For those who like videos, here are a few. First, the Na, Na Na Na, Goodbye tribute to George W. Bush during the Obama inauguration ceremony in January, 2009:
And now payback begins, a month prior to Donald Trump's inauguration:
I don't like such stuff. It's adolescent, to say the least and does little more than feed the beast of divisiveness. Trump is a populist. His concern is for all Americans, sectarian though they may be. A lot of people don't get that about him, but soon they will. It's his strong suit.
For those who want to understand the Trump phenomenon, here's a speech from Newt Gingrich at the Heritage Foundation that lays it out forcefully, accurately and in historical perspective. You can skip the introductions by going to the 4:30 mark. Once you begin listening, you will want to hear it all::
Ah, how to navigate the treacherous waters of Obama's America? The Scylla of white privilege looms dangerously on the right, the Charybdis of racial injustice on the left. Either direction spells ruin for frightened passengers. Waves pummel the ship. The current is unpredictable. Masts are full and the wind is strong. The captain must steer the dangerous middle of an angry sea, Our hapless pilot got his training along the coast of France, his birthplace, where he became a skilled man of the sea like his father and grandfather before him. Only now, while the tempest is up, many of the passengers have grown wild-eyed with fear. They blame him for wind and water and for having set sail to begin with. Bitter aspersions are shouted at him. Some taunt him without mercy. Others curse him and his heritage, asking why a Frenchman should have his hand at the wheel.
So how should our hapless captain manage this desperate moment? What prayer might he raise to heaven as torrents of rain beat against him?
Maybe he could start here, shouting: I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
That's Peter Finch in the role of Adam Beale. The clip is from a 1976 movie entitled Network. Beale is a TV broadcaster who learns he is to be fired, and he's not happy about it, He has given his lfie to the news, and now, due to a fall in ratings, he learns he will be cut loose by the higher-ups. He is allowed to make a televised farewell speech. But his farewell address turns into a rant on the banality of existence. Surprisingly, his uncensored diatribe leads to an immediate improvement in viewership. People like what he's saying. Callers flood the station's phone lines. People want to hear more from Beale. And they do. Ratings improve as if by magic. So the corporate players allow Beale's nightly rants to continue, if only to see where they lead. Tragedy ensues. Beale, after all, has chosen to swim against the tide. People drown that way. That's the story line.
In that same vein, though not for banal reasons, let me now rant: I'm white as hell and I'm not going to take this any more.
Do you find that racist? Unhinged? If so, why? Because I said white? ... hell? ... not going to take this anymore? Or perhaps because my ancestors are merely Scots, French, Slavic, German, Jewish, Cherokee and one guy who was so drunk he didn't remember his contribution to our gene pool. I'm a witches' brew of Anglicans, Huguenots, Calvinists, Lutherans, Sephardics and henotheists. Is that why I don't rate? I thought such a tapestry might qualify as multicultural. Surely I must belong to some protected class. On top of that, I'm probably a genetic test away from African ancestry. Maybe as far back as the Olduvai Gorge, Lucy and beyond. Except my ancestors were too poor to own anybody, white or black or otherwise, far as I know. I'm pretty sure someone else owned us, or else we worked for them. Unlike your recent ancestors, Ben Affleck, not that you should care, though strangely you do. At some point you have to let go of the past and the outdated narrative that warps your thinking. You're an American. Act like one.
These days, I am told that Mena has been proposed as a new racial category. Such an anti-science political invention cheers me up. After all, given my heritage, I am clearly a multi-racial cur. No telling how much student funding I'll qualify for if I go back to school. And what with the re-definition of racism to fit the contemporary multicultural narrative, someone probably owes me reparations. Pony up, you mono-racial bigots. My Jewish ancestors were discriminated against by the Chicago police department, who favored their Irish kin. And that's not to mention what the Catholics did to my Huguenot relatives in France, or what colonists did to my Cherokee ancestors in South Carolina and what Hitler did to my German cousins in Europe. Remind me again how many gas ovens were operating in America during the 20th century? And how many of your relatives were tortured during the Spanish Inquisition and in Nazi concentration camps? Simple numbers will do. Someone owes me some simoleons. Lots of them. My family has many grievances.
Of course, that's not the point of our ahistorical social justice warriors, is it?
Their point is skin color. Or more specifically, African skin color and now middle-Eastern skin color, mixed though they are. My historic grievances are merely against fellow whites, or mostly white, depending on whether George Zimmerman and Geronimo were caucasians, The NY Times claimed Zimmerman is caucasian, despite his hispanic heritage, so I guess that settles it. But it also makes Obama a black white, or a white black. And me a left-handed right-hander, since I batted both ways in high school and clearly belong in someone's protected class. I'll leave you to parse that kind of nonsense.
