morons with paranoid lunacy about Evil White Males, Patriarchy, KKK, 'homophobia', and etc. If academic environment is so sane and rational, how come some of the most vile, aggressive, hateful, and bilious movements have emerged from the universities?

    And what has come of college debates? Now, winners are usually shucking and jiving black wanna-be rappers. This is what US colleges allow, and the likes of Andrew Bacevich never lodged a complaint. Yet, he is bitching about Trump's ill manners and craziness?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    When Bacevich saw PC lunacy on his campus, did he ever speak out? Or did he just keep his head low and walk away because he didn't want to lose his proper form as a dignified academic? If we want craziness, we don't need Trump. We only need to look at colleges newspaper to see what the latest hysteria, craze, fad, or nutjobbery is.
    But, the crazy stuff in colleges is cloaked with the conceit of intellectualism, rationalism, critical theory, or some such. So, it gets a pass while Trump is said to be crazy, extreme, and nutty because he said... let's fix our borders(how mad!!!), end the stupid new cold war with Russia(how loony!!!), let's stop messing up Muslim nations(how ludicrous!!!), let's be careful about which Muslims we allow into America(how frightening!!!), let's think about the American worker and not just the globalist urban class(how supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!!).

    What is truly crazy about America is that a NY real estate hustler and blowhard makes more common sense, moral sense, and good sense than all the experts of media, academia, military, and government combined. But in a world where the law of the land says 2 + 2 = 5, someone who insists it is 2 + 2 = 4 must be mad.

    Trump is not the emperor who has no clothes. He is one who notices that the Empire has no clothes. Also, unlike the ridiculous expectations of Pompous Hope and Change of Obama that couldn't be fulfilled(not least because they lacked specificity), what Trump is calling for can be achieved.
    They are realistic about the real world. We can fix our borders if we really want to. We can lower immigration to give US workers time to breathe and catch up. We can end the stupid new cold war with Russia. It's easy cuz Russia doesn't want it. We can let EU carry a bigger burden with NATO. We need to stop seeing EU as a vassal state of US. We can stop the wars in the Muslim world and let Muslims and Arabs pick up their own pieces. It was US intervention and its collusion with allies that led to hell in Libya and Syria. Dealing with the big banks is a much tougher call.
    Despite Trumps overstatements and boorish style, what he is calling for is doable, sensible, and right.
    But then, we have too many people feeding on crisis caused by globalist interventions. They don't want a fix to the problems. They thrive on problems. And that is why they see Trump as a threat.

    The remarkable thing about Trump is his style is sometimes over-the-top and 'crazy', but he is, at the core, totally sane. He's not like the man in NETWORK who really loses it and screams 'I'm mad as hell'.
    The way of Trump is to be 'Sane as Hell'. In a world gone nuts as the new normal, he is wildly... sane.

    Absolutely brilliant. Maybe the best political piece I have ever read. This guy should be a columnist, not just a commenter.

    Anybody like Bacevich, who has virtually unlimited access to the mainstream media should be treated very warily. Heck, even a very politically correct, crypto Zionist like Amy Goodman of the program Democracy Now considers him a reliable source.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Anybody like Bacevich, who has virtually unlimited access to the mainstream media should be treated very warily. Heck, even a very politically correct, crypto Zionist like Amy Goodman of the program Democracy Now considers him a reliable source.
     
    Last I checked, "Hypocrisy Now!", was distinctly to the left of the "mainstream media", as was Mother Jones, which published a piece by Bacevich in which he uses, apparently without irony, the fake, propaganda term "Islamophobia":
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/jerry-boykin-islam-andrew-bacevich
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Rehmat says:
    @Priss Factor
    Progressives and leftists used to be anti-military and universities.

    Military and academia are about order, hierarchy, and control.

    So, when the military and academia accepts progressivism, the latter takes on modes of hierarchy, conformism, and consensus.

    Diversity used to mean opposition to the militarism of Wasp war machine. Now it marches lockstep behind the globo-war-machine.

    Progs took over the war machine, but the war machine turned them into obedient drones.

    As for immigrants like Khan, personal self-interest beats all. He doesn't seem to care that Zio-US is destroying the Muslim world and that Hillary is the war-monger.

    Between Trump keeping Muslims out and ending wars AND Hillary expanding wars and letting Muslims in, the likes of Khan prefer the latter because his personal interest is to live well in the US.

    His ilk doesn't mind Muslim immigrant kids turning into MTV-addicted trash and US dropping bombs in the Muslim world as long as they get a ticket to come and live in the US.

    If Khan is bad because he looks after his personal interests – then how about the all the thousands of White, Christiana and Jewish American lawmakers and politicians who look after their interests by supporting a foreign Zionist entity an anti-Iran terrorist organizations?

    For example, in March 2012, US Treasury Department issued subpoenas into an investigation against over three dozen former US high ranking government and military officials for accepting large sum of money in return for lobbying for an anti-Tehran government terrorist militant group, the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), known as ‘Munafiqun-e-Khalq (or People’s traitors) in Iran. The group is listed as a ‘terrorist organization’ by the State Department. Allegedly, these Judeo-Christians sold their souls to the devil for $30,000 to $160,000.

    All under investigation are the ‘Israel-Firsters’ belonging to the Republican, Democratic and Tea parties. The list includes former Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell (Jewish) of Pennsylvania and currently MSNBC contributor, Democratic Gov. Howard Dean (Jewish) of Vermont; former Republican Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush and currently CNN’s resident terror expert, Frances Townsend (Jewish), Bush’s Attorney General, Michael Mukasey (Jewish), and former UN ambassador John Bolton (crypto-Jew); former Republican Mayor of New York, Rudolph Guiliani (Zionist Christian); and ex-FBI Director Louis Freeh (crypto Jew) and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Hugh Shelton (friend of Jewish Army).

    Several of these evil-doers have been advocating tirelessly to get the MEK removed from the US terrorist list. Howard Dean, Gens. Hugh H. Shelton, Peter Pace, Wesley K. Clark, James L. Jones and Rudolph Guiliani and several others went to Paris to meet MEK’s boss, Maryam Rajavi, who told these Muslim haters to urge Washington to recognize her as the President of Iran.

    Both MEK and Jundallah terrorist groups are linked with Israel which has used them to destablize Iran by bombing civilian and military targets and assassination of country’s top nuclear scientists.

    According to a ruling by the US Supreme Court in 2010 – a DOJ interpretation of the ‘material support’ statute, the MEK’s listing as a terror organization makes it illegal to coordinate with, provide assistance to, or take payment from the group.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/03/19/us-leaders-charged-for-accepting-money-from-anti-iran-terrorist-group/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Stogumber says:

    Bacevich is strangely naive. Of course his generation has very positive memories about the 1950s – it was a great time for the American middle and working classes. And politicians were treated much better by the media then. So his nostalgic infantile view on Ike and Adlai is understandable.
    But did he never read Phylis Schlafly (A Choice, not an Echo)? The procedures by which candidates were produced were then as rigged as nowadays.
    Only nowadays there is much more discontent – and fortunately a maverick candidate who gives this discontent a voice. And this is political progress, not political decay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. RJJCDA says:

    As a admirer of some of your writings, and a fellow Vietnam vet, I am saddened, Colonel.

    Why do you shudder at Trump as Commander in Chief? He was against the Iraq War, has questioned NATO’s expansion east, wants good relations with Russia. While certainly he would DEFEND, strategically, he is not a bellicose man.

    He does not take from the donor class as he is mostly self-funded up till now. Hillary and her husband are crooks and money launderers on a massive scale. The Clinton Foundation is a billion dollar transfer system and scam enriching the Clintons and their associates by granting favors to such stalwarts of civilization as the Saudis, etc., and then “excepting” donations to their foundations. Or sometimes first PAY to later play.

    Sorry Colonel, but you fail to comprehend. You live on the east coast, and spent a good part of your life in academia. Therefore, you are solipsistic and provincial. You, and your class of pseudo elite intellectuals are being passed by historical events.

    Trump cares not a hoot about you and your kindred spirits, and especially not for the dumb-downed media. He talks over your heads to reach defenders of the traditional American nation, and he resonates there. You and your type are no longer capable of finding harmony with America’s traditional songs of self; you but exhibit nothing but dissonance. That is why you are incapable of understanding his strategy. The man thinks and functions several levels above your diminished level of comprehension.

    The battle is between an elite driven globalism with nation and peoples’ destruction as its goal; and those defenders of traditional loyalties with fealty to a sovereign republic.

    It is Trump, or its over. People here in fly-over country openly talk about devolution/secession. Trump can cure this, but Hillary or any other “controlled” candidate will hasten the events.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. @Priss Factor
    Bacevich doesn't seem to know the meaning of 'pompous'.

    I think he has it confused with bombastic and self-promoting. Trump is certainly that. He has a salesman's instincts, and he knows how to throw a pitch. But the salesman style generally isn't pompous. It can be boastful and swaggering, and Trump can be that too.

    Pompous would be Obama, writing books with titles like 'Dreams from My Father' and ..... ROTFL 'Audacity of Hope'. LOL. It must be more awesome than the mere City of Hope.
    Awe-Day-City of Hope. Shoo!
    Obama's father was some drunken lout who stuck his dong into anything that moved. I don't what kind of 'dream' Obama got from him. The lout didn't even raise his own son and left his other sons to be raised fatherless too. Typical black male behavior.
    But didn't King tell us that he had a Dream? Obama is so pompous that he calls Illegal Aliens the 'dreamers'. And even PC can be awful pompous. Consider terms like this: "Justice-Involved Individuals"
    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/04/27/doj-coins-new-term-for-convicted-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/

    It's like gentrification of PC. 'Body positivity movement' for fatkins. 'Vertically challenged' for munchkins.

    But then, we live in a nation where discrimination in favor of rich blacks over poor whites is called 'Affirmative Action'. Shoo.

    Just think. What in the hell is 'audacity of hope'? Why would it take any audacity to hope? If I hope I have a million dollars, is that audacious? Did Obama get to where he did by hoping? Or did he scheme and make cold-blooded decisions with the backing of people with billions and control of media?

    Trump is rich and shows off his wealth. But his nouveau-riche style lacks pomposity. It's a honest way of saying, "I got it and I like it." The really pompous ones are people like George Clooney and Bill Clinton who have it all but pretend like they are global saviors of poor and helpless and make pleas for the 'refugees' whom they themselves don't have to deal with.

    Trump's rich style is more transparent. He makes no bones about it.
    Pompous would be like Chelsea Clinton who married the son of some billionaire. She yammers about how she doesn't care about money. Yeah, cuz she doesn't have to think about it cuz she's surrounded by it. Her hubby lost 100s of millions of dollars for an investment firm, but he is well-connected and taken for.
    It's like in THE AVIATOR. Those with money can pretend they don't care about money. Pompous would be Mitt Romney, a real shark who claims to oppose Trump out of some higher principle. Mr. Bane cares about higher principles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br-ljup5Bow

    Also, there is a sense of fun and irony around the Trump campaign. All that stuff about 'god emperor trump' is supposed to be campy. It is meant as circus. It is a kind of shtick.
    They are not like the gushing fools who fainted at Obama's rallies in 2008 as if they were face to face with messiah as some smooth jazz operator.
    Trump is just being flattered as big boss, chieftain of the hour.
    Obama was hailed and revered as if descended from heaven or born miraculously.

    And whenever there was some crisis in or outside the nation, Obama could be counted on to deliver the most pompous utterances that may sound lofty but mean absolutely nothing in their highfalutin bathos. Indeed, no presidency has been as bathetic as Obama's. Obama has been to politics what Oprah was to TV.

    Also, the Obama camp is so deep into kitsch that they have lost all sense of irony about themselves. They don't even know how ludicrously pompous their 'vision' is.
    I mean the association of homosexuality with the rainbow. The lighting up of the white house with homo rainbow colors. Bruce Jenner in wig and woman's panties as a figure of courage.
    And who can forget this precious picture?

    http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1077461.1336950482!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/gay14n-1-web.jpg

    So, the very people who call themselves secular and rational promote obama the slimy snake as some messiah(the one) who is blessed with homo holiness from.... god?

    Does Bacevich see nothing pompous in all this?

    Trump is more like the Big Bad Wolf who is going huff puff and blow the PC house down.

    He is a blowhard, but I prefer it to PC blowtard.

    I second the notion–Mr. Anonymny should have a column here. If there was a gold standard for comments that perfectly described the disconnect between the regular people and the academicians (like Dr. Bacevich, et al.), then this is definitely it

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Barbara says:

    trump is jewish and lying about his last name: http://mileswmathis.com/trump.pdf

    I posted a long comment at the Buchanan page with more about this and can’t repeat here or will be banned. There’s only one party. We have to go third party or this country is screwed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. With all due respect to Bacevich, I disagree with him about Trump.

    What kind of President would Trump make? Hell, I don’t know–nobody does. I’ll be voting for him, in the hope that his foreign policy would be even marginally better than The Pantsuited One’s.

    However, I think I can say without fear of contradiction that Clinton would be a corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, Israel-First, interventionist hack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Alden says:

    I too remember the 1956 and even the 1952 elections ” Whistle while you work, Stevenson’s a jerk, Eisenhower’s got the power so whistle while you work” was sung by the kids at school whose parents were Republicans

    Were I the editor this pompous old fuddy duddy piece would not have been posted.
    He could have mentioned that even in 50 percent black towns White children were safe in civilized schools although Whites were being forced out of the cities by force and violence committed by blacks.

    He could have mentioned that qualified Whites held government jobs rather than affirmative action blacks and in White immigrants who don’t speak English

    He could have mentioned that entertainment was not porn and the latest liberal cause.

    Horrible fuddy duddy essay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Ya gotta love it when the bulk of the comments make much more sense and are much more readable than some “academician’s” hysterical screed.

    Judging by this tiresome, wordy, poorly thought out rant, along with others such as Mercer’s foolishness to name just two, I’d say it should have been titled, “The Decay of American Intelligentisia,” or rather the utter decadence of what’s been passing for it for several decades now.

