I Would, Wouldn't I?
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Personally, I prefer the United States Constitution and the rule of law, even (or especially) if it comes to it.
But then, unlike Bill Kristol, I’m a notorious extremist, so I would, wouldn’t I?
Thanks for top posting this and the Kristof column Steve. Let’s keep an eye on this stuff and continue to document it.
No one could keep up. The entire editorial section of NYT, day after day, for example. That's just one media outlet.
I notice they've left Steve alone, so far. Some reporter said it would take too much background reading if I recall rightly(?)
If he hates immigration restriction and border fences so much, Kristol could presumably emigrate to Israel. I’m sure he’ll be calling for Bibi to be deposed any day now…
I think this zerohedge post nicely explains what may be going on.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-18/jay-sekulow-obama-should-be-held-accountable-soft-coup-attempt-against-trump
And what’s this about? Hopefully nothing.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/18/mystery-what-was-comeys-secret-briefing-yesterday-to-the-senate-intelligence-committee-about/
And thanks Steve for priming your readers on the deep state over the past few years. The cool kids are just now catching on.
When did I start using the term “deep state?”
Perhaps when I got back from visiting Turkey in 2009?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/06/deep-state.html
We don’t have a Deep State. We have a Balls Deep State – a state dedicated to screwing its citizenry, balls deep.
Perhaps when I got back from visiting Turkey in 2009?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/06/deep-state.html
I picked up the term “deep state” from Peter Robb’s book “Midnight in Sicily,” which I probably read in the mid-2000s.
You were one of very few people applying it to the US.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/06/deep-state.html
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
The first comment on my 2009 “Deep State” post was:
RKU said…
I think one difference is that today’s America pretty clearly has its own “deep state”…but the educated middle classes don’t realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do…
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
Allahpundit's post today suggests that Trump, in all his anti-media rhetoric and recent campaign-style rallies, may be priming us for coming war with the deep state.
Yikes.
Every dog shall have its day is the motto I say. The answer to 1984 is 1066.
Steve’s posts are great and much appreciated but you would not believe how much of this type thing is being published.
No one could keep up. The entire editorial section of NYT, day after day, for example. That’s just one media outlet.
I notice they’ve left Steve alone, so far. Some reporter said it would take too much background reading if I recall rightly(?)
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
And Mencius Moldbug was in there too, maybe.
Allahpundit’s post today suggests that Trump, in all his anti-media rhetoric and recent campaign-style rallies, may be priming us for coming war with the deep state.
Yikes.
Also, Steve can express himself in words of less than 140 characters. (I kid...) I enjoyed Moldbug's overintellectual style but it's a niche taste.
Steve, this is not a “Deep State” thing — Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, none of them generated this much HATE HATE HATE.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can’t tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don’t see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that’s the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can’t live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars “that hurt the planet and won’t let us … HEAL.” Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just … deplorable. A whole basket of them.
One of my cousins calls it Going Scando. (Half-Swedish.)
Just got back from Oakland. Virtue signaling at 85%. My sister insisted on calling Chelsea Manning "she" even though the poor creature was not sitting with us.
But I was very fond of Johnny Cash. So was Kris Kristofferson.
dīvide et īmpera
I have spoken to Swedes and never noticed this HATE HATE HATE. Swedes are just an overly naive and trusting people who have swallowed the PC line hook line and sinker. You are Scots Irish in the sense that Barbra Lerner Spectre is Swedish.
There was always food. Fish and game.
In a lot of places in/on the North Sea it's pretty difficult to distinguish Scandinavians from Celts. For example, you can have a guy named Padraig McManus (Patrick son of Magnus) who is Irish and a guy named Olaf Nilsson (Olaf son of Neil) who is Norwegian. Edvard Grieg, the famous Norwegian composer, was actually descended from a Scotsman.
But things definitely change as you go east. The Swedes are more Baltic, and even more communal, sort of like Russians. They don't prioritize freedom as much as western nordics, and tend to think it's OK to suppress individuality to support what they perceive as the common welfare. This apparently has very ancient roots.
I am not a fan of George W. Bush, but the Left also called him Adolf Hitler.
The Left sees The GOP in general as The 3rd Reich. The Left favors a 1 party nation where The Democratic Party is a political monopoly, the only game in town.
Where I live Comcast has a monopoly on cable companies. The Left wants The DNC to become the Comcast of politics.
If it is true, as it seems, that Obama opened the floodgates of the NSA’s illegally collected spy info to all the other deep state agencies two weeks before he left office specifically to bury Trump, I hope people are reminded of another Steve theme:
Obama was a product of the deep state, from before his conception. Literally.
In addition to Steve’s many posts on the subject, I like this one:
http://www.claremont.org/crb/article/the-chosen-one/
A deep state is inevitable in a powerful “democracy.”
We need to take control of it, or else people whom Bill Kristol approves of will keep controlling it.
He just declared it NORMAL!
Just like transgendered children shooting up sex hormones with Mommy's help, and mommies dressed as genitalia, and daddies looking on happily while mommies take black men into the family nest, and hate cakes, and 300-pound fashion models and such.
NORRRRRRRRRMALLLLLLLLL, I tells ya!
Bill Kristol--actual photo:
http://media.agonybooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/05225721/abe-simpson-complains.jpg
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
Which was the 63rd birthday of Donald J. Trump, Sr.!
“[I]f it comes to it,” Dr. Kristol might find himself hanging from a streetlamp, somewhere in the D.C. area. Regardless, “the Trump state”– such as it is, and may become– resulted from “normal democratic and constitutional politics.” So, there is no “if it comes to it” about “the Trump state.”
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
When you proposed the idea that we should not compare our situation to the “Decline of Rome” as so many like to write about, but instead to the multi-cultural Ottoman Empire, it was brilliant. Totally changed my perspective on “it all”. Brilliant Occamite insight
I was thinking about US as Austro-Hungarian Empire but Ottomans... As I wrote - interesting comparison.
I am excited to visit my local Iranian-owned independent coffee shop tomorrow.
The one with the MAGA posters in the window.
I will close my eyes and pretend that I am in Constantinople, sipping my Turkish coffee.
Then, I will dive deeply into deep state theories to discuss with my spouse, who seems to get a lot of information from Sputnik, for some reason.
I don’t believe a “deep state” exists, if I am understanding correctly how the term is being used. A civil service that is Democrat-heavy and congenitally has establishment viewpoints and sympathies? Sure. Doesn’t that explain most everything?
Occam’s razor.
This phenomenon has abstract explanations, like those found in Mosca's The Ruling Class and Michels' Political Parties. But the Platonic inevitable oligarchies, if you will, always eventually must meet reality in particular groups and individuals. Then you find the Deep State, the Establishment, the Shadow Government, the Invisible Government, or whatever you call it. It has consisted of individuals in the U.S. such as "Col." House, Harry the Hop, the Brothers Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, John J. McCloy, Henry Kissinger, and so forth. These were real individuals, not seas of functionaries.
It also consisted of groups, like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and so forth. People didn't just get into positions of power by climbing the ladder or luck, or what have you. There were clubs inside the bureaucracy, and clubs within clubs. Oligarchy, again.
OT:
Kellyanne Conway graduated from Trinity Washington University and now the school disowns her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4238248/Kellyanne-Conway-attacked-alma-mater-president.html
Haha!
Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius also went there, but the school today is NOTHING LIKE the one they remember.
As a Catholic school, it may be like the fall of Rome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Washington_University
TEST SCORES
Learn about new SAT scores and college admission here
SAT Reading
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
360 – 482
SAT Math
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
330 – 480
ACT Composite
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
13 – 18
My daughter stayed in a dorm there one summer when she attended the Kirov Academy of Ballet down the street, owned by the Moonies in an attempt to influence American polifics somehow.
I wonder if the fall of her school has driven her desire to MAGA.
Learn about new SAT scores and college admission here
SAT Reading
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
360 - 482
SAT Math
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
330 - 480
ACT Composite
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
13 - 18My daughter stayed in a dorm there one summer when she attended the Kirov Academy of Ballet down the street, owned by the Moonies in an attempt to influence American polifics somehow.I wonder if the fall of her school has driven her desire to MAGA.
From that Wikipedia article:
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
Is your boss still claiming he wasn’t that guy?
Keeva?
OT – Great speech by the President. I’m in the wrong Melbourne this weekend!
Does anybody remember any instances from during the campaign or after where the media or a public figure encouraged (explicitly or impliedly) assassination?
Madonna did in the slutwalk thing last month.
We need to take control of it, or else people whom Bill Kristol approves of will keep controlling it.
But…but…but………..
He just declared it NORMAL!
Just like transgendered children shooting up sex hormones with Mommy’s help, and mommies dressed as genitalia, and daddies looking on happily while mommies take black men into the family nest, and hate cakes, and 300-pound fashion models and such.
NORRRRRRRRRMALLLLLLLLL, I tells ya!
Bill Kristol–actual photo:
What does that Tweet even mean? Prefers, but “if it comes to it”. Fomenting with deniability. What a coward.
Let’s be clear about this: this is a leading US establishment (supposedly) conservative figure and the editor of a major “conservative” publication, declaring that he supports criminal action by senior intelligence community figures to try to treasonously overthrow an elected Republican president!
How is this not a career ending political scandal for Kristol?
It suggests even more Republicans in the US than I previously thought are either complicit, or lack the testicular fortitude to stand up to those who have commandeered their party.
Kristol and Kristof comments are borderline treasonous.
Aren't they sort of calling for violent overthrow of US Government?
J Edgar needs to monitor them.
Not being facetious.
Kristol should be totally ostracized from any and all conservative organizations, meetings, polite company, etc.
“When did I start using the term “deep state?”
Perhaps when I got back from visiting Turkey in 2009?”
When I was young and in the army in about 1988, I had a college girlfriend back in the States (I was stationed in Germany). When we used to talk sexy talk, we would joke that someone at the CIA was going to have a good time!
This was pre-internet, pre-cell phones, even pre-NSA (or perhaps pre-public consciousness of the NSA). But even then, it was in the public consciousness (I was a small town nobody from the midwest-not a kid of someone in the know in Washington) that the CIA recorded every international phone call.
I assume that was correct. Maybe I’m wrong and it all came from Ken Follett novels, though.
joeyjoejoe
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
. . . and maybe a Jew. But he’s an assimilated Jew, so he’s not really Jewish.
Interesting.
I was thinking about US as Austro-Hungarian Empire but Ottomans… As I wrote – interesting comparison.
He has a paunch worthy of Don Ciccio…
“Where is this man from New York?”
How is this not a career ending political scandal for Kristol?
It suggests even more Republicans in the US than I previously thought are either complicit, or lack the testicular fortitude to stand up to those who have commandeered their party.
So true, most of the neoconservatives are working hard to undermine Trump.
Far be it from me to defend Kristol, but as we’ve seen with the executive order on immigration, the deep state’s backlash will be deemed “Constitutional” by the courts, which are the arbiter of Constitutionality according to the Constitution. You have to admit that this is somewhat awkward.
I certainly don’t think it’s Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that’s where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it’s time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn’t mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it’s been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
The actual document is so sketchy that its almost more accurate to say that the US has an unwritten constitution.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
elements within the CIA helped to arm ISIS
let it come out
all sorts of loud voices will suddenly get quieter
Trump did on at least one occasion towards Hillary.
Madonna did in the slutwalk thing last month.
Chances are this was mentioned by Steve Sailer, as I seem to recall that.
Yeah, well, if that ship didn’t sail during the “Switch in Time That Saved Nine” in 1937, it sure left the dock during the Warren Court.
We are all cavemen now!
NAACP President and CEO Cornell William Brooks defames and insults with impunity my geneo-cultural heritage with a following hurtfully heinous racist remarks about my ancestors;
According to Social Justice Anthropologist Brooks, Neanderthals or Cro-magnons, or both, were early inventors of race as a social construct.
I guess the The (cave)Man’s primordial plan was to always keep Lucy in the back of the bus, or cave, or something…
Science bag to differ;
I got triggered and still literally shaking, so I will have to respond with a short photo essay:
Is there some missing link in the story about that adorable little kid that somehow mysteriously natured toddler’s urge to break in into Harambe’s safe place ? :
No Neanderthal Gene Carrying Dad:
No Cro-magnon Gene Carrying Mom:
No Cro-magnon, or Neanderthal Gene Carrying Granny:
I’ve always liked Kristol for his honesty. Now I don’t like him because of it. How many of his fellow neo-conservatives secretly feel the same way?
To get a sense for what’s going to happen to Team Trump, read the book Silent Coup by Len Colodny. Washington is an incestuous place. It runs like the Saudi Kingdom. Instead of cousins running the state, it is a people who live and work together as a community within a community. They look out for one another, their kids marry one another, they get each others kids jobs in the system.
The game is they will pick off Trump people with one made up “scandal” after another. The goal is to scare off anyone from helping the Trump White House, but also to get the people who they see as threats. Steve Bannon, for example, will not make it through the year. There’s a better chance that Stephen Miller ends up in jail than he finishes Trump’s term.
And, if you can believe Andrew Sullivan, a very gay place. Very gay.
Could be part of the reason the reaction to Trump is so sharp. Gays have their ways of doing things. Always with the intrigue and subterfuge, over matters trivial as much as consequential. Trump is blunt, to the point, no nonsense. This throws gays off their game and they are bewildered on how to respond, hence the backstabbing, whispering in the cloisters.
From Henry II to Mandy Rice-Davies in just two posts. Thank you !
Steve is, of course, echoing the true words of the late Mandy Rice-Davies, she of the Profumo scandal, in her riposte to a defence barrister’s accusation that John Profumo denied ‘knowning’ Ms Rice-Davies in the biblical sense.