Anyway, what was my point? Ah, yes, skin color and ancestry and being mad as hell. I'm sure North Africans had something to do with the Moors' conquest of Spain and their incursions into France in the 15th century, if history counts. I have every reason to believe my ancestors suffered terribly at their hands. Why does that not matter? What part of that history should fill me with white guilt? What happened to the global village?
Truth of the matter is, people do stuff, good and bad. Always have and always will. Skin color is irrelevant. Blacks sold blacks into slavery a couple hundred years ago, and some blacks and native Americans bought them as chattel in America. In fact, the wealthiest black man in South Carolina in 1860 owned 40-60 slaves, but you probably won't read about him in your history books, or hear about it in a History Channel documentary if violinists are playing in the background. It's irrelevant anyway. That sad era ended over 150 years ago. My real subject matter is the contemporary assault on white males, who otherwise are known as the perpetrators of modern patriarchy, racism, income inequality, unemployment, inner-city crime and the three-pronged attack on women, abortion and free birth-control. So lets move forward slowly, starting with the subject of males in general.
Males have dominated the history books in America, as they have in most cultures around the world, for reasons that are part biological, part sociological, and mostly common sense. If by patriarchal you mean who can swing the biggest sword or retreat the fastest, I'll take the guy nine times out of ten, simply based on foot speed. That's how genes work. If women had left their children behind en masse to serve on the front lines in history's conflicts great and small, and if they had done so in numbers far greater than men, they would probably have decided the terms of peace and extracted whatever tolls were due after the conflicts ended. But they didn't. That's not patriarchal. Or sexist. Or even remotely racist, since all races acted similarly. I'm pretty sure the Sioux and Cheyenne will have my back on this one.
Now on to America's white patriarchal society.
From the perspective of history books, which includes subjects such as war, treaties, councils, politics, economics and the occasional sex scandal, human history has been written from a patriarchal perspective. No one argues that point. Stories from history are almost exclusively told from a male point of view, same as American history has been told from a British rather than Spanish historical point of view, even though the Spanish got here first. In the case of American history, the British fought the Spanish and won, so the British got to write the books. Duh. Life works that way. That's why you learn about William Bradford and the pilgrims at Plymouth Rock rather than Cabeza de Vaca's exploits in Texas, which happened much earlier. In the case of Man v. Woman, the men hunted for food and fought the wars. So, right or wrong, they got to write the books. Pick any point along the spectrum of history and you will find that to be true. I have yet to see a documentary about the famous Samurai Geishas of 13th Century Japan, Femmes vs Zulus in 17th Century sub-Saharan Africa, a YouTube special on Amazons Annihilate Carib Warmongers in Pre-Colombian South America, or a book entitled Geronimo and His Fierce Chiricahua Conchitas. I'm probably beginning to sound a bit like Donald Trump at this point, aren't I? Let's call it the Trump Effect. Anyway, history is what it is. Patriarchal themes dominate recorded history. And most of that can be explained by biologists and evolutionary sociologists. Conversely, I've yet to meet a man who claims in private that he really is head of the household. Sexual supremacy works both ways, yet differently, and in the end it evens out. I heard of one husband who claimed authoritatively that he had his wife on her hands and knees. What he failed to mention is that she was screaming, "Get out from under the bed, you coward." Other women have gotten out of the house to lead countries (Thatcher, Meir) and global companies such as Hewlett-Packard, or else make millions fighting MMA style. I don't invent history. I merely report it.
Ah, but that's not taking into account the economic impact of historic discrimination, I am told. Economic disadvantage is the real discriminator. Whites make a disproportionate amount of annual U.S. income. And they are disproportionately under-represented in jails. And whites have so much more of the world's goods than non-whites. To whom more is given, more is required, or so the sermon goes. And it's not a bad sermon, properly understood. Only, somehow, the sermon gets misinterpreted by the time it filters down to the social justice warriors. Excuse me for fast forwarding, but somehow SJWs take it to mean we should expect less moral behavior from anyone who makes less, and on a sliding scale. The poorer you are, the less is expected of you, unless you happen be be white and poor. Wanna' loot and burn down inner city Baltimore? Or Ferguson? Have at it. I'm the mayor and I'll order the police to stand down and look the other way while you do your thing. Snag a few TVs along the way. Are you working in this country illegally and receiving benefits while not paying taxes or else receiving tax credits for dependents who don't exist? Yes, by all means, let's not allow school children to wear T-shirts with emblems of the American flag. It might offend someone who is not American but who has learned how to game the system.
In my best Adam Beale voice, let me repeat: I'm white as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more.