    One benefit of trash such as this article is that it confirms that the the emperor has neither clothes, nor brains nor morals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard Steele
    Excellent comment, can't agree with you more.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Jacques Sheete
    Ya gotta love it when the bulk of the comments make much more sense and are much more readable than some "academician's" hysterical screed.

    Judging by this tiresome, wordy, poorly thought out rant, along with others such as Mercer's foolishness to name just two, I'd say it should have been titled, "The Decay of American Intelligentisia," or rather the utter decadence of what's been passing for it for several decades now.

    One benefit of trash such as this article is that it confirms that the the emperor has neither clothes, nor brains nor morals.

    Excellent comment, can’t agree with you more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Priss Factor
    I think I sort of know where Bacevich is coming from.

    He is an academic, and he works in an environment where proper manners and form matter a lot. Professors are expected to dress, talk, and act in a certain way.
    Whatever the ideology, studies, specialty, department, or function, there is the Professional and Professorial style. It is supposed to be objective, intellectual, cerebral, restrained, and cautious. Of course, there are differences. Some professors have pony tails. Some dress loudly. Some talk shit in class. But there is an predominant Academic Culture. It is pervasive and becomes a way of thinking, acting, feeling, and being.

    To an academe, Trump's style is all wrong. Professors are not supposed to talk or even move like him. Serious students are not supposed to see him as model. And with PC dictating college values, no one is supposed to say the sort of things Trump has said. Serious academic types(professors and students) hate the party fraternities, and Trump acts like one-man Animal House. He rubs academes the wrong way like Rodney Dangerfield did in BACK TO SCHOOL.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

    Academes are devoted to studying the world, and they become specialists in certain fields. But because they function in a social bubble, they don't rub up against reality like Trump and the Dangerfield character do in the REAL WORLD. It's the difference between a boxer who's been in the ring and the locker room AND the scholar of sports who knows statistics and such but don't know what it's like to have a punch in the face and blood spurt out of the nose.

    In the academic world, proper form matters at all times. Professors must dress properly and talk properly. And there is rules of classroom conduct. This is all very good and necessary. But such a culture creates a false impression that the world should be like the school environment, where theory and reality are complementary.

    Paradoxically however, it is the very culture of proper form that had led to the takeover of certain colleges by the lunatic fringe of PC-triggered madness. We see how this happens in David Mamet's OLEANNA. In the film, a Liberal College professor is into being very professional and academic. He is part of that culture, and he lives it, inhales it, exhales it. He probably thinks and acts academic even at home, like Dustin Hoffman's character in STRAW DOGS.
    So, when a crazed feminist wench in OLEANNA makes a crazy accusation against the professor, he doesn't know what to do. He's so committed to maintaining the proper form that he hasn't the guts to get angry and call her a vile, disgusting, stupid, ludicrous, lying, hag bitch. Why, such an emotional response would mean loss of form and dignity. It would seem barbaric in the eyes of academic culture, just like Barry Lyndon's loss of temper in front of the aristocratic folks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDaWEh_NFeg

    https://youtu.be/TbUYRAS7XI8?t=2m43s

    Professorial dignity is closely tied to proper form. So, even when up against great pressure, one's respect depends on maintaining that form. Lose it, and you're seen as a boor. So, rather than risking one's loss of form and respect, many academics just have let the crazies run rampant on the campus. (This is why British society is so defenseless against PC lunacy. When one see nuttiness, one must show anger and take rough action. But such boorish behavior is beneath the dignity of the preening British elites. So, they just choose to make gentle assurances and accommodate the craziness by offering it a place in the power structure. That way, the British elites get to be 'good whites' and the radicals direct their ire at the 'bad whites' who aren't so accommodating and offering of bribes. Social Justice Cult is just an extortion racket. The rich can keep their style of 'dignity' by buying off the radicals to attack something else. In the UK, the 'bad whites' are the 'working class racists' who voted for Brexit.)
    Indeed, when the professor finally loses it in OLEANNA and strikes the no-good bitch,
    he knows he's lost everything, just like Barry Lyndon. It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you must live by the culture of form, you can't fight back against lunatics who insult and impugn you. You must take the smears and taunts. But if you do lose it and fight back, it will only confirm the taunts and smears that you're an oppressive brute and barbarian. (It's like radicals often provoked cops into violent reaction and then cried foul.)

    The elite worlds of academia, military, and government all rely on the culture of form, propriety, and dignity. Necessarily so. But such emphasis on form has a constricting effect on the thoughts and emotions of people in it.
    This is why academic types usually don't make great artists. To be an artist, you have to be free, wild, imaginative, and passionate. To be an intellectual, one's emotions have to be checked and controlled, and the mind has to be focused on critical assessment. If Bob Dylan, Marlon Brando, Sam Peckinpah, and Elia Kazan had taken an academic course in life, they never would have been artists. On the other hand, intellectuals, scholars, and critics must be more cerebral and objective than passionate and subjective.

    Bacevich worked in military, government, and academia. He went from a culture of form to culture of form to culture of form. He is about control, order, system, form, and dryness. His culture is different from the culture that made Trump, the wheeler-dealer who had to be shifty, 'artful', bluffy, clever, crafty, bullying, and etc.
    Trump is a player in the very game of money and power. Also, Trump had to be more savvy to rise up in his field. If one works in military, government, and academia, there are clearer rules as to what you must do to rise up the ranks. In business, so much depends on the 'art of the deal', charisma, handshakes, and instinct.

    Trump's world is about the play. You have to play to win.

    Bacevich's is about the program. You follow the program to rise up.

    It's the difference between Belfort and the Fed in Wolf of Wall Street.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IKbkjs8xd0

    Now, I'm not saying Trump is a douche like Belfort(though he could be, what with the Trump Chump University scandal) but merely making a point about the difference of personalities in different endeavors.

    Anyway, people like Bacevich feel somewhat superior to the rest of us. They feel superior to us unschooled dummies because we don't have Ph.D's and other credentials. We don't read books and don't have access to special information in departments and archives. Also, people like Bacevich are wealthier than we are.

    But people like Bacevich also feel superior to rich folks like Trump. They see people like Trump as having hustled and swindled their way to great wealth. Or even if super-rich folks didn't cheat to rake in the dough, all they ever cared about is money, money, money. It's like Bill Gates never got much respect as anyone other than a businessman. Even Steve Jobs said Gates got no culture, no taste. He only knows geekery and money and business.

    People like Bacevich see themselves as Human Ideals. They are wealthy(or wealthy enough) and deserving of privilege. But they are not all about money. They are about knowledge and truth. They devoted their lives to studying the world and coming up with useful theories. They play the role of scholars and critics of power. And they have mastered a proper form of manners and behavior that epitomize dignity, seriousness, maturity, and integrity.
    From their angle, there is nothing lower than someone like roguish Trump. Even if Trump agreed with them 100%, his talk-radio-like populist style would rub them the wrong way. It'd be like Rush Limbaugh coming on NPR. The only kind of conservative that such folks can maybe tolerate is Bill Buckley or some tweedy type with proper manners. Trump is too much like the Wild One in the Brando movie. Or maybe like the Lee Marvin character. It's like how Jimmy Stewart reacts to the tough guys in THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. It's like how Gregory Peck the Eastern elitist reacts to the boors of Texas in THE BIG COUNTRY. Reagan was more bearable because he was more like John Wayne than Lee Marvin.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI_BKLpSFQg
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZp6EmVqq5o

    But, with all due respect, let us knock people like Bacevich down a few pegs.

    For one thing, despite the culture of form, dignity, and propriety --- and all those POMPOUS ceremonies with tassels, real and honorary degrees, highfalutin titles in Latin, graduation speeches, and etc --- , much of the academia is corrupt, crazy, repressive, dishonest, radical, careerist, opportunistic, privileged, lazy, demented, partisan, nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, tribal, fiendish, scummy, and no good.
    Bacevich says Trump is pompous. No, he's boorish. Pompous would be something like all those graduation speeches where honorary guests make bloated statements about hope and etc. Pompous would be the 2008 election that presented Obama as The One, the messiah, the black jesus, 'like god'(as one reporter said), the second coming of MLK and Camelot, and etc. Pompous would be all those 'esteemed' professors talking like they are philosopher kings. Pompous would be all those armchair revolutionaries with millions of dollars in their bank accounts but yammering about Marx and Social Justice. Consider Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.

    So many academics are actually cowards who don't want to face the real world. So, they hide in the bubble, in the ivory tower. But they tell themselves that they are committed to studying the real world and critiquing what is wrong with it. But most professors have no idea of human nature since they have no contact with real people. They live with theories of reality. Many of them have no sense of reality beyond what they got from PC from cradle. Many are children of privilege pretending to be fighting privilege. But of course, they need privilege to study and oppose privilege. Just look at Harvard and Yale and Princeton. They are filled with kids of privilege and elitism, but they pose as 'progressives' and talk of equality and social justice.

    Bacevich assumes that since Trump's style is wild, his substance must be crazy. But in fact, the substance of Trump's proposals are some of the most sane we've heard in many yrs. Indeed, they may sound crazy precisely because they sound TOO SANE. Fix our borders. No more crazy wars. Favor national interests of American people than globalist interests of elites. Stop with the new cold war business.

    In contrast, so many academics have the form of integrity and dignity. They seem and sound so smart, balanced, thoughtful, critical, skeptical, and retrospective.
    But, we must judge people by what they do, not what they say.

    Weren't the financial instruments that nearly brought down US finance in 2008 the creation of Ivy League-trained academics, economists, and investors?
    Aren't the people in the US intelligence, US military, and US state department mostly the graduates of top elite universities? Yet, the so-called Best and Brightest gave us stuff like Iraq War, War on Terror that actually aids terrorists, the disaster in Libya and Syria?
    Bacevich speaks of Trump's bad manners. Well, Colin Powell was one of the best-mannered men in government. Yet, he sat before the UN council and lied through his teeth that Hussein had nuclear weapons program using aluminum beer cans. John Yoo, the well-mannered professor from Berkeley argued that US could torture prisoners. The Best and Brightest planned for Iraq War that led to Abu Grahib, endless escalation, the looting of Iraq museum, civil war that no one anticipated(or maybe they did and wanted it), and etc.

    And who were the advisers to the privatization in Russia in the 90s? It wasn't Trump and such boors. No, it was the philosopher kings, the professors of the best schools. Larry Summers. Jeffrey Sachs. It was the Harvard Team. (To Sach's credit, he must be feeling some remorse since he is opposed to Hillary's nutty call for New Cold War against Russia.) And what happened to Russia as a result? Didn't Larry Summers also push deregulation of Wall Street? And Yale-educated Clinton signed on it.

    People say Obama is so smart and knowledgeable. But what has he accomplished in office? He didn't know jack shit about Wall Street and just gave the banks everything they asked for. He got Obamacare only by lying to the public, and we don't know how it will turn out. Almost surely badly. His foreign policy has been a total mess. Middle East and North Africa got worse than during Bush yrs when only Afghanistan and Iraq were burning. Now it also Libya, Yemen, Syria. And it may well spread to Turkey. And then, there is the massive 'refugee' crisis and terror attacks spreading all over.
    Crime is up due to Ferguson effect. Whatever economic recovery has been largely due to printing money and borrowing, with debt now at over 20 trillion. Illegal immigration is totally out of control, worse than in Bush yrs. Obama's SC appointees are PC commissars, not defenders of any Rule of Law based on Constitution. A 'wise Latina' and some Jewish lesbian who, in her stint at Harvard, filled the Law school with her tribesmen while bitching about 'white privilege'.

    Obama certainly perfected the academic style, and he became the darling of white/Jewish Libs who want to appear pro-black but had problems finding Negroes of real caliber. But as smart as Obama is, what has he done academically or professionally prior to becoming a politician? Zilch. He got by on style. He didn't even become a professor at University of Chicago. He just hung around and made connections with the right kind of people who found him useful as 'our Negro'. Jews went so far as to call him the 'first Jewish president'. So, even though Obama did absolutely nothing as instructor and politician, he got to be president because he had the right kind of 'style' and knew the right kind of people.

    So, before Bacevich gets all high and mighty about the academic world and its nice manners of civility and dignity, he should ask himself how so much of the academic style and prestige have been used for some of the most insane, irresponsible, reckless, stupid, vile, hideous, nasty, ugly, sick, and demented policies one can think of.
    This is true of finance. Wall Street is run by Ivy League graduates. And there is a open door policy between Wall Street and Ivy League business schools. Those who work on Wall Street later become academics. Academics find plush positions in Wall Street.

    And look at foreign policy. You'd think academics would be honest and tough critics of power and politics. But we've seen so many academics whore themselves out to Republican and Democrat warmongers. There were plenty of academics advising the Bush administration in the reckless Iraq War. And there were plenty of highfalutin academics supporting and making excuses for Obama-Hillary's war in Libya and subversion in Syria and Ukraine. Victoria Nuland is related to a Yale academic.
    So much for honest critics of power. They act so professorial and dignified, but so many are partisan hacks or tribal opportunists(mostly of the Zionist kind). Jewish money and media pressure are so pervasive that Norman Finkelstein was robbed of a job at Depaul(and other universities) because the odious Alan Dershowitz made phone calls. And Steven Salaita couldn't get a gig at U of I because of impassioned remarks during the Gaza massacre.

    And do law schools really teach the law? Just how does law school produce idiots like Sonia Sotomayor the 'wise Latina'? Just how does the academia justify something so bogus as 'hate speech' laws? I mean who decides what is hate and not hate? The powers that be, right? And how can any serious person say stuff like "I believe in free speech but not hate speech"? And how is it that the best law schools produce people who reinterpret and redefine marriage as between a man and man and between woman and woman? How is that the leading academic theories of justice advised NY to fine businesses for $250,000 if they confuse a 'he' with 'she'? What are they teaching at Harvard Law School when they say a guy with a woman's wig should use a woman's washroom? What is this, farce?