The scandal ushered out Harold MacMillan – the last ‘real’ patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had, or will ever had – and presaged the election of Harold Wilson – he of such abominations as Comprehensive Schools, abolition of the death penalty etc. Older England had gone forever.
MacMillan was a phoney in life as in death. Do not be deceived.
I certainly don't think it's Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that's where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it's time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn't mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it's been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
Foseti is correct that the federal US constitution itself is a problem. It is unusually short and vague, compared to the constitutions of other countries and of the states, which spell things out more. The vagueness gives wide latitude for bureaucrats and judges to interpret up their version.
The actual document is so sketchy that its almost more accurate to say that the US has an unwritten constitution.
Kristol should be deported to Israel, then Bibi would be stuck with him…until Mossad gets a call.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
With regard to Scandinavian self-flagellation, virtue signaling, etc.
One of my cousins calls it Going Scando. (Half-Swedish.)
Just got back from Oakland. Virtue signaling at 85%. My sister insisted on calling Chelsea Manning “she” even though the poor creature was not sitting with us.
But I was very fond of Johnny Cash. So was Kris Kristofferson.
Learn about new SAT scores and college admission here
SAT Reading
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
360 - 482
SAT Math
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
330 - 480
ACT Composite
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
13 - 18My daughter stayed in a dorm there one summer when she attended the Kirov Academy of Ballet down the street, owned by the Moonies in an attempt to influence American polifics somehow.I wonder if the fall of her school has driven her desire to MAGA.
One reason why colleges have become so hard left on immigration is because their administrators are really eager to get those foreign students who pay full tuition. How can colleges support all those opulent salaries and Oriental Pasha-like lifestyles for their presidents without this subsidy? They’d rather die than dig into their endowment to pay a scholarship for some poor white student with great SAT scores from Appalachia. It means less money in the budget for themselves.
Obviously, they changed their admission standards, and now graduate very different people than they did in the past.
It is a beautiful campus, right next to the National Cathedral.
I wonder how it feels to be a graduate from before it was "fundamentally transformed."
Obviously, Miss Conway can't talk about this, nor can Trump.
But I would not be surprised to learn that a part of her drive comes from a desire not to see a similar fate befall her country as befell her college.
You don't need immigration to attract FOREIGN STUDENTS willing to pay full tuition.
If anything, their immigrant status offers them benefits. If they become citizens, they can get free stuff.
Besides, many immigrants are from poor countries, and their kids get tons of free stuff from education.
Limbaugh and Wallace are talking Deep State on FNS. Contributing the term to Glenn Greenwald…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYJ0Mfy8pRc
The NY Times let its mask slip briefly:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nyt-rare-see-black-latino-students-excel-math/
If you want to see a liar defend a traitor, check this out:
How Many Chances Do You Get to Be an American Hero?
It’s far too packed with lies and treachery for me to expand on it all. It’s breathtaking, watching one weasel defend another, to attack the president:
So, American security apparatus employees who leak the President’s highly secret communications with foreign leaders might as well be George Washington; the people have a right to know, democracy, etc.
For context, this is what McCain had to say about Russian security apparatus employees who leak Democrats’ internal communications to the American public:
McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an ‘act of war’
“Act of War” vs “in democracies, information should be provided to the American people”; talk about who-whom.
This is pretty amazing, too:
I suppose “now-infamous” is Gabriel Sherman’s way of saying “completely discredited fake news that the media has now conveniently forgotten, except when they’re pretending it’s genuine”? Even McCain himself called it dodgy, and has never used any of it in public against Trump; he handed it off to Comey and washed his hands of it.
Then Sherman shoehorns this in, a few paragraphs later:
“Damning.” No, Sherman does not elaborate further. No, he does not describe the “pieces,” or their “confirmation.” But, those “pieces” are “damning”; trust him, he knows what he’s talking about.
WTF?
I honestly can't think of a worse Senator than McCain (and no, I haven't forgotten Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, and Lindsey Graham when saying that). He pretends to be a patriot, when at best he is a senile, bloody-minded old fool, and at worst, a compromised stooge. Arizona could have saved us a lot of trouble by unelecting this deranged nitwit a long time ago.
I certainly don't think it's Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that's where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it's time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn't mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it's been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
The power grab in Marbury v Madison is not “Constitutional”. Its a power the courts have given themselves.
I certainly don't think it's Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that's where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it's time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn't mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it's been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying for years, often at great length and to a resounding chorus of boos. I think I can boil it down to simple and easily digestible broth, though.
I think that most “mainstream” conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only “good” outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn’t want or like the ACA, so obviously this was “unconstitutional,” right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts’ decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological (“Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.”) to the ominous (“What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?”) to the pathetic (“Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation.”). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time—who were no liberals, mind you—agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts’ appropriation of Obama’s taunt: “Elections have consequences.”
Furthermore, the Dittoheads’ conception of what comprises a “good” constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable ‘as-writtens,’ as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a “living, breathing document”; for, after all, it codified slavery into law (“which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil”) and we did away with that, didn’t we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. “Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date.”
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an “unmitigated moral evil.” Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which—since the Constitution can do no wrong—must on the Dittos’ view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind—not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday’s liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another’s property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
There was nothing in the text of the Constitution to authorize the ACA, which means it was Unconstitutional.
And no, the generic power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce isn't such a specific grant of power.
You mean assassinating Hussein, during his campaign or terms? No. It was all lefties fantasizing about someone wanting to kill him.
During Trump’s campaign, victory, and term? Yes, several times, before Kristol. There was Douthat, there was the the reporter cracking jokes about Trump’s plane going down, and at least one or two others, IIRC. Then there were the two (again, IIRC) assassination attempts, or assassination-attempt-like events, against Trump during the campaign, which Big Media and the left ignored, when they weren’t distorting them beyond recognition.
From some articles I saved:
Assassination threats against Trump flood Twitter New York Post, 2016/11/11.
NYT columnist apologizes for Trump tweet invoking assassination scene Fox News.
CNN: If Trump is Killed During Inauguration, Obama Appointee Would be President Infowars, 2017-1-19.
Hillary Supporters Burn American Flag, Riot, Threaten to Kill Trump After Losing Election Infowars, 2016-11-9.
Ohio man charged with threatening ‘to assassinate Trump’ on Twitter TheHill.com, 2016-11-18.
ABC Airs Promo For Show About President Being Shot During Trump Interview Infowars, 2016-1-26.
CNN apologizes after producer caught on tape joking about Trump’s plane crashing 2016-12-02.
The left would never have let this die, if it had been about their mulatto Hussein, instead of Trump.
Anyone with a brain on our side saw the gift it gave us. The slow poisoning was worse.
“Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated.”
Scandinavians? Is that what we’re calling them now? I thought it was Eskimos. I can’t keep up.
Now, Wasps being Scandinavians is a bit far-fetched, although East Anglia, where the Wasps allegedly came from, does have some substantial Scandinavian heritage.
If you mean Jews, say Jews.
Calling them "Scandinavians" or "Scots-Irish" or "Skypes" is just stupid.
The people you fear know exactly who you're referring to, and the people who need to know exactly who you're referring to but don't are left scratching their heads.
Completely illegitimate power that Congress has illegally allowed the courts to usurp (Congress does not have the power to delegate its powers to the courts, especially not sans legislation).
If it comes down to it, I prefer replacing the inferior courts, to replacing the Constitution. A bonus is that it’s much easier to do: majority votes in Congress and a presidential signature are all it would take.
I was asking myself a similar question while reading Sherman’s weasel piece, as to how Big Media hacks live with the fact that they are paid liars. It probably doesn’t bother them a bit, because the guilt isn’t individual guilt, it’s collective guilt. Their entire milieu is composed of liars, their entire industry is about lying, so why should any one of them feel bad about it? I’m sure any moments of doubt are easily assuaged with “I was just following orders,” “everybody does it” (this one is huge), and “if I don’t, they’ll replace me with someone who will” (ditto, huge). Layer on some “the ends justify the means” icing, and they’re content.
In short, our entire political class is composed of traitors, cowards, and liars, with few exceptions.
Talking about ethnic and cultural warfare in America while downplaying Jewish significance is like talking about the NBA while downplaying Black significance; you can do it, but you sound like an idiot. Similarly, you can claim that Jews in the kulturkampf are aping Anglo-Saxons, but it’s like claiming that NBA Blacks are aping Whites.
A far less drastic move, though, that could actually be enacted, would be legislation stripping the lower fed courts of the right to review anything to do with immigration, citizenship, residency, foreign travel, and the rights and obligations and stats of noncitizens.
The tragedy of the democratic conservative is not just that he plays a game that is set up for him to lose. The tragedy is that he labours under the delusion that if he, by some miracle, starts winning, his opponents will agree to stick to the rules that they enforced upon him when they had the power to do so.
Wow, you are right!
Keeva?
When Kellyanne Conway’s school was struggling to survive they didn’t try to get international students to foot the bills, they appealed to a whole other demographic. Poor blacks around DC. I think they get federal funds to make ends meet, since students only pay about $1,000 per year.
Obviously, they changed their admission standards, and now graduate very different people than they did in the past.
It is a beautiful campus, right next to the National Cathedral.
I wonder how it feels to be a graduate from before it was “fundamentally transformed.”
Obviously, Miss Conway can’t talk about this, nor can Trump.
But I would not be surprised to learn that a part of her drive comes from a desire not to see a similar fate befall her country as befell her college.
Ross Douthat did about a year ago (NYT op-ed columnist). “This is how to handle a Trump candidacy”, linked to a video clip from a movie. The presidential character gets shot at.
I certainly don't think it's Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that's where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it's time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn't mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it's been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
“Which are the arbiter of Constitutionality according to the Constitution”
According to legalistic logic at best, not the Constitution, because that is not in the Constitution explicitly. Even if you accept that interpretation, doesn’t mean they’re the final arbiters, or however you want to put it. Because they could shuck off their legal responsibilities and become just another political branch, as they in fact have.
I certainly don't think it's Constitutional to have the bureaucracy run the show, but that's where the document led.
Perhaps, for those of us on the Right, it's time to consider the possibility that the Constitution doesn't mean what we thought it meant (at least not as it's been bastardized by he post-New Deal courts, which closing in on 100 years old).
The New Deal didn’t change what we thought the Constitution meant. They just pitched the thing overboard, while keeping it around for PR purposes. What you might call “revolution within the form.”
Granted, U.S. gubmint in practice almost immediately strayed from constitutionality, and maybe constitutions are bad ideas with no possibility of being workable. But there are more and less egregious forms of lawlessness. Lincoln, for instance, went about as far as you can go, but afterwards there was retrenchment. Since the “switch in time that saved nine” (not really), we haven’t looked back.
Maybe the New Deal government owns us and has become the de jure U.S., through right of conquest and “adverse possession.” We haven’t reasserted ourselves or overthrown them. But they don’t get to own history as well as us, and by no means was the Constitution always what they say it is simply because they’re ruling us without a Constitution now.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
Though I tend to agree, that post was kinda all over the place and not responsive in my opinion.
The scandal ushered out Harold MacMillan - the last 'real' patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had, or will ever had - and presaged the election of Harold Wilson - he of such abominations as Comprehensive Schools, abolition of the death penalty etc. Older England had gone forever.
MacMillan’s successor was actually the 14th Earl of Home, but since Douglas-Home was Scottish maybe you do have a point somehow.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
Thank you for this wonderful explanation. It’s very helpful and much appreciated.
If The Intercept is to be believed:
What Would Trump’s Plan to Fire Federal Workers Mean for Intelligence Employees?
I was very relieved to read that. My hope is that Trump will clean house. Cashier Hussein’s hires en masse, along with anyone else who seems remotely squishy. Prior to that, he should seek out patriotic informants within the agencies, who can finger the unpatriotic. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump has something like that already under way (if so, it could be contributing to all the leaks).
I’m starting to lean towards the Weimar Republic parallels more. In the end, states start to resemble the beliefs of their polity. Academia and culture has been aping Weimar for decades. The only thing missing are the freikorps and commie militias, and those seem to be getting closer with the black bloc.
Pursuant to that, some good news:
Senior Trump appointee fired after critical comments
Occam's razor.
No, it doesn’t. Long-term trends it does explain, but there are shorter and intermediate-term things that are much more obviously caused by deliberate, discreet action. Governments aren’t run by mobs of bureaucrats. Bureaucracy is inherently oligarchic. There are cliques and cabals, and atop them always string-pullers.
This phenomenon has abstract explanations, like those found in Mosca’s The Ruling Class and Michels’ Political Parties. But the Platonic inevitable oligarchies, if you will, always eventually must meet reality in particular groups and individuals. Then you find the Deep State, the Establishment, the Shadow Government, the Invisible Government, or whatever you call it. It has consisted of individuals in the U.S. such as “Col.” House, Harry the Hop, the Brothers Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, John J. McCloy, Henry Kissinger, and so forth. These were real individuals, not seas of functionaries.
It also consisted of groups, like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and so forth. People didn’t just get into positions of power by climbing the ladder or luck, or what have you. There were clubs inside the bureaucracy, and clubs within clubs. Oligarchy, again.
The scandal ushered out Harold MacMillan - the last 'real' patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had, or will ever had - and presaged the election of Harold Wilson - he of such abominations as Comprehensive Schools, abolition of the death penalty etc. Older England had gone forever.
” the last ‘real’ patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had”: bollocks. His paternal great-grandfather was a crofter on Arran.