    And if academic life is about truth, dignity, and sanity, how is it that some of the craziest ideas in recent yrs came out of the academia? And if the academia has such high standards, how did it allow so many moronic or crazy lunatics to become tenured professors? How did colleges come up with stuff like 'trigger warnings' and 'micro-aggressions' and other hysteria? And how do universities react to stuff like false KKK sighting at Oberlin? They treat them as if they're real. And when the Milo the homo poofter was interrupted and threatened at Depaul, where was the principle of freedom of speech? If anything, the Depaul administration sided with the thugs. How did Emma Sulkowicz get away with such rot. Even after she was exposed as a nut and fraud, NOW gave her the courage award. But this is a nation where Bruce Jenner won both the courage award and woman of the year award. And we live in a world where Obama got the Nobel prize for nothing. Well, how much peace did Obama spread around the world since then?

    And look at the media. A massive lie machine. Now, so many journos are products of top journalism schools. So, how come so many are more committed to PC, the Narrative, and BS than to the truth? How come black thugs are called 'teens' and 'youths'? Why did NBC's Diane Sawyer say bombed out Gaza is Israel. How come Helen Thomas lost her job for saying European Zionists should return to Europe? How come NYT and rest of media cheer-lead the Iraq War? Why have they let Obama get away with so much spying, lack of transparency, and war-mongering? Why did they go easy on Wall Street that fleeced us blind in 2009 with bailouts? How did the whole media fall for the UVA rape hoax? If not for a handful of bloggers who exposed the fraud, the whole world would still be believing the story and the crazy bitch who wrote it probably would have won the Pulitzer.

    And as I've said before, the academia has been either too cowardly or too complicit in the rise of PC craziness and hysteria in the campuses. The cowards didn't speak out against the rise of PC lunacy and witch-hunt mentality. The complicit were the very professors --- mostly in sociology, humanities, political science, and law --- who filled the minds of millennial morons with paranoid lunacy about Evil White Males, Patriarchy, KKK, 'homophobia', and etc. If academic environment is so sane and rational, how come some of the most vile, aggressive, hateful, and bilious movements have emerged from the universities?

    And what has come of college debates? Now, winners are usually shucking and jiving black wanna-be rappers. This is what US colleges allow, and the likes of Andrew Bacevich never lodged a complaint. Yet, he is bitching about Trump's ill manners and craziness?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

    When Bacevich saw PC lunacy on his campus, did he ever speak out? Or did he just keep his head low and walk away because he didn't want to lose his proper form as a dignified academic? If we want craziness, we don't need Trump. We only need to look at colleges newspaper to see what the latest hysteria, craze, fad, or nutjobbery is.
    But, the crazy stuff in colleges is cloaked with the conceit of intellectualism, rationalism, critical theory, or some such. So, it gets a pass while Trump is said to be crazy, extreme, and nutty because he said... let's fix our borders(how mad!!!), end the stupid new cold war with Russia(how loony!!!), let's stop messing up Muslim nations(how ludicrous!!!), let's be careful about which Muslims we allow into America(how frightening!!!), let's think about the American worker and not just the globalist urban class(how supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!!).

    What is truly crazy about America is that a NY real estate hustler and blowhard makes more common sense, moral sense, and good sense than all the experts of media, academia, military, and government combined. But in a world where the law of the land says 2 + 2 = 5, someone who insists it is 2 + 2 = 4 must be mad.

    Trump is not the emperor who has no clothes. He is one who notices that the Empire has no clothes. Also, unlike the ridiculous expectations of Pompous Hope and Change of Obama that couldn't be fulfilled(not least because they lacked specificity), what Trump is calling for can be achieved.
    They are realistic about the real world. We can fix our borders if we really want to. We can lower immigration to give US workers time to breathe and catch up. We can end the stupid new cold war with Russia. It's easy cuz Russia doesn't want it. We can let EU carry a bigger burden with NATO. We need to stop seeing EU as a vassal state of US. We can stop the wars in the Muslim world and let Muslims and Arabs pick up their own pieces. It was US intervention and its collusion with allies that led to hell in Libya and Syria. Dealing with the big banks is a much tougher call.
    Despite Trumps overstatements and boorish style, what he is calling for is doable, sensible, and right.
    But then, we have too many people feeding on crisis caused by globalist interventions. They don't want a fix to the problems. They thrive on problems. And that is why they see Trump as a threat.

    The remarkable thing about Trump is his style is sometimes over-the-top and 'crazy', but he is, at the core, totally sane. He's not like the man in NETWORK who really loses it and screams 'I'm mad as hell'.
    The way of Trump is to be 'Sane as Hell'. In a world gone nuts as the new normal, he is wildly... sane.

    Form and Composure are good, but so much of academia is about Composeur.

    It has the form and style of civility but nakedly pursues power and advantage through lies, politicking, and all sorts of dirty maneuvering. And if you don’t play the by the Rules of the Game(not unlike in Renoir’s film), you’re out.

    Trump won’t play by the Rules of the Game.

    Alinsky understood this. He knew that wild radical style was wrong in the halls of power. He taught leftists to become expert ‘composeurs’. In time, many of these ‘long m archers’ came to prefer power and privilege over their original agenda of revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Dissident says:
    @silly billy
    Absolutely brilliant. Maybe the best political piece I have ever read. This guy should be a columnist, not just a commenter.

    Anybody like Bacevich, who has virtually unlimited access to the mainstream media should be treated very warily. Heck, even a very politically correct, crypto Zionist like Amy Goodman of the program Democracy Now considers him a reliable source.

    Anybody like Bacevich, who has virtually unlimited access to the mainstream media should be treated very warily. Heck, even a very politically correct, crypto Zionist like Amy Goodman of the program Democracy Now considers him a reliable source.

    Last I checked, “Hypocrisy Now!”, was distinctly to the left of the “mainstream media”, as was Mother Jones, which published a piece by Bacevich in which he uses, apparently without irony, the fake, propaganda term “Islamophobia”:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/jerry-boykin-islam-andrew-bacevich

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Ace says:

    ** some of its energy from incorrigible sexists **

    Oh, yes. That’s just what I was thinking.

    A worthless piece.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. KA says:

    Max Boot is advising Trump what Trump should do whom to listen to, which organizations to pay homage to in this article -http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html?_r=0
    The guy chides GOP for not doing the regular homework under the right mentors ,for not reminding themselves of the moralized fables about the success of Regan made possible by NeoCon and for trusting common folks on radio and not the editorials of COMMENTARY magazine .

    “During the Reagan years, the G.O.P. –because it harvested so effectively the intellectual labor of conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and publications like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Commentary. continued into the George W. Bush administration — amply stocked with the likes of Paul D. Wolfowitz, —-

    In recent years, television personalities have taken over the role of defining the conservative movement that once belonged to thinkers like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz .” NYT

    Why is this advice ? What is it for?
    May be the neocons like him are looking for another enemy,another threat another danger to get America riled up about.

    This is from his Heritage Foundation:
    “Counterterrorism officials and the public are on high alert from terrorism threats, but a new threat assessment from the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that Iran “represents by far the most significant security challenge to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the greater Middle East.” http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-security-threat-us-might-221300654.html

    As regular war monger ,it makes sense to advise future President why certain think tank is a must ‘read”

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Jewish Kiev?
    http://thesaker.is/a-nuclear-rio-attempted-murder-of-plotnitsky-armed-attack-on-russian-border-guards-in-crimea-sitrep-august-8th-by-scott/
    "Top rebel leader accuses Jews of masterminding Ukrainian revolution:" http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Top-rebel-leader-accuses-Jews-of-masterminding-Ukrainian-revolution-406729
    See the attempt at assassination of the speaker (Plotnitsky) who was condemned as anti-semite by the ADL, the same League that was num about Nuland's very visible fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. "Two Year Ago: The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Ace says:
    @woodNfish

    Yet while diversity may be a good thing...
     
    It isn't and we have more than enough proof of that.

    Good one.

    It’s a grovelin concession one runs across all the time. E.g., “While Black Lives Matter has a few valid points . . . .”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Ace says:
    @epebble
    Philosophically speaking, "The Decay of American Politics" is not really a problem of persons running for office but due to laws of nature; Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    We had 45 years of carefully balanced Statecraft due to Cold War; That kept the stakes high and forced us to select great leaders. Once that was over, we Regressed to mean leadership. We got Clinton, W Bush, Obama and now Clinton/Trump.

    Worse things happened to USSR - they disintegrated and have now Regressed to the mean of Putin.

    Anyway, 240 years is long in the usual life of empires. This 21st Century is ours to dissipate.

    So what you see as "The Decay of American Politics" is just a Tip of the Iceberg. The Real problem is "The Decay of American Nation". And no force of man can stop it because it is foretold by the laws of nature - Everything happens in Cycles.

    Greeks, Romans, Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans, British, Soviets all bit the dust. It is simply our turn now.

    We chose to grovel before and raise up the lowest class who now provide the crucial swing vote always and forever for the Dems. Dems slobber over them in return and no better example of that is Hillary.

    Whites must generate unnatural support to overcome the Dem pandering. Ambitious Republicans trim their sails to try to break off some sliver of black support or keep from inflaming black/leftist rabble rousers.

    Politics constantly gets pulled left and down. Blacks have distorted our politics from the git. Integration and assimilation are pipe dreams.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. annamaria says:
    @KA
    Max Boot is advising Trump what Trump should do whom to listen to, which organizations to pay homage to in this article -http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/opinion/how-the-stupid-party-created-donald-trump.html?_r=0
    The guy chides GOP for not doing the regular homework under the right mentors ,for not reminding themselves of the moralized fables about the success of Regan made possible by NeoCon and for trusting common folks on radio and not the editorials of COMMENTARY magazine .

    "During the Reagan years, the G.O.P. --because it harvested so effectively the intellectual labor of conservative think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation and publications like The Wall Street Journal editorial page and Commentary. continued into the George W. Bush administration — amply stocked with the likes of Paul D. Wolfowitz, ----

    In recent years, television personalities have taken over the role of defining the conservative movement that once belonged to thinkers like Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz ." NYT

    Why is this advice ? What is it for?
    May be the neocons like him are looking for another enemy,another threat another danger to get America riled up about.

    This is from his Heritage Foundation:
    "Counterterrorism officials and the public are on high alert from terrorism threats, but a new threat assessment from the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that Iran "represents by far the most significant security challenge to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the greater Middle East." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/biggest-security-threat-us-might-221300654.html

    As regular war monger ,it makes sense to advise future President why certain think tank is a must 'read"

    Jewish Kiev?

    http://thesaker.is/a-nuclear-rio-attempted-murder-of-plotnitsky-armed-attack-on-russian-border-guards-in-crimea-sitrep-august-8th-by-scott/

    “Top rebel leader accuses Jews of masterminding Ukrainian revolution:” http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Top-rebel-leader-accuses-Jews-of-masterminding-Ukrainian-revolution-406729
    See the attempt at assassination of the speaker (Plotnitsky) who was condemned as anti-semite by the ADL, the same League that was num about Nuland’s very visible fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. “Two Year Ago: The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine:” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Thanks . I missed the developments in Rio . Sure more will come out. A sense of doom is descending across the globe. Too many victims and it is none of their faults- its not going to end well.

    Ukrainian tregedy confirms what Russian elite has been hoping doesnt exist - threat to the very existence of Russia . This hate against Trump can be understood from the neo cons of Republocrat only if we recognize this multifaceted continuedly evolving and hardening of the plans to destroy Russia
    Otherwise how the heck IS could get an welcoming embrace to fight for the ultra nationalist Nazi anti Russian Ukraine government and soldiers?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/05/isis-in-ukraine/

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/08/07/another-sarajevo/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Brohemius says:

    Adlai Stevenson was a KGB agent. (So was Sir Roger Hollis.) Mainstream historians – court intellectuals – can’t face facts such as these. Certainly Little Andrew can’t. He’s more concerned with attacking Trump. Trump is a big bully!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. woodNfish says:
    @Montefrío
    I've never watched a video (don't have a teevee) or heard a speech by either candidate, haven't lived in the US for nearly twenty years, but I'm old enough (70) to remember the Clintons and the memories aren't good. That notwithstanding, what interests me are what I understand to be the policy issues that go beyond the person occupying what I perceive as a now near-ceremonial public relations position. The policies that Mr. T claims (based entirely on what I read) to support make him the only reasonable choice for me; however I've learned to my chagrin that reason is in short supply in electoral politics and societies in general, thanks in no small measure to the nefarious Gramscian subversion found in education and the nearly-monopolized MSM.

    You have a computer; you can watch videos.

    Had to look up your Gramsci reference. From Wikipedia:

    Gramsci gave much thought to the role of intellectuals in society. He saw modern intellectuals not as talkers, but as practically-minded directors and organisers who produced hegemony through ideological apparatuses such as education and the media.

    Exactly as you stated. I doubt Gramsci was the only commie who thought schools were an excellent place for brainwashing. Infiltration seems to be their SOP. This is why our society is rotting from the inside out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. KA says:
    @annamaria
    Jewish Kiev?
    http://thesaker.is/a-nuclear-rio-attempted-murder-of-plotnitsky-armed-attack-on-russian-border-guards-in-crimea-sitrep-august-8th-by-scott/
    "Top rebel leader accuses Jews of masterminding Ukrainian revolution:" http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Top-rebel-leader-accuses-Jews-of-masterminding-Ukrainian-revolution-406729
    See the attempt at assassination of the speaker (Plotnitsky) who was condemned as anti-semite by the ADL, the same League that was num about Nuland's very visible fraternization with Ukrainian neo-Nazis. "Two Year Ago: The U.S. has Installed a Neo-Nazi Government in Ukraine:" http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    Thanks . I missed the developments in Rio . Sure more will come out. A sense of doom is descending across the globe. Too many victims and it is none of their faults- its not going to end well.