Learn about new SAT scores and college admission here
SAT Reading
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
360 - 482
SAT Math
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
330 - 480
ACT Composite
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
13 - 18My daughter stayed in a dorm there one summer when she attended the Kirov Academy of Ballet down the street, owned by the Moonies in an attempt to influence American polifics somehow.I wonder if the fall of her school has driven her desire to MAGA.
Richard Spencer was denounced by the tony prep-school he attended. Think about that: he was disowned by his highschool. Have these private schools thought this through? Maybe people will think twice about attending an expensive institution that may someday repay the faith you had in them (not to say, the pricey tuition) by denouncing you just to score some cheap political brownie points.
How Many Chances Do You Get to Be an American Hero?
It's far too packed with lies and treachery for me to expand on it all. It's breathtaking, watching one weasel defend another, to attack the president:So, American security apparatus employees who leak the President's highly secret communications with foreign leaders might as well be George Washington; the people have a right to know, democracy, etc.
For context, this is what McCain had to say about Russian security apparatus employees who leak Democrats' internal communications to the American public:
McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'"Act of War" vs "in democracies, information should be provided to the American people"; talk about who-whom.
This is pretty amazing, too:I suppose "now-infamous" is Gabriel Sherman's way of saying "completely discredited fake news that the media has now conveniently forgotten, except when they're pretending it's genuine"? Even McCain himself called it dodgy, and has never used any of it in public against Trump; he handed it off to Comey and washed his hands of it.
Then Sherman shoehorns this in, a few paragraphs later:"Damning." No, Sherman does not elaborate further. No, he does not describe the "pieces," or their "confirmation." But, those "pieces" are "damning"; trust him, he knows what he's talking about.
WTF?
So I take it that McCain now advocates a pardon, or at least leniency, for Edward Snowden? No, of course not.
I honestly can’t think of a worse Senator than McCain (and no, I haven’t forgotten Chuck Schumer, Al Franken, and Lindsey Graham when saying that). He pretends to be a patriot, when at best he is a senile, bloody-minded old fool, and at worst, a compromised stooge. Arizona could have saved us a lot of trouble by unelecting this deranged nitwit a long time ago.
How Many Chances Do You Get to Be an American Hero?
It's far too packed with lies and treachery for me to expand on it all. It's breathtaking, watching one weasel defend another, to attack the president:So, American security apparatus employees who leak the President's highly secret communications with foreign leaders might as well be George Washington; the people have a right to know, democracy, etc.
For context, this is what McCain had to say about Russian security apparatus employees who leak Democrats' internal communications to the American public:
McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'"Act of War" vs "in democracies, information should be provided to the American people"; talk about who-whom.
This is pretty amazing, too:I suppose "now-infamous" is Gabriel Sherman's way of saying "completely discredited fake news that the media has now conveniently forgotten, except when they're pretending it's genuine"? Even McCain himself called it dodgy, and has never used any of it in public against Trump; he handed it off to Comey and washed his hands of it.
Then Sherman shoehorns this in, a few paragraphs later:"Damning." No, Sherman does not elaborate further. No, he does not describe the "pieces," or their "confirmation." But, those "pieces" are "damning"; trust him, he knows what he's talking about.
WTF?
Just imagine what blackmail material the KGB could get from a POW held by a client state like North Vietnam? Oh, uhh,……never mind.
How Many Chances Do You Get to Be an American Hero?
It's far too packed with lies and treachery for me to expand on it all. It's breathtaking, watching one weasel defend another, to attack the president:So, American security apparatus employees who leak the President's highly secret communications with foreign leaders might as well be George Washington; the people have a right to know, democracy, etc.
For context, this is what McCain had to say about Russian security apparatus employees who leak Democrats' internal communications to the American public:
McCain: Russian cyberintrusions an 'act of war'"Act of War" vs "in democracies, information should be provided to the American people"; talk about who-whom.
This is pretty amazing, too:I suppose "now-infamous" is Gabriel Sherman's way of saying "completely discredited fake news that the media has now conveniently forgotten, except when they're pretending it's genuine"? Even McCain himself called it dodgy, and has never used any of it in public against Trump; he handed it off to Comey and washed his hands of it.
Then Sherman shoehorns this in, a few paragraphs later:"Damning." No, Sherman does not elaborate further. No, he does not describe the "pieces," or their "confirmation." But, those "pieces" are "damning"; trust him, he knows what he's talking about.
WTF?
Yes, it seems there is indeed a country called “Russia”.
Madonna did in the slutwalk thing last month.
What specific instance? I don’t remember any.
FFS, this is what Trump is dealing with. John Brennan was Hussein’s CIA director from 2013 until he left office in January:
Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist
I can think of quite a few ways to signal one’s unhappiness with the system, other than voting for the Communist Party. I can think of few better ways to signal loyalty to communism and disloyalty to one’s country, though.
We all have youthful indiscretions, sure. But few of them involve voting for the Communist Party. At the very least, I’d think it sound policy to make sure none of the people who did vote for the Communist Party wind up working in our national security apparatus.
I don't think that this is disputed.
This was during the period that Nicholas Kristoff was singing the praises of Obama's pitch perfect Islamic call to prayers in the NYT, and Obama's accidental admission that he chose to spend his spring break visiting Pakistan with his roommates.
Of course Obama couldn't make him director of the CIA until he became president himself, obviously.
Now back to my Turkish coffee on this President's Day in America.
Even if I agree with that, isn’t it time to admit that that particular ship has sailed? It’s been 214 years.
Also, if it was that easy to undermine the Constitution, how good was it?
I think one difference is that today's America pretty clearly has its own "deep state"...but the educated middle classes don't realize it, although some of the most ignorant and marginal elements certainly do...
6/14/09, 7:24 PM
“…the most ignorant and marginal elements…” — Sounds like me!
Every dog shall have its day is the motto I say. The answer to 1984 is 1066.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
I’m with you until you say Kristol has abandoned the Constitution. I think if you follow your analysis through to the depressing and logical end, it’s Kristol and the deep state that are Constitutional, alas.
During Trump's campaign, victory, and term? Yes, several times, before Kristol. There was Douthat, there was the the reporter cracking jokes about Trump's plane going down, and at least one or two others, IIRC. Then there were the two (again, IIRC) assassination attempts, or assassination-attempt-like events, against Trump during the campaign, which Big Media and the left ignored, when they weren't distorting them beyond recognition.
From some articles I saved:
Assassination threats against Trump flood Twitter New York Post, 2016/11/11.
NYT columnist apologizes for Trump tweet invoking assassination scene Fox News.
CNN: If Trump is Killed During Inauguration, Obama Appointee Would be President Infowars, 2017-1-19.
Hillary Supporters Burn American Flag, Riot, Threaten to Kill Trump After Losing Election Infowars, 2016-11-9.
Ohio man charged with threatening 'to assassinate Trump' on Twitter TheHill.com, 2016-11-18.
ABC Airs Promo For Show About President Being Shot During Trump Interview Infowars, 2016-1-26.
CNN apologizes after producer caught on tape joking about Trump’s plane crashing 2016-12-02.
The left would never have let this die, if it had been about their mulatto Hussein, instead of Trump.
In a problem reaction solution way, 8 years of Obama paved the way for Trump. Similarly Merkel is paving the way for AfD hopefully, and without doubt Brexit.
Anyone with a brain on our side saw the gift it gave us. The slow poisoning was worse.
Learn about new SAT scores and college admission here
SAT Reading
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
360 - 482
SAT Math
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
330 - 480
ACT Composite
25th-75th percentile (enrolled students)
13 - 18My daughter stayed in a dorm there one summer when she attended the Kirov Academy of Ballet down the street, owned by the Moonies in an attempt to influence American polifics somehow.I wonder if the fall of her school has driven her desire to MAGA.
So is that most competitive, or highly competitive?
The scandal ushered out Harold MacMillan - the last 'real' patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had, or will ever had - and presaged the election of Harold Wilson - he of such abominations as Comprehensive Schools, abolition of the death penalty etc. Older England had gone forever.
It was Lord Astor who denied having had an affair with Rice-Davies. She never met Profumo.
The scandal ushered out Harold MacMillan - the last 'real' patrician old school old stock Prime Minister Britain ever had, or will ever had - and presaged the election of Harold Wilson - he of such abominations as Comprehensive Schools, abolition of the death penalty etc. Older England had gone forever.
You are talking nonsense. He gave the ” Winds of Change ” speech in 1960 and followed it up with the original Incitement to Racial Hatred Act. This was the beginning of the end of Free Speech in Britain as Sean Gabb and others will testify.
MacMillan was a phoney in life as in death. Do not be deceived.
NAACP President and CEO Cornell William Brooks defames and insults with impunity my geneo-cultural heritage with a following hurtfully heinous racist remarks about my ancestors;According to Social Justice Anthropologist Brooks, Neanderthals or Cro-magnons, or both, were early inventors of race as a social construct.
I guess the The (cave)Man's primordial plan was to always keep Lucy in the back of the bus, or cave, or something...
Science bag to differ;I got triggered and still literally shaking, so I will have to respond with a short photo essay:
Is there some missing link in the story about that adorable little kid that somehow mysteriously natured toddler's urge to break in into Harambe's safe place ? :
No Neanderthal Gene Carrying Dad:
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/deonne-dickerson1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all
No Cro-magnon Gene Carrying Mom:
http://thecount.com/wp-content/uploads/Michelle-Gregg-harambe-gorilla.jpg
No Cro-magnon, or Neanderthal Gene Carrying Granny:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/02/17/34D6316200000578-0-image-a-5_1464883773366.jpg
His career should be instructive to follow, sort of a latter-day Elian Gonzalez, torn from the arms of his self- chosen family and returned to the State.
The game is they will pick off Trump people with one made up "scandal" after another. The goal is to scare off anyone from helping the Trump White House, but also to get the people who they see as threats. Steve Bannon, for example, will not make it through the year. There's a better chance that Stephen Miller ends up in jail than he finishes Trump's term.
Settle down.
Kristol is losing his grip. As Giulio Andreotti, the subject of Midnight in Sicily, said “Power wears out those who don’t have it”
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated.
dīvide et īmpera
I have spoken to Swedes and never noticed this HATE HATE HATE. Swedes are just an overly naive and trusting people who have swallowed the PC line hook line and sinker. You are Scots Irish in the sense that Barbra Lerner Spectre is Swedish.
The game is they will pick off Trump people with one made up "scandal" after another. The goal is to scare off anyone from helping the Trump White House, but also to get the people who they see as threats. Steve Bannon, for example, will not make it through the year. There's a better chance that Stephen Miller ends up in jail than he finishes Trump's term.
>>Washington is an incestuous place…..
And, if you can believe Andrew Sullivan, a very gay place. Very gay.
Could be part of the reason the reaction to Trump is so sharp. Gays have their ways of doing things. Always with the intrigue and subterfuge, over matters trivial as much as consequential. Trump is blunt, to the point, no nonsense. This throws gays off their game and they are bewildered on how to respond, hence the backstabbing, whispering in the cloisters.
Is it OK for me to notice that?
200 years ain’t bad. Usually states go through a revolution or dynasty change or two by then.
The constitution is highly flawed but it's probably the least worst option we have at the moment, sadly.
Well, I don’t know what it was when Miss Conway went there, but now it might be considered “non-competitive.” One site describes their current admission standards as “non-academic.”
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
Bill Kristol is not Scandinavian.
MSM – Megaphone
Trump – MAGAphone
The downside to this is that it is guaranteed that any modern day rewrite of the constitution would adopt a center-left framework. Goodbye second amendment and the paper thin first amendment would be tossed out the moment there are hurt feels.
The constitution is highly flawed but it’s probably the least worst option we have at the moment, sadly.
The USA ain't perfect, but it's not as bad as everyone claims.
Trump is letting in a lot of enemies in his administration. He needs to apply the same extreeeeeeeeeme vetting that he proposed for immigration to his own administration. Some of these people are avowed enemies of Trump yet they scored high positions of power and influence. Meanwhile some of the people who helped Trump secure some surprise victories during the election got the cold shoulder after he won. Sad!
Kristol is not a suave, cunning master propagandist. He mostly just says what’s on his mind.
Look at headline.
It is now an open secret that much of US power is actually held by ‘deep state’.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/is-trump-worse-than-the-deep-state/
A real paradigm shift in political discourse.
But then, one of the biggest news sites is ‘young turks’.
I guess we are getting there.
It appears Deep-State power tends to develop when the power elites are at odd with the majority of people.
Turkey, which mastered deep state politics, came under rule of secular modernizers in a nation that was overwhelmingly Muslim.
So, populist democratic politics would have favored Islamic power.
To prevent that, the secularists had to control the Deep State apparatus.
Given that, over the yrs, US power moved to hands of globalist elites so much at odds with majority of Americans, deep state came to matter more and more.
But there was also deep state within deep state. Since so much of media, academia, and bureaucracy was Democratic and Liberal, the anti-communist rightists like J. Edgar Hoover had to create deep state within System.
Now, that deeper state is ruled by Libs.
And they like foreign policy cuz there’s more leeway in exercise of power abroad. They resent Trump’s effort to rein in US foreign policy adventurism.
Those who love power want to use it, and it is foreign power that the deep state can still play the cowboy.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
I agree on the futility of attempting to be faithful to the Constitution in this day and age. White people should be pragmatic and simply pack the courts with judges who’ll rule in their favour. It doesn’t matter if a nominee could barely pass the bar exam in any of the 50 states – if he can win the nomination and make rulings that support founding-stock Americans, he’ll do. The Left gets this already. They’d happily put a chimpanzee on the bench if it could be relied on to rubber-stamp gay marriage and all the other stuff they have in the pipeline.
Rush Limbaugh and Chris Wallace talking today about the Deep State on Fox New Sunday. Rush Limbaugh has been using the phrase “deep state” for the last few weeks…..Which to me is pretty awesome. He gets good ideas and concepts out there.
OT, but I’m finding recently that connecting to Steve’s blog regularly causes my Firefox browser to crash, although it usually kicks back into life. Anyone else have the same?
And, if you can believe Andrew Sullivan, a very gay place. Very gay.
Could be part of the reason the reaction to Trump is so sharp. Gays have their ways of doing things. Always with the intrigue and subterfuge, over matters trivial as much as consequential. Trump is blunt, to the point, no nonsense. This throws gays off their game and they are bewildered on how to respond, hence the backstabbing, whispering in the cloisters.
D.C. is very, very gay. And very, very Jewish.
Is it OK for me to notice that?
Seriously, poets, priests, and politicians have words to thank for their positions, as that great political theorist, Sting, wrote. You need a good verbal IQ to do politics. Gays have a woman's verbal ability without the desire to have a family that drains many women of ambition (and ultimately men as well). Jews have high verbal IQs as a result of selection for Talmudic disputation and mercantile roles. So, yeah.
I have a question for you all that is OT . Is there any correlation between how a society treats it’s pets or animals in general ? And how “advanced” it is ? There is a Hadith that says that the Prophet of Allah , that notorious pedophile , said that once there was a woman who had all her life followed the teachings of Allah but once she went away for a trip and left a cat locked up in a room knowing that it would die of thirst and starvation . He PBUH , said that as a result of that one act she would burn in Hell . He also said that there was a man who never followed the precepts of Islam , he sinned every day but once he came to a well and there was a dog there with it’s tongue hanging out from thirst . He took his head covering and soaked it in water and saved the dog”s life and for that one act will be admitted to Paradise . The Muzzie savages when they kill an animal to eat it say “Bismallah” and cut it’s throat . Thereby giving thanks to their Heathen God and acknowledging the life they are taking . We on the other hand get our meat from a factory and give no thought to “the labor of countless beings” .
Yeah, I was thinking more “water’s wet” and “the sky is blue,” but yeah, that works too; as obvious as “John McCain is a traitor to the Republic.”
He’s probably referring to the lies Big Media disseminated about what Trump said about the “2nd Amendment people.”
I’m more into using the Constitution to keep the establishment faithful to us. You know, the whole purpose of the thing in the first place.
In what way were they lies?
Allahpundit's post today suggests that Trump, in all his anti-media rhetoric and recent campaign-style rallies, may be priming us for coming war with the deep state.
Yikes.
He called it ‘the Cathedral’, though, which only has the appropriate resonances if you’ve read the famous (within the tech community only) open-source essay ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar’; otherwise it sounds vaguely anti-Christian, which I don’t think was actually his intention.
Also, Steve can express himself in words of less than 140 characters. (I kid…) I enjoyed Moldbug’s overintellectual style but it’s a niche taste.
The term is not anti-Christian as such, by the way. Moldbug was mostly speaking the language of good progressives, and they are typically moderately to rabidly anti-Christian. But he was playing off of rather than to their anti-Christian animus. You think you're so enlightened? Well, you're just doing what the Catholic Church did in the middle ages, only you have university professors instead of bishops.
He revelled in turning the Enlightenment upon its head. What started out in large part "crushing the infamy" of the church in the name of reason eventually set up its own secular authority, barring entry to non-believers and stifling free inquiry in pursuit of intellectual conformity. Not unthinking in the same directions, and maybe not as oppressive as the old version. But oppressive enough, and thoroughly hypocritical.
That takes for granted that there was something wrong with the church, but aside from that isn't particularly anti-Christian. He was definitely harsher against the atheist communists than the Old Order propped up by the church, in favor of which he was constantly accused of wanting to turn back the clocks.
The constitution is highly flawed but it's probably the least worst option we have at the moment, sadly.
No, I’m fine with constitutionalism, largely for the reasons you state. My point was more that the Constitution did pretty well given the general flux of states–France may have been around for over a thousand years but they’re on their fifth republic, and the UK doesn’t really have one, it’s just whatever Parliament does now that the monarch is just a figurehead.
The USA ain’t perfect, but it’s not as bad as everyone claims.
Is it OK for me to notice that?
Well here it is. 😉
Seriously, poets, priests, and politicians have words to thank for their positions, as that great political theorist, Sting, wrote. You need a good verbal IQ to do politics. Gays have a woman’s verbal ability without the desire to have a family that drains many women of ambition (and ultimately men as well). Jews have high verbal IQs as a result of selection for Talmudic disputation and mercantile roles. So, yeah.
They seem to form gay mafias, and start trading favors, hiring and promoting each other. They're social with straights as well, and that runs in parallel with the gay mafia aspect.
Scandinavians? Is that what we're calling them now? I thought it was Eskimos. I can't keep up.
According to Whiskey, America at large is run by the Harvard – Wasp mafia, just like Hollywood!
Now, Wasps being Scandinavians is a bit far-fetched, although East Anglia, where the Wasps allegedly came from, does have some substantial Scandinavian heritage.
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
While I agree with a lot of what you say, the USA doesn’t really have a monarchist/reactionary tradition. It was born in the eighteenth century by revolutionaries who had Enlightenment ideas very much on the brain. Trying to make a king now would just result in even more liberal outcomes without things like the Constitution putting brakes on the government’s powers. I guess you can argue for Metternichian conservatism or throne and altar in France, Germany, or the UK, but the USA’s founding traditions are republicanism.
How can anyone believe that the Constitution did not secure a good measure of individual freedom for the average American for nearly 200 years. The individual freedom lead to economic prosperity. In many ways the US is the engine of the entire global economy.
No document is self executing and there was always the problem of whomever you gave the power to enforce the constitution being human would bend and interpret in ways that amassed power to him and his.
Among other brilliant things was tripartite government where one branch naturally served to limit the other two. Federalism pitting States power against national power was another. Enumerated powers was another.
Reminds me of a story I heard in law school. The lawyers and doctors were having a convention and after a few two many drinks one lawyer while speaking to the group opined, “We wrote the Constitution, when you doctors were putting leaches on George Washington’s ass.” Its sort of true. A couple lawyers in the colonies created more human progress, wealth, satisfaction, goodness, than any other profession. Think of the wealth created in America (not because of magic dirt), the progress, the millions of people allowed to live their lives as they saw fit. People of the same genetic stock in UK and Europe do not match the United States in any way.
Surely a student of history 500 years in the future will study the Greece golden age, the Roman Republic and the USA as high points of individual freedom in a history of mankind sadly lacking in much of it.
It really depends on how white people fare. The only people who care about freedom are white people. East Asians don't care for it. Arabs don't care for it. SSAs don't care for it. To the extent that we are around, we may study such things, but realistically freedom is mainly a concept that makes less and less sense in a world of cheap and effective transport that makes crossing borders and parasiting the tax and welfare systems of white people cheap and effective.
No, what will be studied will be how a group of people allowed mass media and cultural indoctrination monopolies or oligopolies to flourish, how white people accepted a genocidal message against them, and how to prevent it ever happening again. We will study how we were taught to hate ourselves under the banner of "freedom".
NAACP President and CEO Cornell William Brooks defames and insults with impunity my geneo-cultural heritage with a following hurtfully heinous racist remarks about my ancestors;According to Social Justice Anthropologist Brooks, Neanderthals or Cro-magnons, or both, were early inventors of race as a social construct.
I guess the The (cave)Man's primordial plan was to always keep Lucy in the back of the bus, or cave, or something...
Science bag to differ;I got triggered and still literally shaking, so I will have to respond with a short photo essay:
Is there some missing link in the story about that adorable little kid that somehow mysteriously natured toddler's urge to break in into Harambe's safe place ? :
No Neanderthal Gene Carrying Dad:
https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/deonne-dickerson1.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all
No Cro-magnon Gene Carrying Mom:
http://thecount.com/wp-content/uploads/Michelle-Gregg-harambe-gorilla.jpg
No Cro-magnon, or Neanderthal Gene Carrying Granny:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/06/02/17/34D6316200000578-0-image-a-5_1464883773366.jpg
bored, what’s with blacks and the first name Cornell, are there any Harvards, Yales, or Princetons.
Anon, NY’s governor, Andrew Cuomo, is pushing for free tuition at SUNY colleges and universities. Private and Catholic colleges in NY will be forced to beg for foreign students, or close their doors.
dearime, translate please. I know bollocks but what is “a crofter on Arran?”
(Arran is a bonnie wee isle in the Clyde, it sits atween Ayrshire an Argyll.)
From the Wikipedia in Broad Scots.
Also, Steve can express himself in words of less than 140 characters. (I kid...) I enjoyed Moldbug's overintellectual style but it's a niche taste.
The Cathedral and the Deep State aren’t the same thing. I don’t know what was Moldbug’s term for the Inner Party, but the Cathedral is the entire intellectual class, which according to her m represents the true power in our polity. But it’s a very diffuse power, and there is an oligarchy, or are oligarchies, within it.
The term is not anti-Christian as such, by the way. Moldbug was mostly speaking the language of good progressives, and they are typically moderately to rabidly anti-Christian. But he was playing off of rather than to their anti-Christian animus. You think you’re so enlightened? Well, you’re just doing what the Catholic Church did in the middle ages, only you have university professors instead of bishops.
He revelled in turning the Enlightenment upon its head. What started out in large part “crushing the infamy” of the church in the name of reason eventually set up its own secular authority, barring entry to non-believers and stifling free inquiry in pursuit of intellectual conformity. Not unthinking in the same directions, and maybe not as oppressive as the old version. But oppressive enough, and thoroughly hypocritical.
That takes for granted that there was something wrong with the church, but aside from that isn’t particularly anti-Christian. He was definitely harsher against the atheist communists than the Old Order propped up by the church, in favor of which he was constantly accused of wanting to turn back the clocks.
Madonna did in the slutwalk thing last month.
If it’s the incident I’m think of, then that’s bull about Trump threatening Hillary. Maybe you can give the details of another incident that that proves me wrong – the time I’m thinking of was when Trump mentioned the NRA and the LP and Hildabeast both purposefully acted like they didn’t understand and that she was threatened.
Chances are this was mentioned by Steve Sailer, as I seem to recall that.
“One reason why colleges have become so hard left on immigration is because their administrators are really eager to get those foreign students who pay full tuition.”
You don’t need immigration to attract FOREIGN STUDENTS willing to pay full tuition.
If anything, their immigrant status offers them benefits. If they become citizens, they can get free stuff.
Besides, many immigrants are from poor countries, and their kids get tons of free stuff from education.
I thought this question is worth putting out there: does anyone else question the need for input from Israel-firsters like Gabriel M when discussing the output of Israel-firsters like Bill kristol?
A farmer on the Scottish Isle of Arran.
(Arran is a bonnie wee isle in the Clyde, it sits atween Ayrshire an Argyll.)
From the Wikipedia in Broad Scots.
And, if you can believe Andrew Sullivan, a very gay place. Very gay. …
That’s the State Dept.’s long-standing reputation, going back earlier than Obama’s time. Ambassadors, polite negotiations, embassies, elegant dinners — rather gay in an old fashioned way.
Question for Smart Dasein: What motivates you to define “conservatism” in such an extreme manner?
For a complete answer I would invite you to read and savor all 1200 pages of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, wherein the inevitable sequence from Protestantism to Puritanism to Rationalism to Socialism to Decadence is very carefully traced out. Any step upon this slippery slope leads ultimately to the scree pile of nihilism where we find ourselves today. Therefore conservatives have got to maintain original truth in all its fullness, against all popular sentiments, against everything.
SFG above is quite correct when he says that the US Constitution is a creation of the republican age. It hails from the era of rationalism, from a time when it might have seemed possible to educated men that the personal authority exercised by the monarch would be better replaced by a system of distributed power amongst enlightened, self-interested gentlemen. The whole thing is quite Kantian in its spirit. Kantian rationalism in the field of philosophy, deism in the field of religion (a sort of de-immanentized theism in which the will of God is replaced by the workings of nature in precisely the same manner that the monarch is replaced by republican institutions), force-field concepts in physics (here Benjamin Franklin’s “discovery” of electricity is of far more than fairy-tale significance), the reciprocating engines of James Watt, the cartographical voyages of Captain Cook, the capitalism of Adam Smith (i.e. capital as the working fluid of an economic engine, optimized by an “unseen hand,” i.e the republicanism of money), Lockean epistemology and the association of ideas (a sort of republicanism of sense impressions)—all of these contemporary developments are morphologically equivalent and illustrate the same basic theme in different areas. The prime mover, the core of authority and power, is either banished from the throne or rationalized away, but his “spirit” is reconstituted by the enlightened motions of innumerable particles to produce a collective good.
We today who have the benefit of hindsight (and the pain of spiritual clarity belongs inevitably to the concluding chapters of grand historical movements) cannot avoid acknowledging what the men of the republican age ignored for the sake of their vision. Any sort of Protestantism is entirely dependent on what it protests against, as rationalism is nothing without which it rationalizes. The republican age was able to exist for a time without a monarch only because they allowed the ghost of him to remain as the opposite pole, by opposing themselves to which they generated the dynamic tension from whence they derived the power to animate their liberty-ideals. Republicanism cannot exist as a monopole; without the monarch as the negative sign, there is no current in the circuit, no working fluid in the engine, the high ideals of liberty become a sort of licentious jargon, and the state spins down into a condition of thermal equilibrium—the new barbarism of advanced imperial decline.