    Ukrainian tregedy confirms what Russian elite has been hoping doesnt exist – threat to the very existence of Russia . This hate against Trump can be understood from the neo cons of Republocrat only if we recognize this multifaceted continuedly evolving and hardening of the plans to destroy Russia
    Otherwise how the heck IS could get an welcoming embrace to fight for the ultra nationalist Nazi anti Russian Ukraine government and soldiers?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/05/isis-in-ukraine/

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/08/07/another-sarajevo/

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    NATO' generals, these eager opportunists, talk belligerently while minding their paychecks: https://www.rt.com/news/355045-nato-russia-politicians-consensus/
    Here is Denis Mercier, a Supreme Allied Commander Transformation of NATO and hysterical prognosticator. His career' high point was in 1999, when Mercier "integrated the operational planning of French participation in NATO Operation Allied Force in Kosovo" - NATO war crimes in Kosovo.
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/07/balkans1
    https://www.rt.com/news/yugoslavia-kosovo-nato-bombing-705/
    And of course the same sleek careerist happened to be "the minister's special advisor for Operation Unified Protector over Libya." Look at the Libyan refugees in France and ask Gen, Mercier, what kind of protection he had designed for the "humanitarian involvement" in Libya that the country has become the ISIS playground?
    NATO has been indeed transforming itself into "North Atlantic Terror Organization." These war profiteers in charge would decry general Smedley Butler as "unpatriotic:"
    "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” ― Smedley D. Butler"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. annamaria says:
    @KA
    Thanks . I missed the developments in Rio . Sure more will come out. A sense of doom is descending across the globe. Too many victims and it is none of their faults- its not going to end well.

    Ukrainian tregedy confirms what Russian elite has been hoping doesnt exist - threat to the very existence of Russia . This hate against Trump can be understood from the neo cons of Republocrat only if we recognize this multifaceted continuedly evolving and hardening of the plans to destroy Russia
    Otherwise how the heck IS could get an welcoming embrace to fight for the ultra nationalist Nazi anti Russian Ukraine government and soldiers?

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/03/05/isis-in-ukraine/

    http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/08/07/another-sarajevo/

    NATO’ generals, these eager opportunists, talk belligerently while minding their paychecks: https://www.rt.com/news/355045-nato-russia-politicians-consensus/
    Here is Denis Mercier, a Supreme Allied Commander Transformation of NATO and hysterical prognosticator. His career’ high point was in 1999, when Mercier “integrated the operational planning of French participation in NATO Operation Allied Force in Kosovo” – NATO war crimes in Kosovo.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jun/07/balkans1

    https://www.rt.com/news/yugoslavia-kosovo-nato-bombing-705/

    And of course the same sleek careerist happened to be “the minister’s special advisor for Operation Unified Protector over Libya.” Look at the Libyan refugees in France and ask Gen, Mercier, what kind of protection he had designed for the “humanitarian involvement” in Libya that the country has become the ISIS playground?
    NATO has been indeed transforming itself into “North Atlantic Terror Organization.” These war profiteers in charge would decry general Smedley Butler as “unpatriotic:”
    “WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” ― Smedley D. Butler”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. annamaria says:

    A pattern:” When the U.S. overthrows a secular leader in the Middle East, or tries to, it creates a power void; it creates promised lands of opportunity for vicious jihadis, whose atrocities justify the redeployment of U.S. troops to the country involved in order to “preserve regional stability” and so forth.” And the chopped heads and limbs and the rivers of blood ensue

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/08/russia-syria-and-the-us-hillarys-foreign-policy-priority/

    Here comes Madame: “On July 29—the day that she secured the Democratic nomination..Clinton’s campaign stated that she will “reset” U.S. Syrian policy as a top priority in office, to focus on toppling Assad from power. (Surprise, surprise, you fools who assumed she’d learned something from Libya.)”
    Of course she learned — war pays.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. bunga says:

    Already the Clinton advisers are drawing next course of action plans against a bunch of different countries and players involved in ME and eastern Europe.
    I am yet to hear that Trump ahs got anybody advising him to expel immigrants or build wall or find a room to meet with Putin

    What I am saying that the dangerous misguided money driven corrupted crooked Clinton has put herself already deep in the game and there is total silence on media who can easily point at least to the disconnect between her and current policy of Obama.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/08/team-clinton-focuses-on-the-demise-of-hezbollah/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. utu says:
    @KA
    Dressing like a professor and talking like a profession is nowhere in the gorged veins of Donald Trump.
    Mouthing like Colin Powell same time lying like him isn't also his way of behaving . He doesn't lie but angrily confabulate while dressing like a well heeled citizen . He believes in his own lies and he wants to believe in his own lies . This differentiate it from delusion and from lying. It is ego syntonic .he does not get stressed out over those lies . Citizen takes wrong lessons from history all the time . One has to be talking smoothly and dressed perfectly like Colin Powell but has to utter the truth . Trumps fails often on both counts .
    Every station of life has it's inbuilt customs - how to talk,how to dress,how to negotiate,how to disagree Trump knows it well . He can summarily dismiss a Mexican at the daily wage construction site hiring site if he didn't wear the dress or speak the lango/ cant or agree to the wages that are expected of the daily wage laborer ( Or the way he says: " you ate fired " on TV)

    He knows the value of the language and the dress because he sells million dollars home to the rich clientele and he sure doesnt shout or scream . He can switch between many facades and he sure does .
    It is the degeneracy of the political context that has convinced him that he can only succeed by assuming the personality that fits the construction site hiring area .

    But Donald Trump has major problem . He doesn't have great executive functioning . He could not shift set . He can't smoothly move from one set to another . He gets stuck . He can't move from one script to the next . He can't alternate between different paradigms,between different scenarios,between different possibilities . His answer becomes perseverative error of the dementia afflicted person. He repeats the theme emotions,or both . His inefficiency leads him to repeat to same error and neglect . He could have trounced Clinton on many points . He couldn't because of his inability to seize the moment without anger but with informed reflection.
    Again no one will ever be able to seize those moments . Seizing those moments ( questioning on speech fees, questioning on trade,questioning on military adventures ,questioning on foreign entanglements ) will elicit vigorous counter attacks from those pillars that hold this country afloat . Given his monetary independence , he could have made an effort . He couldn't because he is not that brilliant and not that unemotional. Neither are his base who thinks being arrogant and iconoclastic are the signs by which Prophet operates and should operate .
    Arrogance hides his stupidity and lack of curiosity . Stupidity is the measure by which his base is positively guided .
    The attacks on Trump by the media and the tendency of the large number of the people to believe those attacks remind me of the pre - 2003 Iraq war atmosphere . That period was full of anxiety uncertainty,anger,frustration and confusion. This period is reminiscent of that time. Media failed then . Media is failing now . Citizen put their analytical thinking on hold in 2004 . A rebuke to war in 2004 election could have achieved that no grass root movement today can,no demonstration,no Tea Party no Occupy Wall Street can . A defeat of Bush in 2004 election could have created a different world both abroad and at home . It could have neutered the violent regressive Neo con dominated cultures that both parties find themselves today wrapped around by those vipers who are the actual winners of this war on terror .
    Today Trump will be defeated by the same citizen on a ground that has no relevance and Clinton will be elected on grounds that have no merit or value . It will be seen as a bizarre situation unless we look back and see how the citizen have allowed themselves to be guided by the Neo cons during both good times and bad times .

    Other day my physician kind of demurred thinking how the control of decision making has moved out of the turf of his profession into the money making insurance and pharmaceuticals . Yes,I said because during those " good old days of 1990" you didn't bother to fight back because your pockets were getting still lined to your hundred percent satisfaction.

    “The attacks on Trump by the media and the tendency of the large number of the people to believe those attacks remind me of the pre – 2003 Iraq war atmosphere . ” – I think it’s worse. In 2003 comedians did not attack people who were skeptical of war. Now it is full spectrum attack against Trump. No mercy, no pity, no prisoners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    What is truly appalling is Obama sticking his nose into the race and calling Trump 'unfit' and telling the GOP to dump him.

    Where does he get the nerves? Why does the media give him a pass on such boorish and a**hole behavior? This is huge breach of political protocol.

    Bush II, jerk that he is, didn't butt into the contest between McCain and Obama.
    If he had, media would have trashed him as unstatesmanlike.

    Reagan didn't butt in between Bush I and Dukakis.

    Obama acted like Kanye West interrupting Swift at the Grammies. He feels so entitled.
    He's acting like Jar Jar Binks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdMzeZOZ48Y

    Now, why is Trump 'unfit' to rule? Because he questions and challenges some of the Establishment agenda and positions? To be 'fit to rule' is to suck up to the donor class? I suppose Jeb and Rubio are 'fit to rule'.

    Of course, what Obama really means is that the president is supposed to be ruled by the globo-oligarchs. He's been a good boy. And Hillary will be a good girl. And Jeb and Rubio would have been good boys too. Part of the GLOB CLUB or GLUB.

    'Unfit to rule' is codeword for 'difficult to be ruled by the GLUB.'
    It's what a house negro might say about a field negro to his master. "Massuh, you gots to watch dat ni****. He don't do like Massuh say. Like I do cuz I always obey Massuh."

    And why doesn't the GOP tell Obama to go to hell? Did Bush II tell the Dems that Obama, the member of Wright's church and friend of bill Ayers, is unfit to rule? Had he said such, the Dems would have been up in arms. But GOP is mum about Obama's rude interruption.
    You see, the GOP Estab is all part of the GLUB.

    Obama has been 'fit to rule' only in the sense that he's been a smooth liar and operator of the GLOB agenda pushed by the cosmopolitan Zio-Anglo-Homo Oligarchs.

    It is incredible how the US messes up the world but then charges Russia of bad faith and lack of trust.

    Get a load of this.

    The very lowlife Obama who created the conditions for ISIS all over the Middle East is saying that Russia isn't serious about defeating ISIL when, if not for Russia, the terrorists would be laying waste to all of Syria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-6gyUv3k1o

    Because Hillary is such a lackluster zero, the Dems have told Obama to play an active role in the election to make Clinton's run seem like Obama's term. It's like Trump vs Hillary as Obama's shadow. (Trump has been muted about Obama because he wants some of the black vote.)

    Obama's presidency has been a total fiasco, but his Hollywood hero style has many idiots fooled that he's been a steady and firm hand in the world during troubled times.

    “Did Bush II tell the Dems that Obama, the member of Wright’s church and friend of bill Ayers, is unfit to rule?” – He did not because his handlers told him that Obama was fit, was the one, was approved by the masters. But Trump is not, so Obama does what he does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    What is truly appalling is Obama sticking his nose into the race and calling Trump 'unfit' and telling the GOP to dump him.

    Where does he get the nerves? Why does the media give him a pass on such boorish and a**hole behavior? This is huge breach of political protocol.

    Bush II, jerk that he is, didn't butt into the contest between McCain and Obama.
    If he had, media would have trashed him as unstatesmanlike.

    Reagan didn't butt in between Bush I and Dukakis.

    Obama acted like Kanye West interrupting Swift at the Grammies. He feels so entitled.
    He's acting like Jar Jar Binks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdMzeZOZ48Y

    Now, why is Trump 'unfit' to rule? Because he questions and challenges some of the Establishment agenda and positions? To be 'fit to rule' is to suck up to the donor class? I suppose Jeb and Rubio are 'fit to rule'.

    Of course, what Obama really means is that the president is supposed to be ruled by the globo-oligarchs. He's been a good boy. And Hillary will be a good girl. And Jeb and Rubio would have been good boys too. Part of the GLOB CLUB or GLUB.

    'Unfit to rule' is codeword for 'difficult to be ruled by the GLUB.'
    It's what a house negro might say about a field negro to his master. "Massuh, you gots to watch dat ni****. He don't do like Massuh say. Like I do cuz I always obey Massuh."

    And why doesn't the GOP tell Obama to go to hell? Did Bush II tell the Dems that Obama, the member of Wright's church and friend of bill Ayers, is unfit to rule? Had he said such, the Dems would have been up in arms. But GOP is mum about Obama's rude interruption.
    You see, the GOP Estab is all part of the GLUB.

    Obama has been 'fit to rule' only in the sense that he's been a smooth liar and operator of the GLOB agenda pushed by the cosmopolitan Zio-Anglo-Homo Oligarchs.

    It is incredible how the US messes up the world but then charges Russia of bad faith and lack of trust.

    Get a load of this.

    The very lowlife Obama who created the conditions for ISIS all over the Middle East is saying that Russia isn't serious about defeating ISIL when, if not for Russia, the terrorists would be laying waste to all of Syria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-6gyUv3k1o

    Because Hillary is such a lackluster zero, the Dems have told Obama to play an active role in the election to make Clinton's run seem like Obama's term. It's like Trump vs Hillary as Obama's shadow. (Trump has been muted about Obama because he wants some of the black vote.)

    Obama's presidency has been a total fiasco, but his Hollywood hero style has many idiots fooled that he's been a steady and firm hand in the world during troubled times.

    “Obama’s presidency has been a total fiasco” – I agree except (1) he dragged his feet about bombing Syria in 2013 and (2) he negotiated and signed a deal with Iran. I haven’t figured why? Was it personal ambition to live up to the Nobel Peace Prize he got for nothing?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    "We didn’t follow Ike’s recommendation and our propping up of NATO has resulted in the creation of feckless European welfare states who cannot even defend their borders from a third world invasion."

    This is really a matter of elite agenda and matter of will.

    US is a military superpower but can't defend its borders either.

    Elites want it that way, and worship of Diversity weakens all resistance.

    Rule of Law loses to Mob Rule of Flow engineered by globo-elite rule of minority-supremacism.

    But where there is a will and national pride, the flow is easily checked.

    Israel!!

    It's funny. Israel is in a far more dangerous neighborhood than EU nations are, but it alone defends itself and then some.

    Why can't EU nations Israelize?

    “Why can’t EU nations Israelize?” – What if it is planned already? Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right. The Neo-Right is very pro-Israel. Kind like Breivik. The attack in Munich was by Breivik admirer – German of Iranian descent. No ethnic Germans were killed. Why Brexit? There are other devils working on The Plan. They are not the ones that always have a starring role in your tirades. What if Trump and Putin are part of that Plan?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right."
    That could be explained as a by-product of implementation of Yinon Plan.
    If you are offended by the idea that the childish longing for the promised land and Jewish supremacism have nothing to do with the wars in the Middle East, then how you would explain the overwhelming number of ziocons among prominent neocons as well as this illogical (for the US interests) plan of taking seven countries in five years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-donald-trump-is-no-gentleman-1469831003

    This Harvey Mansfield guy needs to see Kurosawa’s RAN.

    In the film, the first and second sons show outward propriety and speak respectfully to their father who announces his retirement. They display fealty with utmost dignity. But they are just scheming for power.
    In contrast, the third son speaks brashly but tells the truth, and Tango, who is truly loyal, backs up the third son against the first and second sons who are disingenuous in their show of respect.

    Not that Trump(a kind of hustler) is necessarily like the third son, but he seems more willing to speak honestly and bluntly about matters that the elites in government, media, and academia have paved over with glib assurances or PC taboos.

    Also, after the elites made so many excuses for Bill Clinton’s behavior in the Oval Office(turned into Oral Orifice) and given the GOP was behind Bush II the crude moron for two terms, does it make sense to talk of gentlemanly ideal in this day and age? The boomers killed it. It is gone. At least with Trump, there is no pretense that he is a gentleman. He’s more honest that way.

    In contrast, you got Obama who superficially acts refined and fancy but is a sleazy forked-tongued snake. If he’s so learned and sophisticated, why did he raise a daughter who twerks in college? Why is his wife so crude and stupid, a pure affirmative action dumbass queen? Why has he invited all those trashy rappers into the Oval Office? Why does he promote homomania, the worship of men into sucking each other penises and fecal penetration? And is there dignity in characterizing Bruce Jenner’s early senile tomfoolery as ‘courageous’?
    Gentlemanliiness is a virtue when wedded to real character, integrity, and core values. With Obama, gentlemanliness is just a layer of wax. Beneath the shine is a lying and cheating opportunist who will sell his mother down the river. But then, like mother like son. The stupid whore not only got pregnant with some lowlife African(high IQ but low character) but dumped his son on her grandparents while she went off with another man. Wow, how do you like them New Family Values?

    Mansfield might also see Kurosawa’s SANJURO where the ones with best ‘reputations’ and ‘manners’ turn out to be most rotten and lowdown… whereas ruffian Sanjuro cuts through the highfalutin BS. The respectable officials are snakes hiding behind the facade of manners and form.

    [MORE]

    Also, it doesn’t seem to occur to snobs like Mansfield that the only reason gentlemen could put on fancy airs was because they left all the dirty work to be done by their overseers and underlings. It’s like in the novel/movie FEAR AND TREMBLING. A French woman who gains employment in a Japanese firm is treated harshly by her bosses. When she meets the man at the very top, he is nice and kind. But how can he act so dignified and keep his hands clean of all the office politics? Because he has OTHERS do the dirty work.

    It’s like the rich farmer in DAYS OF HEAVEN can be more dignified since he has his overseer to do all the dirty work to keep the workers in line. Same thing in the American South. The neo-aristocratic gentry could put on fancy manners and act with gentlemanly hospitality because they had overseers to watch over the Negroes.
    Also, gentlemanliness also comes with gentleman’s agreement which is codeword for genteel collusion and corruption. Indeed, that is how Andrew Jackson got cheated out of his presidency on his first try. There was gentlemen’s agreement behind closed doors to keep him out.

    How does the Takeda clan destroy itself at the end of Kurosawa’s KAGEMUSHA? Because the generals are too honorable, loyal, and dignified to violate the code of the clan and tell the late lord’s son that he’s acting like a retard in risking all in the upcoming battle.
    Kurosawa was probably commenting on the Japanese military elites during WWII. There were lots of honorable men who acted in accordance to their sense of duty. They acted with dignity and followed orders. They didn’t act vulgar and make trouble.
    But wouldn’t it have been better if someone like Trump had shouted, “This war plan is crazy.” But the Japanese military elites were too ‘gentlemanly’ to break form and come forward to say it like it is. Trump’s style may be aggressive, but his policy proposals are the opposite of that. He’s not calling for invading and bombing the world or starting new cold wars with other powers. He’s calling for taking care of American people first and fixing America’s borders to uphold America’s laws. America First means Americans should mind their business instead of treating the world as an empire.

    Gentlemanliness is a nice quality to have, but it is no substitute for integrity based on truth.
    In PATHS OF GLORY, the devious general is most gentlemanly in words and demeanor. In contrast, Kirk Douglas seems out of line when he blows up and loses his temper. But it’s the general who is a real lowlife son-of-a-bitch, and it is Douglas who dares to speak the truth. It’s like the CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE.

    Btw, I find all this complaint about gentlemanly virtue rather odd in a nation controlled by Jews. Haven’t Jews been mocking and making fun of Wasp culture(or conceit) of gentlemanliness? Haven’t Jews been exposing Wasp modes of dignity, honor, and principles as phony, hypocritical, disingenuous, superficial, shallow, and discriminatory? Aren’t all the Jewish diatribes against Wasp golf clubs a way of attacking the culture of dignity and gentlemanliness among Wasps that Jews found to be so full of BS, a snobby way to maintain faux-dignity and privilege?

    Haven’t Jews taken pride in presenting themselves as the Real Thing? People who speak the brazen truth and say it like it is? Didn’t Alan Dershowitz write a book called CHUTZPAH? Yeah, Jews got chutzpah, they got big balls and big mouths. Unlike Wasps who are uptight, deceitful, discriminatory, and disdainful, Jews are so refreshing in breaking through the BS and showing it like it is. Jews have pushed vulgarity in criticism(Pauline Kael), in sexual culture(Jews take pride in legalizing and spreading porn as liberating), in TV and movies(with lots of foul talk and horny behavior), and comedy(where much of the jokes about dicks and poons). Jews have characterized Wasps as anal and cold while they themselves are phallic and warm. Look at Woody Allen’s INTERIORS. The Wasps are cold, cold, cold. But a Jewish woman comes along and she is filled with warmth and life. Or take the cult of Barbra Streisand in movies like FUNNY GIRL and WHAT’S UP DOC? She is the wild Jewess who breaks down barriers with chutzpah and refreshing crudity. Or the cult of Bob Dylan. There is a famous scene in DON’T LOOK BACK where Dylan just rips into this nice Wasp reporter who is just asking him questions. But Dylan goes into super-a**hole mode and berates him on and on. Jews were proud of all such behavior as liberating and rebellious against the Wasp order.
    Indeed, the movie CADDYSHACK features Wasps as a bunch of phonies. They act gentlemanly on the outside but talk ‘racist’ shit on the inside. One thing that Jews hated about Wasps was how the latter masked their prejudices(such as “you can’t marry my daughter” kind of ‘antisemitism’) with haute manners and such.
    Jewish Milos Forman made fun of Wasps in HAIR.

    And Gene Siskel the chutzpastic Jew goes off on how Wasps are a bunch of phonies who act dignified but control all the banks.

    And Jews praised Bill Clinton for being the ‘first black president’. Unlike uptight Wasps, he was a wild boy who stuck his dong into everything. It’s like those movies where some Negro or Negress(like in LILIES OF THE FIELD or SISTER ACT) enters a drab an dreary social order full of repressed whites and liberates them with their wildass act.
    And Hollywood loves to make movies like DEAD POETS SOCIETY where a waspy preppy school is managed with gentlemanly rigidity and honor code… but then a wild man comes along and teaches the students what real life and learning are all about:

    In RAGTIME, we are shown a respectable wasp family where the man of the house is so ‘white bread’, anemic, and colorless. He runs his household like a clock to set. It’s so mechanical. But his family is turned upside down when the man’s bubble is pricked by a black man(Mr. Vitality)’s dilemma, and his wife finds true satisfaction with a Jewish film-maker. And in Forman’s AMADEUS, the wily and vulgar Mozart is presented as genuine and authentic, the real face of genius in contrast to the respectable court composed of second-raters with good manners but no real skill or imagination.

    In LOVE STORY, we have a story of a uptight Wasp rich kid who learns the meaning of life from an ethnic Italian girl who is full of life and spontaneity and talks to her father like he’s a friend. Same with WAY WE WERE where Robert Redford is matched with Streisand.
    In THE GODFATHER, the Wasp Senator Geary is presented as a total fraud. Despite his public demeanor as a clean public servant, he’s a sleazebag like everyone else. As corrupt as the Corleones are, they are presented as more honest than someone like Geary who acts legit but is a crook like everyone else.

    Indeed, one of the major themes of Jewish Cultural Influence has been that white people should lose their inhibitions of faux-dignity and faux-respectability and go ‘Jew’ or ‘Negro’. So, white guys should talk and think like Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern, or Gene Siskel(in his more colorful moments). Jewish media promoted Hugh Hefner as the face of the New Respectability. Also, Jews rooted white boomers to rise up and dress wild and give middle finger to the older generation. Consider Tim Wise’s view of older whites. And look how Newsweek taunts the older generation of whites who had better manners.

    So, we should piss on the culture of Older White America. Younger whites should emulate black rappers, Jewish comedians, and etc. And Slut Feminism says white girls should act like Miley Cyrus, twerk, and have wanton sex with Negroes. And ‘cuckold’ culture says white men should watch their wives have sex with Negroes. And Libs say the obnoxious Jack Johnson and loudmouthed Muhammad Ali were icons of true dignity and respect. In other says, say whatever is on your mind and showboat and make a scene. After all, even respectable people are into defending Rap as poetry. And what is the biggest musical hit among respectable people who attend theater and arts? HAMILTON the musical where a bunch of wildass Negroes pretend to be the founding fathers and turn their story into foul-mouthed lewd rap lyrics. This is now the culture of respectable people who pay $300 to see ‘serious’ culture. Even ‘conservatives’ like Terry Teachout says he wept watching this super-duper show.

    And what else passes for respectable according to Liberal Elites? Oh yeah, the massive homo parades where people wrap the figure of Jesus in ‘homo colors’. This is what the educated and refined elites promote as proper culture for all of us:

    How kitschy can you get? Inflatable Jesus with ‘homo colors’ around his shoulder. This is what the educated and sophisticated Liberal Elites are so proud of. And of course HAMILTON where the one of the great founding fathers is some jiving shucking rapping fool. Educated NY Elites pay top dollars to see such rot for cultural enrichment, but they have the gall to say Donald Trump is vulgar and crude.

    Harvey Mansfield writes as if people like Trump is leading the assault on manners, but Trump is only following the Jewish lead. If anything, Trump was being Jewishy when he decried the policy of a Florida Wasp country golf club for excluding Jews and Negroes. He was acting with white-version of chutzpah than defending the Wasp country club culture of gentlemanliness.

    The Jewish Narrative time and time again gave us the refreshing candid loudmouth Jew who exposes Wasp conceit of respectability and dignity as a fraud, a mere facade.
    This cultural assault has been so relentless that everyone snickers and mocks Wasp culture of yesteryear. Indeed, when Mitt Romney ran with a kind of father-knows-best gentlemanly manner, he was mocked by Obama as a throwback to the bad old 1950s, the last decade of white respectability and normality. Boomers and Progs since the 60s have been mocking the white-ruled 50s as boring, repressive, stifling, constricting, and etc. Look at a film like FAR FROM HEAVEN that says a respectable white guy is really a homo who likes to suck dick. Worse, his wife wants to a kiss a Negro, on the lips too. And the film PLEASANTVILLE mocks white America of the 50s as repressive and dull. And REVOLUTIONARY ROAD says white middle class couples in the 50s were living in a state of cultural mummification. So, white folks needed to kick off their inhibitions and dance like Negroes or talk shit like Jews.
    Jews loved THE GRADUATE and HEARTBREAK KID where the wily Jewish or Jewishy character gets better of the blonde white folks through wit and drive. And the cultural elites in the 90s promoted the vulgar and trashy Quentin Tarantino as the filmmaker of the hour. His vile rot such as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS were defended by the top critics and cultural scholars.

    So-called sophisticates elevated boorish Michael Moore as truth-teller. Liberal elites got their news from clowns like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their idea of culture is stuff like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives. And GIRLS with Lena Dunham. Even elite webzines offer tons of news and info related to sex, porn, homo stuff, trash culture, and etc. Salon and Slate have writers who write about little else but sex, porn, and hedonism. Think of Amanda Marcotte.
    Martha Nussbaum’s personal philosophy is about telling the world about her colonoscopy and menstrual activities.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/07/girl-thought.html

    Educated elites for over decade flocked to a show called VAGINA MONOLOGUES. It became a bit less fashionable lately not because women came to their senses but because it might offend trannies with fake vaginas or dicks.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2015/01/women-without-vaginas.html

    In the art world managed by rich educated people, the biggest artists are people like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. And the phony Andy Warhol is revered almost as a god.
    What mavens of high culture.

    Yet, the Liberal elites who promote and push all this nonsense have the temerity to say Donald Trump has a crudity and vulgarity problem?
    By the way, who was the one who cackled with hideous glee when Gaddafi was lynched to death? Trump may be no gentleman, but Hillary is no lady.
    But of course, the very people who denounce Trump for not being a gentleman will be offended by anyone who says Hillary should dress, talk, and act more like a lady.

    We live in a strange messed up world. Jews led the way in attacking and demeaning the culture of Wasp gentlemanliness. They mocked it and exposed it as phony and facade for wasp repression, privilege, and snobbery.
    They urged white gentiles to wake up, be liberated, laugh at the wasp elites, join with Jews and Negroes and embrace the new healthy vulgarity and sexuality.

    Well, Trump did just that. If anything, he did it all too well. If he has anything in common with Bill Clinton, it’s that both are boomers and love to have a good time and sneer at the rules of Wasp elite culture. They can get a bit wild, but that’s why the boomer libs loved Clinton(and even adored Trump when he was a Democrat).

    But now that Trump is using his candid brashness to attack the New Globalist Establishment and its hypocrisies, repressions, dirty tricks, deceits, and BS, the globalist elites are suddenly the defenders of good manners, civility, gentlemanliness, dignity, composure, and etc.

    When white vulgarity was used against Wasp respectability, Jews were all for it. But now that white vulgarity and populism are honestly and brashly speaking truth to globalist power and privilege, Jews and their cuck-puppets suddenly find it so terrible, wrong, out-of-order, offensive, disturbing, despicable, and intolerable.