Apart from these sweeping arcs of history, real conservatism stands pure and eternal. In its essence it is nothing but humility in the face of Almighty God. The prime mover is recognized as the source of all things. Instead of that dynamic tension which makes war on God with His own gifts, we are drawn to up to Him by the power of His love. In the age of republicanism, the atomistic egos of “free” men, like maggots on a corpse, plunder the garden that God created. To be truly conservative we must return, surfeited and sorrowful, like the prodigal son to his father’s house.
It would be nice if people like Kristol had a clue, or at least acknowledged, how nice it is to be able to speak plainly about whatever they want and have nothing bad happen to them.
But it won't happen, because Kristol and people like him believe they are entitled to such rights and privileges.
Unlike you, me, and all the other unenlightened slobs who disagree with him and his mates.
Y’all are doing way too much hand-wringing for an administration that has been in town 20 business days. Be of good cheer.
How is that good news?
He’s probably referring to the lies Big Media disseminated about what Trump said about the “2nd Amendment people.”
In what way were they lies?
Trump is extremely dangerous because he will destroy our democratic institutions.
That’s why it’s worth destroying our democratic institutions in order to stop him.
It means, “Let’s you and him fight.”
“You” simply meaning “anyone not named Bill Kristol.”
Aran is a Scottish island, and a crofter is a tenant farmer.
That's why it's worth destroying our democratic institutions in order to stop him.
We had to destroy our democratic institutions to save our democratic institutions.
I don’t think there is anything remotely constitutional about the CIA or the NSA, as they exist today. Sure, you could say that they exist to “provide for the common defence”, but some government official might – under the right circumstances – say the same about masked death-squads who come in the dead of night in black marias and make people disappear forever.
My main browser, Chrome, running on somewhat elderly hardware, seems to have problems with Javascript. The page loads, but links aren’t active for some time, and in some circumstances the memory use seems to be excessive. I haven’t tried to debug the Javascript to see what’s going on.
In what way were they lies?
“In what way were they lies?”
Trump said something about the “2nd Amendment people” stopping attempts by liberal politicians (Hillary, in this case, I believe) to impose gun control. The liberal media interpreted that as a death-threat, when really he was just saying they would exert the political influence on Congress (through lobbying, E-mails, etc.) that they have long been known for exerting.
It was a disingenous misreading of Trumps’ comments.
Was that really the case? Or was it the case that they did so to protect a Democratic administration?
Seriously, poets, priests, and politicians have words to thank for their positions, as that great political theorist, Sting, wrote. You need a good verbal IQ to do politics. Gays have a woman's verbal ability without the desire to have a family that drains many women of ambition (and ultimately men as well). Jews have high verbal IQs as a result of selection for Talmudic disputation and mercantile roles. So, yeah.
Probably not so much that gays have greater inherent verbal ability that would show up on a standardized test. But they do like being social, and that’s an advantage in politics and scheming.
They seem to form gay mafias, and start trading favors, hiring and promoting each other. They’re social with straights as well, and that runs in parallel with the gay mafia aspect.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
“no food available for six months”
There was always food. Fish and game.
he lost all credibility by saying his preference would be: Deep State. These are the types of people my grandfather marched to the eastern border and told them to keep walking. At some point, people need to be shamed, if they can’t be banished, legally…but yeah, Deep State works both ways. Because Money…money compromises everybody. Go Deep State! do the take-downs….oops on both sides, btw. Is there major blow-back to your child?
That wasn’t a power grab. The Court was duty-bound to rule the way it did. It had to rule that either the statute or the Constitution was invalid.
I read about the Deep State in 1985???? Knew all news was bullshit (on TV) at that time.
“I have to save you from yourself.”
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
Those weren’t legal scholars. They were people who know what the Court has said in the past and can, from that, extrapolate what the Court will do in the future. That has little to do with the law.
There was nothing in the text of the Constitution to authorize the ACA, which means it was Unconstitutional.
Off topic. What is your opinion of the characterization of the travel ban EO as "sloppy"? I assume that is a reference to its legal soundness.
Or as high points of the exploitation of slaves.
Surely a student of history 500 years in the future will study the Greece golden age, the Roman Republic and the USA as high points of individual freedom in a history of mankind sadly lacking in much of it.
It really depends on how white people fare. The only people who care about freedom are white people. East Asians don’t care for it. Arabs don’t care for it. SSAs don’t care for it. To the extent that we are around, we may study such things, but realistically freedom is mainly a concept that makes less and less sense in a world of cheap and effective transport that makes crossing borders and parasiting the tax and welfare systems of white people cheap and effective.
No, what will be studied will be how a group of people allowed mass media and cultural indoctrination monopolies or oligopolies to flourish, how white people accepted a genocidal message against them, and how to prevent it ever happening again. We will study how we were taught to hate ourselves under the banner of “freedom”.
Tiananmen Square. No one likes their productive work taken from them by force. They may not know how to arrange it so that there is security and tradition and freedom all coexisting together. They may think putting up with powerful corrupt elites is better than the alternative (which might be competing warlords). That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
I myself don’t agree with him on a host of issues, but his comments are usually worth reading, and I don’t think he’s a fan of Billy boy either.
Scandinavians? Is that what we're calling them now? I thought it was Eskimos. I can't keep up.
It’s exceedingly silly.
If you mean Jews, say Jews.
Calling them “Scandinavians” or “Scots-Irish” or “Skypes” is just stupid.
The people you fear know exactly who you’re referring to, and the people who need to know exactly who you’re referring to but don’t are left scratching their heads.
Otherwise yes, I do agree.
I was mildly surprised to see him edging back into his Scots-Irish shtick. Presumably, he has, at this point, familiarized himself with what the term actually means. Or maybe he's using "Celt" now to avoid the whole issue. That term is vague enough that he doesn't have to worry about keeping all those goyische ethnic distinctions straight.
And people who talk about the influence of “Scandinavians”, “Scots-Irish”, or “Skypes” when they mean Jews sound like idiots of another order of magnitude.
1) Bill Kristol is not an Israel Firster. If he was, he would be pro Trump, not encouraging a coup by Obama appointees who want to protect the Iran deal. QED.
2) Calling an Israeli an Israel Firster is not an insult and, in any case, I think it would be on balance more accurate to call Trump an Israel Firster than me. He is certainly much more of a fan of the Israeli government and contemporary Israeli society than I am.
3) What “need”? It’s a comments thread. You can hide any comments you don’t like or just scroll down.
4) To my knowledge, no comment you have made on any subject anywhere is worth reading because you are an unintelligent delinquent who lacks even the sophistication to properly regurgitate Kevin MacDonald and just ends up spurting out an incoherent stream of postcolonial gibberish.
Thanks
There was nothing in the text of the Constitution to authorize the ACA, which means it was Unconstitutional.
Ben-
Off topic. What is your opinion of the characterization of the travel ban EO as “sloppy”? I assume that is a reference to its legal soundness.
It really depends on how white people fare. The only people who care about freedom are white people. East Asians don't care for it. Arabs don't care for it. SSAs don't care for it. To the extent that we are around, we may study such things, but realistically freedom is mainly a concept that makes less and less sense in a world of cheap and effective transport that makes crossing borders and parasiting the tax and welfare systems of white people cheap and effective.
No, what will be studied will be how a group of people allowed mass media and cultural indoctrination monopolies or oligopolies to flourish, how white people accepted a genocidal message against them, and how to prevent it ever happening again. We will study how we were taught to hate ourselves under the banner of "freedom".
The only people who care about freedom are white people. East Asians don’t care for it.
Tiananmen Square. No one likes their productive work taken from them by force. They may not know how to arrange it so that there is security and tradition and freedom all coexisting together. They may think putting up with powerful corrupt elites is better than the alternative (which might be competing warlords). That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
Most of the genius in the constitution was in the Bill of Rights, from my perspective. And that Bill of Rights was more a product of compromise in order to birth the Federal government than a genius design from the beginning. The end result may have been genius, but such is often the product of several great minds working together.
I would rather live in any of the Anglosphere countries, or for that matter, Europe, as they were, than post race replacement USA. It's possible that the second and first amendments will contain within them the defense against race replacement. In hindsight, freedom of association on the basis of race, and prohibition of non-white or Muslim immigration were glaring omissions. Freedom of religion should not have extended to Islam, and likely other major non-white religions.
That expression of a desire for freedom did not get much support from the populace. It is telling that the biggest fighter for freedom of expression in East Asia is probably Hong Kong, which has a British influence.
In fact, it would seem that most of the freedoms of speech in East Asia are themselves products of US or British occupation, control or influence. Maybe they like them now to varying extents but it seems that other concerns have held more sway in history.
The US constitution is fairly good as constitutions go, the four-year presidency being a fairly good idea, replacing the kingship we couldn't have. The 1791 Polish constitution was probably a significantly better governing instrument, but the environments were very different. Certainly our constitution is better than some (did the framers of the 1931 Spanish republic really not realize that exempting deputies of the Cortes from prosecution was a really bad idea?); still, it would be foolish to claim that, for instance, Americans in the 19th century were freer in any meaningful way than Britons (well, non-Irish) or Canadians of the same period.
Well, my friend, if you apply Dr. Hasslein’s time/space theory to back to the future concept, the genesis of highbrow radical chicanery encouraging lowbrow Mau-Mauing and vandalism occured in late 1960’s; when deplorable Charlton was still cro-magnonig his way through the dunes of Forbidden Zone of Liberty Island, and the others wuz already kangz n sheit:
Trumpogutan ain’t got sh*t on Lawgiver’s ‘Sacred Scrolls’.
Had to burn the village to save it.
Sorta. I’d say revolution is another founding tradition (you mention it early, but failed to close with it). Actually precedes the republicanism. 🙂 And the people go back quite a bit further than the USA, so the traditions of colonialism and parliamentary monarchism were here first.
How is this not a career ending political scandal for Kristol?
It suggests even more Republicans in the US than I previously thought are either complicit, or lack the testicular fortitude to stand up to those who have commandeered their party.
Agree.
Kristol and Kristof comments are borderline treasonous.
Aren’t they sort of calling for violent overthrow of US Government?
J Edgar needs to monitor them.
Not being facetious.
Kristol should be totally ostracized from any and all conservative organizations, meetings, polite company, etc.
“We have a Balls Deep State”
Back when the American Left were somewhat liberal, Gore Vidal’s tome “The History National Security State” received a lot of publicity in the late 1990’s, both from the Left and Libertarian Right. His contention is that the US has been run largely by the Deep State since 1947. It was not considered very controversial at the time.
What we could be witnessing now is the first public push-back from the Spooks to a president minus the velvet glove they usually use to hide their power. The Trump Phenomenon has allowed the Establishment to show their cards, inadvertently Red Pilling anybody who has not been sufficiently narcotized by brad and circus.
Glenn Greenwald, whose been making the interview rounds of late discussing the deep state in the context of the current events, mentioned Bill Kristol’s preference (and MSM, Neo Cons & democrats) for the destruction of this administration by that means as hypocrisy and absolutely dangerously undemocratic. He’s no Trump fan and would like to see by legal means Trumps policies thwarted, but he’s intellectually honest enough to see that these expedient partisan selective outrages are destroying our country.
Tiananmen Square. No one likes their productive work taken from them by force. They may not know how to arrange it so that there is security and tradition and freedom all coexisting together. They may think putting up with powerful corrupt elites is better than the alternative (which might be competing warlords). That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
Most of the genius in the constitution was in the Bill of Rights, from my perspective. And that Bill of Rights was more a product of compromise in order to birth the Federal government than a genius design from the beginning. The end result may have been genius, but such is often the product of several great minds working together.
I would rather live in any of the Anglosphere countries, or for that matter, Europe, as they were, than post race replacement USA. It’s possible that the second and first amendments will contain within them the defense against race replacement. In hindsight, freedom of association on the basis of race, and prohibition of non-white or Muslim immigration were glaring omissions. Freedom of religion should not have extended to Islam, and likely other major non-white religions.
You mean like Christianity? Surely the neo-platonist influence is not enough to call Christianity a white religion.
White religions are religions of Indo-Europeans - Scandinavian, Slavic, Celtic, Greek, Vedic. Yes, Indian Aryans gradually intermarried with brown people, but the religion is still closer to native white religions, who were all polytheistic. I find monotheism to be the most despicable thing Jews ever invented.
Tiananmen Square. No one likes their productive work taken from them by force. They may not know how to arrange it so that there is security and tradition and freedom all coexisting together. They may think putting up with powerful corrupt elites is better than the alternative (which might be competing warlords). That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
Tiananmen Square
That expression of a desire for freedom did not get much support from the populace. It is telling that the biggest fighter for freedom of expression in East Asia is probably Hong Kong, which has a British influence.
In fact, it would seem that most of the freedoms of speech in East Asia are themselves products of US or British occupation, control or influence. Maybe they like them now to varying extents but it seems that other concerns have held more sway in history.
If you mean Jews, say Jews.
Calling them "Scandinavians" or "Scots-Irish" or "Skypes" is just stupid.
The people you fear know exactly who you're referring to, and the people who need to know exactly who you're referring to but don't are left scratching their heads.
He was merely making an ironic remark on Whiskey’s comment, who really meant Scandinavians.
Otherwise yes, I do agree.
There was nothing in the text of the Constitution to authorize the ACA, which means it was Unconstitutional.
You’re making some kind of weird distinction here between the law and “what the Court will do in the future.” How do you maintain this distinction without being one of the Dittos that ID is talking about?
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
That was fun. Can I ride again?
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
Which provision of the US Constitution specifically authorizes the federal government to intervene in medicine / healthcare or insurance in any way?
And no, the generic power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce isn’t such a specific grant of power.