    It’s ironic that Jews who take pride in their chutzpah are angry with Trump for showing too much chutzpah or Trumpah. When Jews have chutzpah and use it against Wasp privilege, it’s great. But when whites appropriate chutzpah and use it against Jewish-Globalist power, it’s so terrible. Jews suddenly see it as something like the Nazi SS. Schutzstaffelpah or Schutzpah.

    We see a variation of this in the New Cold War with Russia. Vladmir Putin is trying to lead Russia toward a culture of respectability, sobriety(much needed since Russians are drunkards), spirituality, and tradition. He is calling for family values and national pride. Dignified stuff. And he acts like a real gentleman, at least in public.

    But there is no respect for Putin’s gentlemanly style of statesmanship. There is no admiration for his emphasis on the culture of sobriety, respectability, and such in Russia.
    Instead, the Western elites see it as ‘reactionary’ and ‘tyrannical’.
    They want Russia to allow the Pussy Riot(the darlings of New York Times and New Yorker) to run around in Russia and desecrate churches. They want the likes of Masha Gessen to dictate social and moral policy in Russia. They want massive homo parades all over Russia to pay tribute to the wonders of fecal penetration. This is the vision of morality and respectability by the Western media:

    It’s the same with free speech. When Jews needed free speech protections in the 50s(when Joe McCarthy was sniffing around for Jewish communists), 60s(when radicals needed free speech to attack the Wasp establishment), and 70s(when Jews were trying to legalize pornographic movies), they were for total freedom of speech and pushed all Americans to support free speech rights.

    But now that Jewish elites are perched on top and come under scrutiny and criticism by others who dare to speak truth to Jewish power, Jews are now into hair-splitting BS like “we are for free speech but not ‘hate speech’, and we get to decide what is and isn’t ‘hate’.”

    I find it hilarious that Liberals and Jews who did most to mock, subvert, defame, and attack the culture of dignity, honor, and gentlemanlines are now bitching and whining about how Trump isn’t gentlemanly enough as a leader of whites.
    They fear that Trump’s brashness and boldness are really connecting with white masses who’ve just about had enough of globalism and elite double-talk of PC smoke-and-mirrors.

    Hillary invites trashy Lena Dunham, the mother of Michael Brown(who urged blacks in Ferguson to burn the city down when the verdict didn’t go her way), and a deranged 4-star general who wants more militarism and a New Cold War with Russia.
    And yet, we are told that Trump has a problem with vulgarity and lacks the culture and temperament to be president. Well, maybe he does, but is hyena-laughter Hillary any better? By all sane measures, she’s much worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Really great piece. The left, the Jews became what they fought once they got on top and it is they who define what is gentlemanly. They are the sophisticates.

    "You adopt political ideas that are obviously stupid—because only a truly refined person can understand their subtle justifications…. Any lout might think that race exists and partly explains what people are like—only a sophisticate could steadfastly deny his lying eyes."
    http://takimag.com/article/the_inarticulate_orator_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4Grgx93GX
    , @utu
    I will write email to Ron Unz petitioning him to give you a small corner at this site where your most memorable comments could be collected. I hope you are collecting them as well. Somebody should help you to edit them for a special selection.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Outwest says:

    I remember America during the 40s and 50s well. Our commercial industrial base was old and largely unimproved since the 1920s. Much of the ad hoc war production infrastructure, i.e. Dodge City B-29 engine plant was full of asbestos and not really suited for commercial purposes. The auto plants reverted to 1930s production technology. With no competition from Europe it was easy to be the leader.

    Germany slowly cleared the rubble and built better factories. They have economic leadership –then and now. We are wasting away as the military leader. Politics haven’t changed much, just more so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I sometimes begin to suspect that the alleged industrial and technological superiority of America was a myth. The golden age of post WWII period was squandered and when the free trade was imposed on America (why and by whom) American industry folded and gave up. The bankers took over.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-donald-trump-is-no-gentleman-1469831003

    This Harvey Mansfield guy needs to see Kurosawa's RAN.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8kLDgoO_c

    In the film, the first and second sons show outward propriety and speak respectfully to their father who announces his retirement. They display fealty with utmost dignity. But they are just scheming for power.
    In contrast, the third son speaks brashly but tells the truth, and Tango, who is truly loyal, backs up the third son against the first and second sons who are disingenuous in their show of respect.

    Not that Trump(a kind of hustler) is necessarily like the third son, but he seems more willing to speak honestly and bluntly about matters that the elites in government, media, and academia have paved over with glib assurances or PC taboos.

    Also, after the elites made so many excuses for Bill Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office(turned into Oral Orifice) and given the GOP was behind Bush II the crude moron for two terms, does it make sense to talk of gentlemanly ideal in this day and age? The boomers killed it. It is gone. At least with Trump, there is no pretense that he is a gentleman. He's more honest that way.

    In contrast, you got Obama who superficially acts refined and fancy but is a sleazy forked-tongued snake. If he's so learned and sophisticated, why did he raise a daughter who twerks in college? Why is his wife so crude and stupid, a pure affirmative action dumbass queen? Why has he invited all those trashy rappers into the Oval Office? Why does he promote homomania, the worship of men into sucking each other penises and fecal penetration? And is there dignity in characterizing Bruce Jenner's early senile tomfoolery as 'courageous'?
    Gentlemanliiness is a virtue when wedded to real character, integrity, and core values. With Obama, gentlemanliness is just a layer of wax. Beneath the shine is a lying and cheating opportunist who will sell his mother down the river. But then, like mother like son. The stupid whore not only got pregnant with some lowlife African(high IQ but low character) but dumped his son on her grandparents while she went off with another man. Wow, how do you like them New Family Values?

    Mansfield might also see Kurosawa's SANJURO where the ones with best 'reputations' and 'manners' turn out to be most rotten and lowdown... whereas ruffian Sanjuro cuts through the highfalutin BS. The respectable officials are snakes hiding behind the facade of manners and form.

    Also, it doesn't seem to occur to snobs like Mansfield that the only reason gentlemen could put on fancy airs was because they left all the dirty work to be done by their overseers and underlings. It's like in the novel/movie FEAR AND TREMBLING. A French woman who gains employment in a Japanese firm is treated harshly by her bosses. When she meets the man at the very top, he is nice and kind. But how can he act so dignified and keep his hands clean of all the office politics? Because he has OTHERS do the dirty work.
    https://youtu.be/pEIXl8m3R2E?t=1h19m34s

    It's like the rich farmer in DAYS OF HEAVEN can be more dignified since he has his overseer to do all the dirty work to keep the workers in line. Same thing in the American South. The neo-aristocratic gentry could put on fancy manners and act with gentlemanly hospitality because they had overseers to watch over the Negroes.
    Also, gentlemanliness also comes with gentleman's agreement which is codeword for genteel collusion and corruption. Indeed, that is how Andrew Jackson got cheated out of his presidency on his first try. There was gentlemen's agreement behind closed doors to keep him out.

    https://youtu.be/rdMvX1E2dWg?t=36m38s

    How does the Takeda clan destroy itself at the end of Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA? Because the generals are too honorable, loyal, and dignified to violate the code of the clan and tell the late lord's son that he's acting like a retard in risking all in the upcoming battle.
    Kurosawa was probably commenting on the Japanese military elites during WWII. There were lots of honorable men who acted in accordance to their sense of duty. They acted with dignity and followed orders. They didn't act vulgar and make trouble.
    But wouldn't it have been better if someone like Trump had shouted, "This war plan is crazy." But the Japanese military elites were too 'gentlemanly' to break form and come forward to say it like it is. Trump's style may be aggressive, but his policy proposals are the opposite of that. He's not calling for invading and bombing the world or starting new cold wars with other powers. He's calling for taking care of American people first and fixing America's borders to uphold America's laws. America First means Americans should mind their business instead of treating the world as an empire.

    Gentlemanliness is a nice quality to have, but it is no substitute for integrity based on truth.
    In PATHS OF GLORY, the devious general is most gentlemanly in words and demeanor. In contrast, Kirk Douglas seems out of line when he blows up and loses his temper. But it's the general who is a real lowlife son-of-a-bitch, and it is Douglas who dares to speak the truth. It's like the CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VICyZk-XSLA

    Btw, I find all this complaint about gentlemanly virtue rather odd in a nation controlled by Jews. Haven't Jews been mocking and making fun of Wasp culture(or conceit) of gentlemanliness? Haven't Jews been exposing Wasp modes of dignity, honor, and principles as phony, hypocritical, disingenuous, superficial, shallow, and discriminatory? Aren't all the Jewish diatribes against Wasp golf clubs a way of attacking the culture of dignity and gentlemanliness among Wasps that Jews found to be so full of BS, a snobby way to maintain faux-dignity and privilege?

    Haven't Jews taken pride in presenting themselves as the Real Thing? People who speak the brazen truth and say it like it is? Didn't Alan Dershowitz write a book called CHUTZPAH? Yeah, Jews got chutzpah, they got big balls and big mouths. Unlike Wasps who are uptight, deceitful, discriminatory, and disdainful, Jews are so refreshing in breaking through the BS and showing it like it is. Jews have pushed vulgarity in criticism(Pauline Kael), in sexual culture(Jews take pride in legalizing and spreading porn as liberating), in TV and movies(with lots of foul talk and horny behavior), and comedy(where much of the jokes about dicks and poons). Jews have characterized Wasps as anal and cold while they themselves are phallic and warm. Look at Woody Allen's INTERIORS. The Wasps are cold, cold, cold. But a Jewish woman comes along and she is filled with warmth and life. Or take the cult of Barbra Streisand in movies like FUNNY GIRL and WHAT'S UP DOC? She is the wild Jewess who breaks down barriers with chutzpah and refreshing crudity. Or the cult of Bob Dylan. There is a famous scene in DON'T LOOK BACK where Dylan just rips into this nice Wasp reporter who is just asking him questions. But Dylan goes into super-a**hole mode and berates him on and on. Jews were proud of all such behavior as liberating and rebellious against the Wasp order.
    Indeed, the movie CADDYSHACK features Wasps as a bunch of phonies. They act gentlemanly on the outside but talk 'racist' shit on the inside. One thing that Jews hated about Wasps was how the latter masked their prejudices(such as "you can't marry my daughter" kind of 'antisemitism') with haute manners and such.
    Jewish Milos Forman made fun of Wasps in HAIR.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LRD3DtFAo

    And Gene Siskel the chutzpastic Jew goes off on how Wasps are a bunch of phonies who act dignified but control all the banks.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALFpRJKnK2U

    And Jews praised Bill Clinton for being the 'first black president'. Unlike uptight Wasps, he was a wild boy who stuck his dong into everything. It's like those movies where some Negro or Negress(like in LILIES OF THE FIELD or SISTER ACT) enters a drab an dreary social order full of repressed whites and liberates them with their wildass act.
    And Hollywood loves to make movies like DEAD POETS SOCIETY where a waspy preppy school is managed with gentlemanly rigidity and honor code... but then a wild man comes along and teaches the students what real life and learning are all about:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

    In RAGTIME, we are shown a respectable wasp family where the man of the house is so 'white bread', anemic, and colorless. He runs his household like a clock to set. It's so mechanical. But his family is turned upside down when the man's bubble is pricked by a black man(Mr. Vitality)'s dilemma, and his wife finds true satisfaction with a Jewish film-maker. And in Forman's AMADEUS, the wily and vulgar Mozart is presented as genuine and authentic, the real face of genius in contrast to the respectable court composed of second-raters with good manners but no real skill or imagination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U82hhWfDFY

    In LOVE STORY, we have a story of a uptight Wasp rich kid who learns the meaning of life from an ethnic Italian girl who is full of life and spontaneity and talks to her father like he's a friend. Same with WAY WE WERE where Robert Redford is matched with Streisand.
    In THE GODFATHER, the Wasp Senator Geary is presented as a total fraud. Despite his public demeanor as a clean public servant, he's a sleazebag like everyone else. As corrupt as the Corleones are, they are presented as more honest than someone like Geary who acts legit but is a crook like everyone else.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xLEBtyar6M

    Indeed, one of the major themes of Jewish Cultural Influence has been that white people should lose their inhibitions of faux-dignity and faux-respectability and go 'Jew' or 'Negro'. So, white guys should talk and think like Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern, or Gene Siskel(in his more colorful moments). Jewish media promoted Hugh Hefner as the face of the New Respectability. Also, Jews rooted white boomers to rise up and dress wild and give middle finger to the older generation. Consider Tim Wise's view of older whites. And look how Newsweek taunts the older generation of whites who had better manners.
    http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/style592x333/public/636_110912_fx_obama_newsweek.jpg

    So, we should piss on the culture of Older White America. Younger whites should emulate black rappers, Jewish comedians, and etc. And Slut Feminism says white girls should act like Miley Cyrus, twerk, and have wanton sex with Negroes. And 'cuckold' culture says white men should watch their wives have sex with Negroes. And Libs say the obnoxious Jack Johnson and loudmouthed Muhammad Ali were icons of true dignity and respect. In other says, say whatever is on your mind and showboat and make a scene. After all, even respectable people are into defending Rap as poetry. And what is the biggest musical hit among respectable people who attend theater and arts? HAMILTON the musical where a bunch of wildass Negroes pretend to be the founding fathers and turn their story into foul-mouthed lewd rap lyrics. This is now the culture of respectable people who pay $300 to see 'serious' culture. Even 'conservatives' like Terry Teachout says he wept watching this super-duper show.

    And what else passes for respectable according to Liberal Elites? Oh yeah, the massive homo parades where people wrap the figure of Jesus in 'homo colors'. This is what the educated and refined elites promote as proper culture for all of us:

    http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/6/28/248086de-b78c-4520-994e-8fbb3e6a61c4.jpg

    How kitschy can you get? Inflatable Jesus with 'homo colors' around his shoulder. This is what the educated and sophisticated Liberal Elites are so proud of. And of course HAMILTON where the one of the great founding fathers is some jiving shucking rapping fool. Educated NY Elites pay top dollars to see such rot for cultural enrichment, but they have the gall to say Donald Trump is vulgar and crude.