The US Constitution does not "specifically authorize" a Federal Communications Commission, a Food and Drug Administration, a Federal Aviation Authority, or any of the other innumerable alphabet agencies that we have. Any move against Obamacare from the SCOTUS bench would set a precedent that would end up stripping the government of virtually all its administrative and regulatory adjuncts. I know there are some hard-line Constitutionalists who actually desire that outcome, but it just doesn't work that way. In their insistence that "limited government" is the overarching principle of constitutional law, they make the elliptical assumption that because the ACA tends to bloat the size and scope of the federal government rather dramatically, it must be in violation of some constitutional canon. Following Steve's convention for the fanciful enumeration of unstated amendments, we might say that among the Dittoheads, "limited government" is the real zeroeth amendment.
However, in their mad rush to apply the Zero to the Obamacare case, they're completely overlooking the fact that the real issue here is the limited power of the judiciary. Briefly stated, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to abrogate a law that the legislature passed just because it makes the government bigger. The Supreme Court is not the guarantor of small government. The Supreme Court does not recognize the Zero. By ruling the way that he did, Chief Justice Roberts actually preserved the separation of powers, for whatever that's worth. To do otherwise would verily have been "legislating from the bench"---a prerogative that he wisely eschewed usurping.
The upshot here is this: The Constitution "as written" does not contain a clause stipulating that the government must be kept small. The Dittoheads often try to ride this particular hobbyhorse all the way to the Supreme Court, whom they clearly expect to act as a tribune in defense of their cause. But that is outside the court's authority and mandate. If small government is what you want, you will have to seek it in other ways. The sooner conservatives get this through their heads, the better.
You’re right about abolishing the lower courts.
A far less drastic move, though, that could actually be enacted, would be legislation stripping the lower fed courts of the right to review anything to do with immigration, citizenship, residency, foreign travel, and the rights and obligations and stats of noncitizens.
Yes, he called their support of the deep state “a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it”
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-19/paul-craig-roberts-explains-stakes-trump-and-all-us
In case you missed the arch reference, it is to Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Sowell literally argues that NBA blacks are aping whites. Neocons gonna neocon. It’s kind of amazing how difficult it is to parody these goons.
The Deep State Vidal refers to was largely a creation in reaction to the Cold War, but with no Cold War, there’s no more need for a Deep State. The Deep State employees are not happy about the situation, and they recognize they must create an atmosphere of paranoia to justify their existence. They’re like the hard left in that respect. The hard left can’t justify its existence unless they whip up an atmosphere of ‘Whitey’s about to destroy us.’
I’ve love to scale the government back dramatically. Part of the whole CIA-NSC apparatus is based on the notion that the rest of the world is our responsibility to fix. But this shouldn’t be on our dime. We have massive debt, and our middle class is sliding down into the lower class. We have a generation of young people in their twenties who can’t afford to pay for cars, houses, or their student loans. Many of them live with their parents and have trouble finding jobs.
Secondly, we have been giving money to many other countries on this planet for over half a century now, and most of them are just as messed up as they were in 1950. We need to let them fail and replaced. The laws of Social Darwinism would improve the workings of their own governments if we refused to help them out and made them fix their own problems. In many cases, we were buying friends and influence and trying to keep potential markets open for our goods. Now we would be on good terms with Russia, who used to be our main enemy, if the Deep State would leave us alone. Now we’re the market everyone wants to sell to, and we have little in the way of manufactures to export. They ought to be paying us money to keep our markets open to them. The only thing we really need from other countries is their oil, and if it weren’t for Obama’s war to destroy our fracking industry, we wouldn’t even need that.
If you mean Jews, say Jews.
Calling them "Scandinavians" or "Scots-Irish" or "Skypes" is just stupid.
The people you fear know exactly who you're referring to, and the people who need to know exactly who you're referring to but don't are left scratching their heads.
The Scots-Irish thing was just a way of making fun of Whiskey. Whiskey is a much smaller %age of iSteve comment volume now, so he’s not nearly as annoying as he used to be. And, you’re right, anyone who hasn’t been around long enough is going to miss the Scots-Irish references.
I was mildly surprised to see him edging back into his Scots-Irish shtick. Presumably, he has, at this point, familiarized himself with what the term actually means. Or maybe he’s using “Celt” now to avoid the whole issue. That term is vague enough that he doesn’t have to worry about keeping all those goyische ethnic distinctions straight.
Doubtful. Students in 500 years will likely think of the US in the 20th C as a kind of tinny, fading echo of the UK and Germany in the 19th C. Sort of like Moscow as the Third Rome.
I think the McMillans moved up in the world between the crofter great grandfather and PM Harold. Something about selling books, I believe.
Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communistI can think of quite a few ways to signal one's unhappiness with the system, other than voting for the Communist Party. I can think of few better ways to signal loyalty to communism and disloyalty to one's country, though.
We all have youthful indiscretions, sure. But few of them involve voting for the Communist Party. At the very least, I'd think it sound policy to make sure none of the people who did vote for the Communist Party wind up working in our national security apparatus.
Certainly not at that level. (The leftmost candidates I ever voted for were John Anderson for President in 1980 and ultra-left incumbent Sidney Yates for Congressman from Chicago’s North Side in about the same time frame.)
I think either John Adams or George Washington said the Constitution was meant only for a moral and religious people and wouldn’t hold up otherwise.
dīvide et īmpera
I have spoken to Swedes and never noticed this HATE HATE HATE. Swedes are just an overly naive and trusting people who have swallowed the PC line hook line and sinker. You are Scots Irish in the sense that Barbra Lerner Spectre is Swedish.
A Swedish immigrant co-worker, in the’80s, told me that Sweden was historically very Anti-Catholic, but that attitudes had relaxed in recent years.
A fair amount of legal ability is required to write the phony cover story appellate opinions. Unless they go the route of Sonia Sotomayor in her pre – SCOTUS 1st Circuit days, in Ricci vs. De Stefano, where she disposed of the claims of 18 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter by more or less telling them they lost the case, with no further explanation. To say the least, that didn’t help SCOTUS untangle the case. Which was her intention.
Somewhat OT: According to this, they’ve caught the main leaker in the Trump administration. It’s Kate Walsh, Reince Priebus’ deputy chief of staff. Supposely, there are also emails between Walsh and Priebus discussing how to get rid of Trump. If so, Priebus is going to be out soon and unhireable. Walsh might end up in jail if she leaked classified information.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/02/breaking-report-white-house-deputy-chief-staff-nevertrumper-kate-walsh-source-leaks/
I think it goes a little, ahh, deeper than that though.
;)
After Oliver Cromwell, the UK was thoroughly revolutionized, sort of like France after 1789.
And that's before we remember that England was once called "The Dowry of Mary" and Henry VIII was a leader in defending the Church and how many theologians came flying out of Oxford and how Richard I fought like a lion for the Holy Land.
Most of the Scandinavian references really are to Scandinavians. They tend left, which affects politics in the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest.
Bush at the end if his term: “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free market system.”
Obama at the end of his term: “I’ve abandoned democratic principles to save the democratic system.”
It feels like an epiphany for me to realize that Obama, instead of being some half blood prince, is actually a pure-bred product of the deep state with the pedigree to go with it. From the CIA bringing dad over from Africa, to mom’s numerous CIA gigs, Obama’s got deep state in his blood both through his mitochondrial DNA and y-DNA. In fact, since he was incubated over at the East-West center, it almost feels like there is the risk of incest.
So, OF COURSE Obama used the levers of the deep state in his final days in office to open the spigot of illegal NSA info to all other leaky agencies to derail the democratically elected incumbent. The New York Times said as much.
Maybe Oliver Stone can make a movie about that.
Obama is protecting his bloodline.
Taken a step further, and apologies to Dawkins, Obama was the deep state’s way to perpetuate the deep state.
Now back to my Turkish coffee.
Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communistI can think of quite a few ways to signal one's unhappiness with the system, other than voting for the Communist Party. I can think of few better ways to signal loyalty to communism and disloyalty to one's country, though.
We all have youthful indiscretions, sure. But few of them involve voting for the Communist Party. At the very least, I'd think it sound policy to make sure none of the people who did vote for the Communist Party wind up working in our national security apparatus.
Yes, and don’t forget that Brennan, whether a closet Muslim or not, did access Obama’s passport files before the election, for some strange reason.
I don’t think that this is disputed.
This was during the period that Nicholas Kristoff was singing the praises of Obama’s pitch perfect Islamic call to prayers in the NYT, and Obama’s accidental admission that he chose to spend his spring break visiting Pakistan with his roommates.
Of course Obama couldn’t make him director of the CIA until he became president himself, obviously.
Now back to my Turkish coffee on this President’s Day in America.
Perhaps their dissimulation is rational. Maybe they’ve taken to heart the not-so veiled threat they have heard proferred by some Jews in the establishment: We have no power, and if you say we do, we will crush you.
John Adams. From http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/115/message_from_john_adams_to_the_officers_of_the_first_brigade_1.html
Tiananmen Square. No one likes their productive work taken from them by force. They may not know how to arrange it so that there is security and tradition and freedom all coexisting together. They may think putting up with powerful corrupt elites is better than the alternative (which might be competing warlords). That was the genius of the Constitution, security, an ordered society that can resolve conflicts between individuals and between individuals and the state (jury of peers) with some measure of justice. And it aint easy to get.
Much as I dislike PRChina, the Tienanmen protesters and their supporters were and are a small minority, negligible outside Hong Kong.
The US constitution is fairly good as constitutions go, the four-year presidency being a fairly good idea, replacing the kingship we couldn’t have. The 1791 Polish constitution was probably a significantly better governing instrument, but the environments were very different. Certainly our constitution is better than some (did the framers of the 1931 Spanish republic really not realize that exempting deputies of the Cortes from prosecution was a really bad idea?); still, it would be foolish to claim that, for instance, Americans in the 19th century were freer in any meaningful way than Britons (well, non-Irish) or Canadians of the same period.
That's the State Dept.'s long-standing reputation, going back earlier than Obama's time. Ambassadors, polite negotiations, embassies, elegant dinners -- rather gay in an old fashioned way.
Question for Smart Dasein: What motivates you to define "conservatism" in such an extreme manner?
Well, in the first place I hardly think it extreme. I would say that Perennialism is simply unvarnished objective reality and that this just is conservatism.
For a complete answer I would invite you to read and savor all 1200 pages of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, wherein the inevitable sequence from Protestantism to Puritanism to Rationalism to Socialism to Decadence is very carefully traced out. Any step upon this slippery slope leads ultimately to the scree pile of nihilism where we find ourselves today. Therefore conservatives have got to maintain original truth in all its fullness, against all popular sentiments, against everything.
SFG above is quite correct when he says that the US Constitution is a creation of the republican age. It hails from the era of rationalism, from a time when it might have seemed possible to educated men that the personal authority exercised by the monarch would be better replaced by a system of distributed power amongst enlightened, self-interested gentlemen. The whole thing is quite Kantian in its spirit. Kantian rationalism in the field of philosophy, deism in the field of religion (a sort of de-immanentized theism in which the will of God is replaced by the workings of nature in precisely the same manner that the monarch is replaced by republican institutions), force-field concepts in physics (here Benjamin Franklin’s “discovery” of electricity is of far more than fairy-tale significance), the reciprocating engines of James Watt, the cartographical voyages of Captain Cook, the capitalism of Adam Smith (i.e. capital as the working fluid of an economic engine, optimized by an “unseen hand,” i.e the republicanism of money), Lockean epistemology and the association of ideas (a sort of republicanism of sense impressions)—all of these contemporary developments are morphologically equivalent and illustrate the same basic theme in different areas. The prime mover, the core of authority and power, is either banished from the throne or rationalized away, but his “spirit” is reconstituted by the enlightened motions of innumerable particles to produce a collective good.
We today who have the benefit of hindsight (and the pain of spiritual clarity belongs inevitably to the concluding chapters of grand historical movements) cannot avoid acknowledging what the men of the republican age ignored for the sake of their vision. Any sort of Protestantism is entirely dependent on what it protests against, as rationalism is nothing without which it rationalizes. The republican age was able to exist for a time without a monarch only because they allowed the ghost of him to remain as the opposite pole, by opposing themselves to which they generated the dynamic tension from whence they derived the power to animate their liberty-ideals. Republicanism cannot exist as a monopole; without the monarch as the negative sign, there is no current in the circuit, no working fluid in the engine, the high ideals of liberty become a sort of licentious jargon, and the state spins down into a condition of thermal equilibrium—the new barbarism of advanced imperial decline.
Apart from these sweeping arcs of history, real conservatism stands pure and eternal. In its essence it is nothing but humility in the face of Almighty God. The prime mover is recognized as the source of all things. Instead of that dynamic tension which makes war on God with His own gifts, we are drawn to up to Him by the power of His love. In the age of republicanism, the atomistic egos of “free” men, like maggots on a corpse, plunder the garden that God created. To be truly conservative we must return, surfeited and sorrowful, like the prodigal son to his father’s house.
A fair amount of legal ability is required to write the phony cover story appellate opinions.
What point are you trying to make?
I think that most "mainstream" conservatives (i.e. the Rush Limbaugh set, the Dittoheads) have this vague sense that the US Constitution is a magical document that, if followed to the letter, would produce only "good" outcomes, their notion of goodness being a rather unexamined one which will be discussed below. Therefore, any ruling by any court which they deem unconformable to their liking must be the result of liberal activist judges behaving unconstitutionally. In other words, since the Constitution is defined as doing no wrong, they simply beg the question on the constitutionality of unwanted rulings. This whole process came to a head most recently during the Obamacare fracas. When Chief Justice Roberts issued his opinion upholding the ACA, the mainstreamers were up in arms. They didn't want or like the ACA, so obviously this was "unconstitutional," right? The arguments adduced to condemn Roberts' decision were a truly preposterous collection of calumnies ranging from the pop-psychological ("Life is high school, folks. You never get out of high school. Roberts just wanted to ingratiate himself with the cool kids in Washington.") to the ominous ("What kind of dirt does the NSA have on Roberts that they could blackmail him like this?") to the pathetic ("Roberts did not want to be the one to deny the First Black President his signature piece of legislation."). Missing from all of this hysterical reaction was any willingness to entertain the idea that Roberts really did rule in accordance with the law; for all of the legal scholars whom I read at the time---who were no liberals, mind you---agreed that in the broad sense Obamacare was constitutional, even if it was a terrible idea. The Supreme Court did not find any grounds for striking down the law that were no so uselessly capacious as to invalidate pretty much everything the federal government actually does. The essence of the matter was very succinctly expressed in Roberts' appropriation of Obama's taunt: "Elections have consequences."
Furthermore, the Dittoheads' conception of what comprises a "good" constitutional outcome is indefensible and oftentimes just plain silly. The typical example to be cited regarding that point is the modern-day transvaluation of the controversy over slavery in the Southern States. The modern Dittos begin with the premise of strict constructionism: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it must be obeyed as written (they are forever qualifying their panegyrics with innumerable 'as-writtens,' as if that clarified the matter). The modern Liberals respond to this premise with the objection that the Constitution must be a "living, breathing document"; for, after all, it codified slavery into law ("which we all agree is an unmitigated moral evil") and we did away with that, didn't we? To this the Dittos oppose an argument which is both historically inaccurate and tactically boneheaded. "Ah, but the wise and beneficent Framers, recognizing that the Union could never be preserved without making some provisions for the Southern States on this issue at the time, nevertheless placed into the Constitution the mechanism for getting rid of slavery at a later date."
It should be pointed out that this argument, even by its own lights, enshrines the idea that an act of pragmatic state necessity (preserving the Union) takes precedence over any ideological commitments to universal human liberty, even in the case of an "unmitigated moral evil." Thus, the premise of strict constructionism, along with any notion that the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be overridden by a supposedly higher purpose, is already hoist with its own petard. But of far greater weight is the swallowing whole of the description of slavery as inherently evil; which---since the Constitution can do no wrong---must on the Dittos' view entail that the Framers were working behind the scenes from the beginning to eradicate this bane from the land.
That counterfactual claim is nothing but a cowardly concession to the spirit of our own times, and neither historical truth nor constitutional rigor has anything to do with it. What the conservatives should have done is oppose the entire spirit of modernity by speaking candidly on the subject of slavery by laying out the following:
1) That the condition of slavery is not an inherent moral evil and is not contrary to the natural law; contrarily, it actually benefits those who have proven themselves incapable of self-governance.
2) That during the long millennia prior to the modern age, every nation, every empire, every higher culture was completely dependent on slaves or servants for its very existence; and
3) That the only reasons we today delude ourselves that we are able to dispense with the eternal tension of master and slave is because our advanced machine industry has largely taken over menial labors in our native lands, while the menial work that still remains to be done is performed in foreign sweatshops by workers whom we never see. Thus, by immoderately proclaiming the blessings of liberty to one and all, and heaping condemnation upon our ancestors, we are engaging in an orgy of self-congratulatory moral preening to which we have no real title whatsoever.
The only conservatism worthy of the name is what you might call the anti-modernist, Traditionalist/Perennialist, reactionary kind---not the Constitutionalist kind. Constitutionalism is simply the leftovers of yesterday's liberalism. The very notion of a separation of powers among the branches of government is contrary to the nature of power and ought, at least by now, to be regarded as a quaint production of an overstrained intellect which has never in fact been observed. It is one thing for men to voluntarily form a compact that provides for self-government and the mutual respect of one another's property; it is quite another to suppose that the primordial forces of history can be countered by flourishing a text in their face. However, for as long as the Constitution remains the law of the land, it needs to be observed with at least a begrudging respect. Bill Kistol, by his own mouth, has confessed himself to be a traitor and an outlaw by preferring the rule of the Deep State to the rule of the constitutionally elected president, and has thereby forfeited any claim to the protections the Constitution might otherwise have afforded him. Let him be treated as such.
Your sad attempt to cover up for Traitor Roberts is laughable. He threw out his entire judicial integrity by sloppily slapping together a vague and nonsensical justification for an unjust law. He spit on the Constitution and then set it on fire. The Obamacare decision made no sense as a decision in itself, and is further jarring in light of Roberts’s jurisprudence to that point.
In short, Roberts’ Obamacare decision is in no way a rational, logical decision. Blackmail is the best guess as to cause.
By all accounts, insiders–including clerks, who know justices best—said he had all but finished the decision overturning Obamacare before he abruptly did an about face in the dead of night and switched his vote. That implies not crisis of conscious nor a bribe nor an “effort to fit in”, but a last minute threat against him that made him hastily do what was needed.
My bet is Obama’s handlers decided that this was a time to cash in a big chip. They probably had the goods on Roberts for a while, but were waiting for a big case to drop it and make him their bitch. That it came up so early in his Supreme Court career probably surprised them, and they likely were hoping to save it for something bigger (gay marriage, abortion case, end of 1st Amendment type), but they resolved to get socialized deathcare through, so they sent Roberts the dirty pictures in the dead of night and with a note saying “Obamacare gets saved or these pictures get published.”
Roberts’ decision is awful, both on its face and in Roberts’ history. Makes absolutely no sense. Right up there with “penumbras and emanations” in terms of horsecrap.
Stop trying to protect Traitor Roberts. He’s a very lost cause.
England went through 150 years of religious civil wars and yet we have this quaint notion that the English are merely “a nation of shopkeepers” with no strong religious inclinations.
And that’s before we remember that England was once called “The Dowry of Mary” and Henry VIII was a leader in defending the Church and how many theologians came flying out of Oxford and how Richard I fought like a lion for the Holy Land.
Sotomayor has been, ahem, infamous for her piss-poor writing ability. A classic affirmative action case all the way up. I doubt her opinion was deliberately designed to be obtuse—more like she couldn’t find a logical justification and just stated the outcome she wanted, and then went home.
That leftist judges are chosen by their ability to rationalize their preferred outcome, often in the most turgid way possible in order to confuse others into thinking they are really thinking deeply about issues instead of just issuing word salad. That way, we all have the fiction of legality to rest our sorry civilization upon.
Presumably to contradict this:
Most of the genius in the constitution was in the Bill of Rights, from my perspective. And that Bill of Rights was more a product of compromise in order to birth the Federal government than a genius design from the beginning. The end result may have been genius, but such is often the product of several great minds working together.
I would rather live in any of the Anglosphere countries, or for that matter, Europe, as they were, than post race replacement USA. It's possible that the second and first amendments will contain within them the defense against race replacement. In hindsight, freedom of association on the basis of race, and prohibition of non-white or Muslim immigration were glaring omissions. Freedom of religion should not have extended to Islam, and likely other major non-white religions.
Right to immigrate should have been a Constitution-level issue.
I’ll bet any one here a $100 donation to iSteve that there are no emails since the election between her and Reince discussing how to get rid of Trump.
There is no deep state.
The first rule of the deep state is that there is no deep state.
It alarms Jews when Gentiles say “Jew.” These terms are intended to soften things.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
Scandinavians and Celts have been more or less getting along for over a thousand years. Why, they teamed up to defeat the English king in 1066, created mixed kingdoms speaking either Nordic or Gaelic languages – often both – throughout the North Atlantic (Faroe Islands, Orkneys, Hebrides, Isle of Mann, Iceland, Dublin, etc.), and through their combined efforts laid the foundation for what became the British Empire (Plantagenets, Tudors and Stuarts).
In a lot of places in/on the North Sea it’s pretty difficult to distinguish Scandinavians from Celts. For example, you can have a guy named Padraig McManus (Patrick son of Magnus) who is Irish and a guy named Olaf Nilsson (Olaf son of Neil) who is Norwegian. Edvard Grieg, the famous Norwegian composer, was actually descended from a Scotsman.
But things definitely change as you go east. The Swedes are more Baltic, and even more communal, sort of like Russians. They don’t prioritize freedom as much as western nordics, and tend to think it’s OK to suppress individuality to support what they perceive as the common welfare. This apparently has very ancient roots.
Is this also a Russian trait?
In a lot of places in/on the North Sea it's pretty difficult to distinguish Scandinavians from Celts. For example, you can have a guy named Padraig McManus (Patrick son of Magnus) who is Irish and a guy named Olaf Nilsson (Olaf son of Neil) who is Norwegian. Edvard Grieg, the famous Norwegian composer, was actually descended from a Scotsman.
But things definitely change as you go east. The Swedes are more Baltic, and even more communal, sort of like Russians. They don't prioritize freedom as much as western nordics, and tend to think it's OK to suppress individuality to support what they perceive as the common welfare. This apparently has very ancient roots.
tend to think it’s OK to suppress individuality to support what they perceive as the common welfare.
Is this also a Russian trait?
And no, the generic power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce isn't such a specific grant of power.
That is not, nor was it ever, the issue in the Obamacare decision. The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the government could intervene in healthcare or not. And you’re missing the point I made in my original comment when I said that the court could find no grounds for striking down the law that were not so uselessly capacious as to invalidate everything the federal government actually did.
The US Constitution does not “specifically authorize” a Federal Communications Commission, a Food and Drug Administration, a Federal Aviation Authority, or any of the other innumerable alphabet agencies that we have. Any move against Obamacare from the SCOTUS bench would set a precedent that would end up stripping the government of virtually all its administrative and regulatory adjuncts. I know there are some hard-line Constitutionalists who actually desire that outcome, but it just doesn’t work that way. In their insistence that “limited government” is the overarching principle of constitutional law, they make the elliptical assumption that because the ACA tends to bloat the size and scope of the federal government rather dramatically, it must be in violation of some constitutional canon. Following Steve’s convention for the fanciful enumeration of unstated amendments, we might say that among the Dittoheads, “limited government” is the real zeroeth amendment.
However, in their mad rush to apply the Zero to the Obamacare case, they’re completely overlooking the fact that the real issue here is the limited power of the judiciary. Briefly stated, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to abrogate a law that the legislature passed just because it makes the government bigger. The Supreme Court is not the guarantor of small government. The Supreme Court does not recognize the Zero. By ruling the way that he did, Chief Justice Roberts actually preserved the separation of powers, for whatever that’s worth. To do otherwise would verily have been “legislating from the bench”—a prerogative that he wisely eschewed usurping.
The upshot here is this: The Constitution “as written” does not contain a clause stipulating that the government must be kept small. The Dittoheads often try to ride this particular hobbyhorse all the way to the Supreme Court, whom they clearly expect to act as a tribune in defense of their cause. But that is outside the court’s authority and mandate. If small government is what you want, you will have to seek it in other ways. The sooner conservatives get this through their heads, the better.
Allahpundit's post today suggests that Trump, in all his anti-media rhetoric and recent campaign-style rallies, may be priming us for coming war with the deep state.
Yikes.
I think one of the reasons Mad Dog and other generals have been brought in is to make it clear that treason will be handled brutally.
Thanks for the link. It’s fun to watch these people continually underestimate Trump:
How confident are you this is real? I’m not seeing it in more mainstream news, which is probably meaningful either way.
I’m glad they figured out who was tapping Flynn’s phone calls with the Russians and recording other secret phone conversations.
I think it goes a little, ahh, deeper than that though.
😉
For a complete answer I would invite you to read and savor all 1200 pages of Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, wherein the inevitable sequence from Protestantism to Puritanism to Rationalism to Socialism to Decadence is very carefully traced out. Any step upon this slippery slope leads ultimately to the scree pile of nihilism where we find ourselves today. Therefore conservatives have got to maintain original truth in all its fullness, against all popular sentiments, against everything.
SFG above is quite correct when he says that the US Constitution is a creation of the republican age. It hails from the era of rationalism, from a time when it might have seemed possible to educated men that the personal authority exercised by the monarch would be better replaced by a system of distributed power amongst enlightened, self-interested gentlemen. The whole thing is quite Kantian in its spirit. Kantian rationalism in the field of philosophy, deism in the field of religion (a sort of de-immanentized theism in which the will of God is replaced by the workings of nature in precisely the same manner that the monarch is replaced by republican institutions), force-field concepts in physics (here Benjamin Franklin’s “discovery” of electricity is of far more than fairy-tale significance), the reciprocating engines of James Watt, the cartographical voyages of Captain Cook, the capitalism of Adam Smith (i.e. capital as the working fluid of an economic engine, optimized by an “unseen hand,” i.e the republicanism of money), Lockean epistemology and the association of ideas (a sort of republicanism of sense impressions)—all of these contemporary developments are morphologically equivalent and illustrate the same basic theme in different areas. The prime mover, the core of authority and power, is either banished from the throne or rationalized away, but his “spirit” is reconstituted by the enlightened motions of innumerable particles to produce a collective good.
We today who have the benefit of hindsight (and the pain of spiritual clarity belongs inevitably to the concluding chapters of grand historical movements) cannot avoid acknowledging what the men of the republican age ignored for the sake of their vision. Any sort of Protestantism is entirely dependent on what it protests against, as rationalism is nothing without which it rationalizes. The republican age was able to exist for a time without a monarch only because they allowed the ghost of him to remain as the opposite pole, by opposing themselves to which they generated the dynamic tension from whence they derived the power to animate their liberty-ideals. Republicanism cannot exist as a monopole; without the monarch as the negative sign, there is no current in the circuit, no working fluid in the engine, the high ideals of liberty become a sort of licentious jargon, and the state spins down into a condition of thermal equilibrium—the new barbarism of advanced imperial decline.