    Harvey Mansfield writes as if people like Trump is leading the assault on manners, but Trump is only following the Jewish lead. If anything, Trump was being Jewishy when he decried the policy of a Florida Wasp country golf club for excluding Jews and Negroes. He was acting with white-version of chutzpah than defending the Wasp country club culture of gentlemanliness.

    The Jewish Narrative time and time again gave us the refreshing candid loudmouth Jew who exposes Wasp conceit of respectability and dignity as a fraud, a mere facade.
    This cultural assault has been so relentless that everyone snickers and mocks Wasp culture of yesteryear. Indeed, when Mitt Romney ran with a kind of father-knows-best gentlemanly manner, he was mocked by Obama as a throwback to the bad old 1950s, the last decade of white respectability and normality. Boomers and Progs since the 60s have been mocking the white-ruled 50s as boring, repressive, stifling, constricting, and etc. Look at a film like FAR FROM HEAVEN that says a respectable white guy is really a homo who likes to suck dick. Worse, his wife wants to a kiss a Negro, on the lips too. And the film PLEASANTVILLE mocks white America of the 50s as repressive and dull. And REVOLUTIONARY ROAD says white middle class couples in the 50s were living in a state of cultural mummification. So, white folks needed to kick off their inhibitions and dance like Negroes or talk shit like Jews.
    Jews loved THE GRADUATE and HEARTBREAK KID where the wily Jewish or Jewishy character gets better of the blonde white folks through wit and drive. And the cultural elites in the 90s promoted the vulgar and trashy Quentin Tarantino as the filmmaker of the hour. His vile rot such as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS were defended by the top critics and cultural scholars.

    So-called sophisticates elevated boorish Michael Moore as truth-teller. Liberal elites got their news from clowns like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their idea of culture is stuff like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives. And GIRLS with Lena Dunham. Even elite webzines offer tons of news and info related to sex, porn, homo stuff, trash culture, and etc. Salon and Slate have writers who write about little else but sex, porn, and hedonism. Think of Amanda Marcotte.
    Martha Nussbaum's personal philosophy is about telling the world about her colonoscopy and menstrual activities.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/07/girl-thought.html

    Educated elites for over decade flocked to a show called VAGINA MONOLOGUES. It became a bit less fashionable lately not because women came to their senses but because it might offend trannies with fake vaginas or dicks.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2015/01/women-without-vaginas.html

    In the art world managed by rich educated people, the biggest artists are people like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. And the phony Andy Warhol is revered almost as a god.
    What mavens of high culture.

    Yet, the Liberal elites who promote and push all this nonsense have the temerity to say Donald Trump has a crudity and vulgarity problem?
    By the way, who was the one who cackled with hideous glee when Gaddafi was lynched to death? Trump may be no gentleman, but Hillary is no lady.
    But of course, the very people who denounce Trump for not being a gentleman will be offended by anyone who says Hillary should dress, talk, and act more like a lady.

    We live in a strange messed up world. Jews led the way in attacking and demeaning the culture of Wasp gentlemanliness. They mocked it and exposed it as phony and facade for wasp repression, privilege, and snobbery.
    They urged white gentiles to wake up, be liberated, laugh at the wasp elites, join with Jews and Negroes and embrace the new healthy vulgarity and sexuality.

    Well, Trump did just that. If anything, he did it all too well. If he has anything in common with Bill Clinton, it's that both are boomers and love to have a good time and sneer at the rules of Wasp elite culture. They can get a bit wild, but that's why the boomer libs loved Clinton(and even adored Trump when he was a Democrat).

    But now that Trump is using his candid brashness to attack the New Globalist Establishment and its hypocrisies, repressions, dirty tricks, deceits, and BS, the globalist elites are suddenly the defenders of good manners, civility, gentlemanliness, dignity, composure, and etc.

    When white vulgarity was used against Wasp respectability, Jews were all for it. But now that white vulgarity and populism are honestly and brashly speaking truth to globalist power and privilege, Jews and their cuck-puppets suddenly find it so terrible, wrong, out-of-order, offensive, disturbing, despicable, and intolerable.

    It's ironic that Jews who take pride in their chutzpah are angry with Trump for showing too much chutzpah or Trumpah. When Jews have chutzpah and use it against Wasp privilege, it's great. But when whites appropriate chutzpah and use it against Jewish-Globalist power, it's so terrible. Jews suddenly see it as something like the Nazi SS. Schutzstaffelpah or Schutzpah.

    We see a variation of this in the New Cold War with Russia. Vladmir Putin is trying to lead Russia toward a culture of respectability, sobriety(much needed since Russians are drunkards), spirituality, and tradition. He is calling for family values and national pride. Dignified stuff. And he acts like a real gentleman, at least in public.

    But there is no respect for Putin's gentlemanly style of statesmanship. There is no admiration for his emphasis on the culture of sobriety, respectability, and such in Russia.
    Instead, the Western elites see it as 'reactionary' and 'tyrannical'.
    They want Russia to allow the Pussy Riot(the darlings of New York Times and New Yorker) to run around in Russia and desecrate churches. They want the likes of Masha Gessen to dictate social and moral policy in Russia. They want massive homo parades all over Russia to pay tribute to the wonders of fecal penetration. This is the vision of morality and respectability by the Western media:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

    It's the same with free speech. When Jews needed free speech protections in the 50s(when Joe McCarthy was sniffing around for Jewish communists), 60s(when radicals needed free speech to attack the Wasp establishment), and 70s(when Jews were trying to legalize pornographic movies), they were for total freedom of speech and pushed all Americans to support free speech rights.

    But now that Jewish elites are perched on top and come under scrutiny and criticism by others who dare to speak truth to Jewish power, Jews are now into hair-splitting BS like "we are for free speech but not 'hate speech', and we get to decide what is and isn't 'hate'."

    I find it hilarious that Liberals and Jews who did most to mock, subvert, defame, and attack the culture of dignity, honor, and gentlemanlines are now bitching and whining about how Trump isn't gentlemanly enough as a leader of whites.
    They fear that Trump's brashness and boldness are really connecting with white masses who've just about had enough of globalism and elite double-talk of PC smoke-and-mirrors.

    Hillary invites trashy Lena Dunham, the mother of Michael Brown(who urged blacks in Ferguson to burn the city down when the verdict didn't go her way), and a deranged 4-star general who wants more militarism and a New Cold War with Russia.
    And yet, we are told that Trump has a problem with vulgarity and lacks the culture and temperament to be president. Well, maybe he does, but is hyena-laughter Hillary any better? By all sane measures, she's much worse.

    Really great piece. The left, the Jews became what they fought once they got on top and it is they who define what is gentlemanly. They are the sophisticates.

    “You adopt political ideas that are obviously stupid—because only a truly refined person can understand their subtle justifications…. Any lout might think that race exists and partly explains what people are like—only a sophisticate could steadfastly deny his lying eyes.”

    http://takimag.com/article/the_inarticulate_orator_steve_sailer/print#ixzz4Grgx93GX

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. utu says:
    @Priss Factor
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-donald-trump-is-no-gentleman-1469831003

    This Harvey Mansfield guy needs to see Kurosawa's RAN.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q8kLDgoO_c

    In the film, the first and second sons show outward propriety and speak respectfully to their father who announces his retirement. They display fealty with utmost dignity. But they are just scheming for power.
    In contrast, the third son speaks brashly but tells the truth, and Tango, who is truly loyal, backs up the third son against the first and second sons who are disingenuous in their show of respect.

    Not that Trump(a kind of hustler) is necessarily like the third son, but he seems more willing to speak honestly and bluntly about matters that the elites in government, media, and academia have paved over with glib assurances or PC taboos.

    Also, after the elites made so many excuses for Bill Clinton's behavior in the Oval Office(turned into Oral Orifice) and given the GOP was behind Bush II the crude moron for two terms, does it make sense to talk of gentlemanly ideal in this day and age? The boomers killed it. It is gone. At least with Trump, there is no pretense that he is a gentleman. He's more honest that way.

    In contrast, you got Obama who superficially acts refined and fancy but is a sleazy forked-tongued snake. If he's so learned and sophisticated, why did he raise a daughter who twerks in college? Why is his wife so crude and stupid, a pure affirmative action dumbass queen? Why has he invited all those trashy rappers into the Oval Office? Why does he promote homomania, the worship of men into sucking each other penises and fecal penetration? And is there dignity in characterizing Bruce Jenner's early senile tomfoolery as 'courageous'?
    Gentlemanliiness is a virtue when wedded to real character, integrity, and core values. With Obama, gentlemanliness is just a layer of wax. Beneath the shine is a lying and cheating opportunist who will sell his mother down the river. But then, like mother like son. The stupid whore not only got pregnant with some lowlife African(high IQ but low character) but dumped his son on her grandparents while she went off with another man. Wow, how do you like them New Family Values?

    Mansfield might also see Kurosawa's SANJURO where the ones with best 'reputations' and 'manners' turn out to be most rotten and lowdown... whereas ruffian Sanjuro cuts through the highfalutin BS. The respectable officials are snakes hiding behind the facade of manners and form.

    Also, it doesn't seem to occur to snobs like Mansfield that the only reason gentlemen could put on fancy airs was because they left all the dirty work to be done by their overseers and underlings. It's like in the novel/movie FEAR AND TREMBLING. A French woman who gains employment in a Japanese firm is treated harshly by her bosses. When she meets the man at the very top, he is nice and kind. But how can he act so dignified and keep his hands clean of all the office politics? Because he has OTHERS do the dirty work.
    https://youtu.be/pEIXl8m3R2E?t=1h19m34s

    It's like the rich farmer in DAYS OF HEAVEN can be more dignified since he has his overseer to do all the dirty work to keep the workers in line. Same thing in the American South. The neo-aristocratic gentry could put on fancy manners and act with gentlemanly hospitality because they had overseers to watch over the Negroes.
    Also, gentlemanliness also comes with gentleman's agreement which is codeword for genteel collusion and corruption. Indeed, that is how Andrew Jackson got cheated out of his presidency on his first try. There was gentlemen's agreement behind closed doors to keep him out.

    https://youtu.be/rdMvX1E2dWg?t=36m38s

    How does the Takeda clan destroy itself at the end of Kurosawa's KAGEMUSHA? Because the generals are too honorable, loyal, and dignified to violate the code of the clan and tell the late lord's son that he's acting like a retard in risking all in the upcoming battle.
    Kurosawa was probably commenting on the Japanese military elites during WWII. There were lots of honorable men who acted in accordance to their sense of duty. They acted with dignity and followed orders. They didn't act vulgar and make trouble.
    But wouldn't it have been better if someone like Trump had shouted, "This war plan is crazy." But the Japanese military elites were too 'gentlemanly' to break form and come forward to say it like it is. Trump's style may be aggressive, but his policy proposals are the opposite of that. He's not calling for invading and bombing the world or starting new cold wars with other powers. He's calling for taking care of American people first and fixing America's borders to uphold America's laws. America First means Americans should mind their business instead of treating the world as an empire.

    Gentlemanliness is a nice quality to have, but it is no substitute for integrity based on truth.
    In PATHS OF GLORY, the devious general is most gentlemanly in words and demeanor. In contrast, Kirk Douglas seems out of line when he blows up and loses his temper. But it's the general who is a real lowlife son-of-a-bitch, and it is Douglas who dares to speak the truth. It's like the CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VICyZk-XSLA

    Btw, I find all this complaint about gentlemanly virtue rather odd in a nation controlled by Jews. Haven't Jews been mocking and making fun of Wasp culture(or conceit) of gentlemanliness? Haven't Jews been exposing Wasp modes of dignity, honor, and principles as phony, hypocritical, disingenuous, superficial, shallow, and discriminatory? Aren't all the Jewish diatribes against Wasp golf clubs a way of attacking the culture of dignity and gentlemanliness among Wasps that Jews found to be so full of BS, a snobby way to maintain faux-dignity and privilege?

    Haven't Jews taken pride in presenting themselves as the Real Thing? People who speak the brazen truth and say it like it is? Didn't Alan Dershowitz write a book called CHUTZPAH? Yeah, Jews got chutzpah, they got big balls and big mouths. Unlike Wasps who are uptight, deceitful, discriminatory, and disdainful, Jews are so refreshing in breaking through the BS and showing it like it is. Jews have pushed vulgarity in criticism(Pauline Kael), in sexual culture(Jews take pride in legalizing and spreading porn as liberating), in TV and movies(with lots of foul talk and horny behavior), and comedy(where much of the jokes about dicks and poons). Jews have characterized Wasps as anal and cold while they themselves are phallic and warm. Look at Woody Allen's INTERIORS. The Wasps are cold, cold, cold. But a Jewish woman comes along and she is filled with warmth and life. Or take the cult of Barbra Streisand in movies like FUNNY GIRL and WHAT'S UP DOC? She is the wild Jewess who breaks down barriers with chutzpah and refreshing crudity. Or the cult of Bob Dylan. There is a famous scene in DON'T LOOK BACK where Dylan just rips into this nice Wasp reporter who is just asking him questions. But Dylan goes into super-a**hole mode and berates him on and on. Jews were proud of all such behavior as liberating and rebellious against the Wasp order.
    Indeed, the movie CADDYSHACK features Wasps as a bunch of phonies. They act gentlemanly on the outside but talk 'racist' shit on the inside. One thing that Jews hated about Wasps was how the latter masked their prejudices(such as "you can't marry my daughter" kind of 'antisemitism') with haute manners and such.
    Jewish Milos Forman made fun of Wasps in HAIR.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1LRD3DtFAo

    And Gene Siskel the chutzpastic Jew goes off on how Wasps are a bunch of phonies who act dignified but control all the banks.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALFpRJKnK2U

    And Jews praised Bill Clinton for being the 'first black president'. Unlike uptight Wasps, he was a wild boy who stuck his dong into everything. It's like those movies where some Negro or Negress(like in LILIES OF THE FIELD or SISTER ACT) enters a drab an dreary social order full of repressed whites and liberates them with their wildass act.
    And Hollywood loves to make movies like DEAD POETS SOCIETY where a waspy preppy school is managed with gentlemanly rigidity and honor code... but then a wild man comes along and teaches the students what real life and learning are all about:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjHORRHXtyI

    In RAGTIME, we are shown a respectable wasp family where the man of the house is so 'white bread', anemic, and colorless. He runs his household like a clock to set. It's so mechanical. But his family is turned upside down when the man's bubble is pricked by a black man(Mr. Vitality)'s dilemma, and his wife finds true satisfaction with a Jewish film-maker. And in Forman's AMADEUS, the wily and vulgar Mozart is presented as genuine and authentic, the real face of genius in contrast to the respectable court composed of second-raters with good manners but no real skill or imagination.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U82hhWfDFY

    In LOVE STORY, we have a story of a uptight Wasp rich kid who learns the meaning of life from an ethnic Italian girl who is full of life and spontaneity and talks to her father like he's a friend. Same with WAY WE WERE where Robert Redford is matched with Streisand.
    In THE GODFATHER, the Wasp Senator Geary is presented as a total fraud. Despite his public demeanor as a clean public servant, he's a sleazebag like everyone else. As corrupt as the Corleones are, they are presented as more honest than someone like Geary who acts legit but is a crook like everyone else.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xLEBtyar6M

    Indeed, one of the major themes of Jewish Cultural Influence has been that white people should lose their inhibitions of faux-dignity and faux-respectability and go 'Jew' or 'Negro'. So, white guys should talk and think like Lenny Bruce, Howard Stern, or Gene Siskel(in his more colorful moments). Jewish media promoted Hugh Hefner as the face of the New Respectability. Also, Jews rooted white boomers to rise up and dress wild and give middle finger to the older generation. Consider Tim Wise's view of older whites. And look how Newsweek taunts the older generation of whites who had better manners.
    http://nation.foxnews.com/sites/nation.foxnews.com/files/styles/style592x333/public/636_110912_fx_obama_newsweek.jpg

    So, we should piss on the culture of Older White America. Younger whites should emulate black rappers, Jewish comedians, and etc. And Slut Feminism says white girls should act like Miley Cyrus, twerk, and have wanton sex with Negroes. And 'cuckold' culture says white men should watch their wives have sex with Negroes. And Libs say the obnoxious Jack Johnson and loudmouthed Muhammad Ali were icons of true dignity and respect. In other says, say whatever is on your mind and showboat and make a scene. After all, even respectable people are into defending Rap as poetry. And what is the biggest musical hit among respectable people who attend theater and arts? HAMILTON the musical where a bunch of wildass Negroes pretend to be the founding fathers and turn their story into foul-mouthed lewd rap lyrics. This is now the culture of respectable people who pay $300 to see 'serious' culture. Even 'conservatives' like Terry Teachout says he wept watching this super-duper show.

    And what else passes for respectable according to Liberal Elites? Oh yeah, the massive homo parades where people wrap the figure of Jesus in 'homo colors'. This is what the educated and refined elites promote as proper culture for all of us:

    http://images.scribblelive.com/2015/6/28/248086de-b78c-4520-994e-8fbb3e6a61c4.jpg

    How kitschy can you get? Inflatable Jesus with 'homo colors' around his shoulder. This is what the educated and sophisticated Liberal Elites are so proud of. And of course HAMILTON where the one of the great founding fathers is some jiving shucking rapping fool. Educated NY Elites pay top dollars to see such rot for cultural enrichment, but they have the gall to say Donald Trump is vulgar and crude.

    Harvey Mansfield writes as if people like Trump is leading the assault on manners, but Trump is only following the Jewish lead. If anything, Trump was being Jewishy when he decried the policy of a Florida Wasp country golf club for excluding Jews and Negroes. He was acting with white-version of chutzpah than defending the Wasp country club culture of gentlemanliness.

    The Jewish Narrative time and time again gave us the refreshing candid loudmouth Jew who exposes Wasp conceit of respectability and dignity as a fraud, a mere facade.
    This cultural assault has been so relentless that everyone snickers and mocks Wasp culture of yesteryear. Indeed, when Mitt Romney ran with a kind of father-knows-best gentlemanly manner, he was mocked by Obama as a throwback to the bad old 1950s, the last decade of white respectability and normality. Boomers and Progs since the 60s have been mocking the white-ruled 50s as boring, repressive, stifling, constricting, and etc. Look at a film like FAR FROM HEAVEN that says a respectable white guy is really a homo who likes to suck dick. Worse, his wife wants to a kiss a Negro, on the lips too. And the film PLEASANTVILLE mocks white America of the 50s as repressive and dull. And REVOLUTIONARY ROAD says white middle class couples in the 50s were living in a state of cultural mummification. So, white folks needed to kick off their inhibitions and dance like Negroes or talk shit like Jews.
    Jews loved THE GRADUATE and HEARTBREAK KID where the wily Jewish or Jewishy character gets better of the blonde white folks through wit and drive. And the cultural elites in the 90s promoted the vulgar and trashy Quentin Tarantino as the filmmaker of the hour. His vile rot such as INGLORIOUS BASTERDS were defended by the top critics and cultural scholars.

    So-called sophisticates elevated boorish Michael Moore as truth-teller. Liberal elites got their news from clowns like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Their idea of culture is stuff like Sex and the City and Desperate Housewives. And GIRLS with Lena Dunham. Even elite webzines offer tons of news and info related to sex, porn, homo stuff, trash culture, and etc. Salon and Slate have writers who write about little else but sex, porn, and hedonism. Think of Amanda Marcotte.
    Martha Nussbaum's personal philosophy is about telling the world about her colonoscopy and menstrual activities.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/07/girl-thought.html

    Educated elites for over decade flocked to a show called VAGINA MONOLOGUES. It became a bit less fashionable lately not because women came to their senses but because it might offend trannies with fake vaginas or dicks.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2015/01/women-without-vaginas.html

    In the art world managed by rich educated people, the biggest artists are people like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst. And the phony Andy Warhol is revered almost as a god.
    What mavens of high culture.

    Yet, the Liberal elites who promote and push all this nonsense have the temerity to say Donald Trump has a crudity and vulgarity problem?
    By the way, who was the one who cackled with hideous glee when Gaddafi was lynched to death? Trump may be no gentleman, but Hillary is no lady.
    But of course, the very people who denounce Trump for not being a gentleman will be offended by anyone who says Hillary should dress, talk, and act more like a lady.

    We live in a strange messed up world. Jews led the way in attacking and demeaning the culture of Wasp gentlemanliness. They mocked it and exposed it as phony and facade for wasp repression, privilege, and snobbery.
    They urged white gentiles to wake up, be liberated, laugh at the wasp elites, join with Jews and Negroes and embrace the new healthy vulgarity and sexuality.

    Well, Trump did just that. If anything, he did it all too well. If he has anything in common with Bill Clinton, it's that both are boomers and love to have a good time and sneer at the rules of Wasp elite culture. They can get a bit wild, but that's why the boomer libs loved Clinton(and even adored Trump when he was a Democrat).

    But now that Trump is using his candid brashness to attack the New Globalist Establishment and its hypocrisies, repressions, dirty tricks, deceits, and BS, the globalist elites are suddenly the defenders of good manners, civility, gentlemanliness, dignity, composure, and etc.

    When white vulgarity was used against Wasp respectability, Jews were all for it. But now that white vulgarity and populism are honestly and brashly speaking truth to globalist power and privilege, Jews and their cuck-puppets suddenly find it so terrible, wrong, out-of-order, offensive, disturbing, despicable, and intolerable.

    It's ironic that Jews who take pride in their chutzpah are angry with Trump for showing too much chutzpah or Trumpah. When Jews have chutzpah and use it against Wasp privilege, it's great. But when whites appropriate chutzpah and use it against Jewish-Globalist power, it's so terrible. Jews suddenly see it as something like the Nazi SS. Schutzstaffelpah or Schutzpah.

    We see a variation of this in the New Cold War with Russia. Vladmir Putin is trying to lead Russia toward a culture of respectability, sobriety(much needed since Russians are drunkards), spirituality, and tradition. He is calling for family values and national pride. Dignified stuff. And he acts like a real gentleman, at least in public.

    But there is no respect for Putin's gentlemanly style of statesmanship. There is no admiration for his emphasis on the culture of sobriety, respectability, and such in Russia.
    Instead, the Western elites see it as 'reactionary' and 'tyrannical'.
    They want Russia to allow the Pussy Riot(the darlings of New York Times and New Yorker) to run around in Russia and desecrate churches. They want the likes of Masha Gessen to dictate social and moral policy in Russia. They want massive homo parades all over Russia to pay tribute to the wonders of fecal penetration. This is the vision of morality and respectability by the Western media:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4

    It's the same with free speech. When Jews needed free speech protections in the 50s(when Joe McCarthy was sniffing around for Jewish communists), 60s(when radicals needed free speech to attack the Wasp establishment), and 70s(when Jews were trying to legalize pornographic movies), they were for total freedom of speech and pushed all Americans to support free speech rights.

    But now that Jewish elites are perched on top and come under scrutiny and criticism by others who dare to speak truth to Jewish power, Jews are now into hair-splitting BS like "we are for free speech but not 'hate speech', and we get to decide what is and isn't 'hate'."

    I find it hilarious that Liberals and Jews who did most to mock, subvert, defame, and attack the culture of dignity, honor, and gentlemanlines are now bitching and whining about how Trump isn't gentlemanly enough as a leader of whites.
    They fear that Trump's brashness and boldness are really connecting with white masses who've just about had enough of globalism and elite double-talk of PC smoke-and-mirrors.

    Hillary invites trashy Lena Dunham, the mother of Michael Brown(who urged blacks in Ferguson to burn the city down when the verdict didn't go her way), and a deranged 4-star general who wants more militarism and a New Cold War with Russia.
    And yet, we are told that Trump has a problem with vulgarity and lacks the culture and temperament to be president. Well, maybe he does, but is hyena-laughter Hillary any better? By all sane measures, she's much worse.

    I will write email to Ron Unz petitioning him to give you a small corner at this site where your most memorable comments could be collected. I hope you are collecting them as well. Somebody should help you to edit them for a special selection.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    I seek no such corner.

    I like to stick to comments.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. annamaria says:
    @utu
    "Why can’t EU nations Israelize?" - What if it is planned already? Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right. The Neo-Right is very pro-Israel. Kind like Breivik. The attack in Munich was by Breivik admirer - German of Iranian descent. No ethnic Germans were killed. Why Brexit? There are other devils working on The Plan. They are not the ones that always have a starring role in your tirades. What if Trump and Putin are part of that Plan?

    “Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right.”
    That could be explained as a by-product of implementation of Yinon Plan.
    If you are offended by the idea that the childish longing for the promised land and Jewish supremacism have nothing to do with the wars in the Middle East, then how you would explain the overwhelming number of ziocons among prominent neocons as well as this illogical (for the US interests) plan of taking seven countries in five years?

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "That could be explained as a by-product of implementation of Yinon Plan." - It is not just a by-product but one of many desired products. The objective of Arab and Muslim immigrants and refugees is to transform Europe into Neo-Right pro-Israel society. Israel loves breiviks of the Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. utu says:
    @annamaria
    "Sending million refugees to Europe stimulated the growth of the Neo-Right."
    That could be explained as a by-product of implementation of Yinon Plan.
    If you are offended by the idea that the childish longing for the promised land and Jewish supremacism have nothing to do with the wars in the Middle East, then how you would explain the overwhelming number of ziocons among prominent neocons as well as this illogical (for the US interests) plan of taking seven countries in five years? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw

    “That could be explained as a by-product of implementation of Yinon Plan.” – It is not just a by-product but one of many desired products. The objective of Arab and Muslim immigrants and refugees is to transform Europe into Neo-Right pro-Israel society. Israel loves breiviks of the Europe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. utu says:
    @Outwest
    I remember America during the 40s and 50s well. Our commercial industrial base was old and largely unimproved since the 1920s. Much of the ad hoc war production infrastructure, i.e. Dodge City B-29 engine plant was full of asbestos and not really suited for commercial purposes. The auto plants reverted to 1930s production technology. With no competition from Europe it was easy to be the leader.

    Germany slowly cleared the rubble and built better factories. They have economic leadership –then and now. We are wasting away as the military leader. Politics haven’t changed much, just more so.

    I sometimes begin to suspect that the alleged industrial and technological superiority of America was a myth. The golden age of post WWII period was squandered and when the free trade was imposed on America (why and by whom) American industry folded and gave up. The bankers took over.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. annamaria says:

    Meanwhile in Sweden, the judicial purists have finally decided to interview Assange in Ecuadorian embassy. Here is an astute comment: “Amazing performance by the swedes: they have an increasing REAL epidemic of rape in their country which goes mostly uninvestigated, unpublished and unpunished while they have been accesories to the illegal “house arrest” in the embassy of J.A. on a totally meritless case. The “humanitarian superpower” has been defecating on J.A.’s human rights for almost half a decade… Way to go Sweden.”

    https://www.rt.com/news/355485-assange-sweden-interview-embassy/

    The Assange affair should be properly named Assange/Bodström affair:
    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/ “How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange:” “Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström and then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh knew about the renditions. Thomas Bodström spent a year in the US between 2010 – 2011, purportedly for rehabilitation in connection with alcohol and substance abuse, while he was a partner in the legal firm Borgström & Bodström. … Claes Borgström is the lawyer who was called upon to prosecute Julian Assange over allegations that had previously been dismissed.”
    How the female relatives of Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström are doing in the new spirited environment in Sweden – in a country that has become flooded with the victims of the US murderous wars in the Middle East and the ISIS operatives? Don’t these Swedish vassals of the US State Dept enjoy the consequences of their enthusiastic allegiance to the US agenda?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @utu
    I will write email to Ron Unz petitioning him to give you a small corner at this site where your most memorable comments could be collected. I hope you are collecting them as well. Somebody should help you to edit them for a special selection.

    I seek no such corner.

    I like to stick to comments.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Charron says:

    An excellent and intelligent presentation. They say that in the Kingdom of the Blind, the One-eyed man is King.

    I say from my long experience observing people that in the Kindom of the Blind, the one-eyed man will be murdered.

    Many of the comments criticizing Mr. Bacevich reflect the rancor the blind have for the one-eyed man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?