Apart from these sweeping arcs of history, real conservatism stands pure and eternal. In its essence it is nothing but humility in the face of Almighty God. The prime mover is recognized as the source of all things. Instead of that dynamic tension which makes war on God with His own gifts, we are drawn to up to Him by the power of His love. In the age of republicanism, the atomistic egos of “free” men, like maggots on a corpse, plunder the garden that God created. To be truly conservative we must return, surfeited and sorrowful, like the prodigal son to his father’s house.
Start each day with the First Commandmant. That is so simple yet so easily overlooked.
Wow! That is one hot deputy chief of staff.
Oh, ……..wrong Kate Walsh.
“Most of the Scandinavian references really are to Scandinavians…”
Whisky clearly was referring (“Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian”; “…This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people.”) to the notion that many modern liberals descend from New England Puritans who spread west across the northern US and then south down the US West coast.
In Britain, New England Puritans originated in the areas (roughly around York) that at one time were pretty much the core of the Danelaw, that is, the part of Britain settled by Danes (Scandinavians) and ruled by their laws.
The notion is that these people retain liberal, open, high-trust attitudes well adapted to Scandinavia (all hands on deck), with plenty of PC piousness to overlook minor infractions of others (white lies) but also strongly signalling (and submitting to) social group norms. If so, the possibility exists that these adaptations are no longer effective in what are becoming modern low-trust low-cooperation societies.
Danelaw:
Also relevant:
Cnut the Great.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that. One or both of them would have to be awfully stupid for that to be true.
That is laughably wrong. Such terms are intended to be ironic and mocking, or alternatively to shield one from having one’s screen-name pop up in certain web searches. It is certainly not mean to soften any intended meaning.
Sure there is. It might not mean what some people think it does. But that doesn’t mean that it is not a meaningful term.
The US Constitution does not "specifically authorize" a Federal Communications Commission, a Food and Drug Administration, a Federal Aviation Authority, or any of the other innumerable alphabet agencies that we have. Any move against Obamacare from the SCOTUS bench would set a precedent that would end up stripping the government of virtually all its administrative and regulatory adjuncts. I know there are some hard-line Constitutionalists who actually desire that outcome, but it just doesn't work that way. In their insistence that "limited government" is the overarching principle of constitutional law, they make the elliptical assumption that because the ACA tends to bloat the size and scope of the federal government rather dramatically, it must be in violation of some constitutional canon. Following Steve's convention for the fanciful enumeration of unstated amendments, we might say that among the Dittoheads, "limited government" is the real zeroeth amendment.
However, in their mad rush to apply the Zero to the Obamacare case, they're completely overlooking the fact that the real issue here is the limited power of the judiciary. Briefly stated, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to abrogate a law that the legislature passed just because it makes the government bigger. The Supreme Court is not the guarantor of small government. The Supreme Court does not recognize the Zero. By ruling the way that he did, Chief Justice Roberts actually preserved the separation of powers, for whatever that's worth. To do otherwise would verily have been "legislating from the bench"---a prerogative that he wisely eschewed usurping.
The upshot here is this: The Constitution "as written" does not contain a clause stipulating that the government must be kept small. The Dittoheads often try to ride this particular hobbyhorse all the way to the Supreme Court, whom they clearly expect to act as a tribune in defense of their cause. But that is outside the court's authority and mandate. If small government is what you want, you will have to seek it in other ways. The sooner conservatives get this through their heads, the better.
There is the interstate commerce clause. By what legerdemain did the Supreme Court construe NOT buying something (i.e. health insurance) to be engaging in commerce? NOT buying something is NOT engaging in commerce, interstate or otherwise. The federal government has no legitimate authority to force one to buy a product. The Supreme Court was way out of line.
Got it.
Well, yes, obviously.
The first rule of the deep state is that there is no deep state.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
By all reports, Scotland and Ireland are just as contaminated with feminism and “progressivism” as other Northern Europeans, so I’m not seeing the real world support for this theory. Part of the reason why Scotland wanted to secede from the UK was that the Brits were not progressive enough for them.
BTW, I lived and worked in Germany for 5 years. I worked for a German company and lived in a German apartment house. I had a great time and dated a lot of German men
Germans, especially the men may be tall and muscular and beautiful blues and blondes. But they are the most conformist submissive to authority nerd, wimp
un masculine men I have ever met in my long life
FKA MAX and others who pontificate about the superiority of Germans and Scandinavians have obviously never met any or lived in those countries
The black and brown invasion was not so bad when I lived there, it was mostly Turks. The Turks spent their days and nights hanging around downtown and the commuter train stations harassing women. They traveled in packs and snuck up and grabbed breasts and buttocks and squeezed as hard as possible.
I saw it all the time happening to German women accompanied by fathers, husbands, boyfriends and never, not once did I see a German react to the assault and battery. They just took it like the wimps they are.
When the woman they were with yelled at the Turks the German they were with would ask them to be quiet and ignore the assault.
Sounds too good to be true… let’s wait. If true, we’ll know soon enough.
Most of the genius in the constitution was in the Bill of Rights, from my perspective. And that Bill of Rights was more a product of compromise in order to birth the Federal government than a genius design from the beginning. The end result may have been genius, but such is often the product of several great minds working together.
I would rather live in any of the Anglosphere countries, or for that matter, Europe, as they were, than post race replacement USA. It's possible that the second and first amendments will contain within them the defense against race replacement. In hindsight, freedom of association on the basis of race, and prohibition of non-white or Muslim immigration were glaring omissions. Freedom of religion should not have extended to Islam, and likely other major non-white religions.
Non-white religions?
You mean like Christianity? Surely the neo-platonist influence is not enough to call Christianity a white religion.
White religions are religions of Indo-Europeans – Scandinavian, Slavic, Celtic, Greek, Vedic. Yes, Indian Aryans gradually intermarried with brown people, but the religion is still closer to native white religions, who were all polytheistic. I find monotheism to be the most despicable thing Jews ever invented.
That would be very good news. And I can’t think of an iSteve thread where this would be “OT.”
Res, Adams was right. One need only look at the erosion of the Republic to conclude that cultural rot is its cause.
What I think more sailient is that uttering “Jew” alarms Europeans (often the speaker as much as the listener).
It’s a kind of psychological hacking, too. The word “Jew” triggers certain psychological processes, avoiding the word can help avoid those Pavlovian responses.
I’ll put it another way: a huge share of the criticism leveled at Jews would be unremarkable, if leveled at an “unprotected” group. Zionists routinely say things about Palestinians that would get someone in hot water, if said about Blacks or Jews. Race realists routinely say things about Blacks that would get many a knee-jerk response if said about Jews. Etc. Euphemistic criticism of Jews is a step in the direction of saying things about Jews as if they were not being said about Jews.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
I see burning hot red tribe vs blue tribe warfare. It’s not simply race/ethnicity. Siblings are fiercely divided on this.
Similar “sexual liberation as political control” as Weimar
Well said.
But it won’t happen, because Kristol and people like him believe they are entitled to such rights and privileges.
Unlike you, me, and all the other unenlightened slobs who disagree with him and his mates.
The SC has already ruled not buying something affects commerce. A farmer grew stuff for his own consumption which was unlawful under agriculture quotas so something like that. They said he growing and eating his own produce caused less to be sold on the market. He would buy it if he did not grow it and that is commerce.
Per my previous comment, it’s also like a subversive play mocking the tyrant. Allegory or parallel for deniability, but the people who pay attention get the message.
Last I heard, exit polls suggest 71% of Jewish voters pulled the lever for Clinton. I don’t doubt that a lot of Jews are only children, but…
Ironically, non-Jewish voters were more evenly divided, and favor the other side; so Whiskey’s got it roughly 180 degrees wrong.
Wow!!!! Trinity used to be one of the Catholic versions of Vassar. Those SATs are moron level. But never fear, equipped with an affirmative action BA or MA all the grads will get high level federal civil service jobs or end up as $200,000 a year public school administrators.
That’s why I wish Whites would stop fussing about gays labor unions vulgar popular culture etc and do something about affirmative action.
I saw a few minutes of the presidential news conference this AM. It was just a lot of reporters screaming at Sean Spicer that Trump is anti Semitic. Looks like the tribe plans to dominate the news for the next 4 years.
On a personal level, I’m lying low. Many of my friends are Jews and 4 months after the election they are still furious and enraged that Trump instead of Hildabeast won the election. I’m tired of hearing the endless repeats of the NYTimes LATimes CNN, Rachel Maddow etc.
Jews don’t really have opinions. Their brains are connected to some sort of propaganda outlet that tells them how to think.
You’re right, that Scottish National Party is pure Marxist and totally dedicated to bringing in as many African, Arab, and other third world trash to Scotland as possible.
BTW, I lived and worked in Germany for 5 years. I worked for a German company and lived in a German apartment house. I had a great time and dated a lot of German men
Germans, especially the men may be tall and muscular and beautiful blues and blondes. But they are the most conformist submissive to authority nerd, wimp
un masculine men I have ever met in my long life
FKA MAX and others who pontificate about the superiority of Germans and Scandinavians have obviously never met any or lived in those countries
The black and brown invasion was not so bad when I lived there, it was mostly Turks. The Turks spent their days and nights hanging around downtown and the commuter train stations harassing women. They traveled in packs and snuck up and grabbed breasts and buttocks and squeezed as hard as possible.
I saw it all the time happening to German women accompanied by fathers, husbands, boyfriends and never, not once did I see a German react to the assault and battery. They just took it like the wimps they are.
When the woman they were with yelled at the Turks the German they were with would ask them to be quiet and ignore the assault.
It is a cultural / race /ethnicity thing. Its HBD in action, in all its ugly glory. Remember Rwanda, when Hutus and Tutsis who to White Western eyes were just a bunch of similar Africans with no real differences went at it, with just about the per-capita Genocide championship going to Hutus? Between April and May 1994, nearly 800K to 1.1 million were murdered, mostly by machetes and rocks, up close and personal. Compared to a similar figure at Auschwitz over three years using industrialized killing equipment. Or examine Biafra with Yorubas against Igbos.
Scandinavians just HATE HATE HATE both Celts and Latin/Slavic Catholics and want us all eliminated. [Southern Germans have a healthy dose of Celts in them along with the English and the Scandis can smell it.] Scandinavians are selected from millenia of low resources, no food available for six months, low centralization, extreme egalitarianism, introversion, feminism, and ultra high male cooperation in things like Viking raids and exploration (same thing).
Against this are Celts, with individualism, clannishness, localism, mysticism, extraversion, high male competition and fighting, little feminism; allied with highly hierarchical and male-unequal Catholic societies of Latins and Western Slavs. We hate the Scandis, and they hate us back, for mutually incompatible ways of life.
Its Mike Fink vs. Cotton Mather, come to head, and the Constitution and everything else be damned for them, they want us gone, dead, eliminated and will stop at nothing to do so. Cotton Mather can't tolerate Mike Fink, any more than he could John Wesley Hardin, or James Butler Hickok, or Wyatt Earp, or Bat Masterson. So Cotton Mather is making his move to destroy us all.
The most lamentable thing about Eastern European Jews has been their intermarriage and adoption of the Upper Class WASP (read: Puritan/Scandinavian) way of life and genetically determined tendencies. You don't see much Lena Dunham feminism among Rednecks nor among Catholic Slavs or Germans or Italians. There, kids and husbands are female markers of competition, not meaningless careers and slut-dom. But that's the wages of feminism.
This thing has been building for 1,200 years. Its all about making everything the Scarlett Letter, all the time, everywhere, for White people. The Scarlett Letter set in the Carolinas: Rev. Dimmsdale banged Hester Prynn. Her husband finally showed up. No one cared or even noticed. Dimmsdale, Prynn, and their daughter moved out west. Where two of them died of Yellow Fever. No cared then either. The end.
Scandinavians just get off on things Celts and Latin Catholics find disgusting: self-flagelating struggle sessions, a meeting and a lecture (and an Al Gore Powerpoint), moral status signaling, endless passive aggressive posturing, worship of Non-Whites as racial redeemers and non-White culture in general. Scandinavians just can't live with Redneckistan and loud motorcycles and muscle cars "that hurt the planet and won't let us ... HEAL." Or proud Americanism which hurts hurts hurts Muslim/African/Abo feelingzzzzz. Or a refusal to all sing along in the same hymn book about just what a LightWorker Obama really is. Those are sins that are just ... deplorable. A whole basket of them.
“Steve, this is not a “Deep State” thing — Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, none of them generated this much HATE HATE HATE.”
I am not a fan of George W. Bush, but the Left also called him Adolf Hitler.
The Left sees The GOP in general as The 3rd Reich. The Left favors a 1 party nation where The Democratic Party is a political monopoly, the only game in town.
Where I live Comcast has a monopoly on cable companies. The Left wants The DNC to become the Comcast of politics.
You mean like Christianity? Surely the neo-platonist influence is not enough to call Christianity a white religion.
White religions are religions of Indo-Europeans - Scandinavian, Slavic, Celtic, Greek, Vedic. Yes, Indian Aryans gradually intermarried with brown people, but the religion is still closer to native white religions, who were all polytheistic. I find monotheism to be the most despicable thing Jews ever invented.
What do you have against Ahura Mazda?
That’s Wickard vs. Filburn, decided in the late 1930s, I believe. It’s a bad precedent. It converts the Interstate Commerce Clause into a general police power, with disastrous results.
Is that the latest model displayed at the Auto Show?