Now on to something more anecdotal. I made a research trip to Nicaragua and El Salvador back in the 1980s. I was interested to learn what role Christians played in the revolutions going on down there, particularly among the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. Lots of shooting was going on. And lots of poor people. Poor dead people. You could make the case that poor Nicaraguans had been economically disenfranchised since the days of Spanish occupation in the 16th century. Especially among the mestizos or half-breeds. They've had a hard life. It's been that way for generations. Almost all of them are now Christians, mostly of the Catholic and Moravian variety. Back in the '80s, I was interested to know if they supported the new nationalism of the Sandanistas and were willing to take up arms for the cause. Anyway, one afternoon I walked alone through a poverty-stricken section of Managua, the Nicaraguan capital, which was now under Sandanista rule. On either side of the street, burnt-out concrete structures served as homes for many poor and disenfranchised families. An earthquake and various civil disturbances created those conditions. I recall one particular building with charred streaks on the outside of the structure, the obvious result of fire. A child emerged through the front entrance. I would normally say he came out the front door, only there was no door and there were no paned windows. Just empty holes. Apparently the little boy could tell I wasn't from the neighborhood. He ran up to me on the street and we playfully chatted. He wore a faded T-shirt and ragged shorts, with tanned skin and bare feet. The child's mother came out and stared at us for a moment. She carried a broom. After watching us for a moment longer, she began to sweep dust from the dirt entrance. Don't ask me why. Then she poured water into two little flower pots that adorned her front entrance, then disappeared back inside. It made me think of inner-city America. And how different people are. Neatness mattered to this boy's mother. She took pride in her humble dwelling. And she watched over her son.
I wonder if the irony dawned on Obama when he announced on Comedy Central that the legacy of racism in America has not ended. Does he not appreciate that his mother was white? Does he not recall that he didn't need to cross a picket line to get into Columbia or Harvard or to gain access to the White House? Does he understand how many non-black Americans voted for him in both of his presidential elections?
Or maybe he was just playing fast and loose with language. Pointy-head academics do that all the time. So do politicians who have skin in the game, so to speak. Then again, maybe Obama was aiming for ironical comedy, which is best performed with a straight face. I choose to take it for the humor it is. Much like the audience of Comedy Central, I watch the show to laugh and be entertained. So I'll take his comment as tongue-in-cheek. He does keep a good straight face, though, doesn't he?
Obama came from nowhere to become President of the United States. How? Maybe because he enjoyed the benefit of his parental heritage, black and white. And moreso because he applied himself in school. And was curious and ambitious. And driven to succeed. And no one -- institutional or otherwise -- stood in his way, though quite a few helped him along the way. Did non-black Americans attempt to impede his progress? If so, I wish he would cite the experiences in detail, list the obstacles thrown in his path, and explain how he struggled to overcome them. Somewhat like Ben Carson had to do, and Condoleeza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Herman Cain. Or Martin Luther King, to go back a ways, and George Washington Carver. Otherwise, Obama's lament sounds trite and sycophantic. And also arrogant, as though he succeeded only because his genes are superior to most other black genes, but I don't think he wants to go there, nor should he. Barack, how many crosses were burned in your front yard? How many of your friends were lynched, or driven from the restaurant counter, or taken through the back door as if they were Benjamin Netanyahu, or had face-to-face encounters with masked men such as Hamas and Hezbollah? Please tell us. And also tell us how much better poor inner-city whites and hispanics and asians have it because they are not black. Does one poor man's dollar buy more than another poor man's dollar? Please explain. Once you head down that road, we also will expect you to tell us why such intransigent racism still exists. Specifically why. No platitudes or skewed generalizations. And no appeals to disparate impact. We'll be asking unscripted questions afterwards, some of which will make sense to everyone but you, so be cautious what you say.
Ugh. The notion of disparate impact -- which claims that only equal outcomes can define whether an adverse impact exists -- is such a stupid legal premise. Some may not realize it, but Jews and Japanese are disproportionately non-black, the NBA is disproportionately non-Swiss, the NFL is under-feminized, no Tibetans have won as many gold medals in track as Hussein Bolt, and the disparate impact adds up to billions of dollars annually. What do you propose we do about that, Mr. President of All Americans? Please hurry up with an answer. The Olympics are but three years away. Lots of training is needed if we're to upend Hussein Bolt's stranglehold on world records and the wealth it brings him.
Since when did white become the new ugly? Why is it racist to have a skin color that happens to be labeled white? Those folks did well to raise the value of everyone's life in America, last time I checked. More whites died for that conviction than have ever died for any other cause that Americans believe in. It's called the War between the States, 1861 to 1864, if you need to check. White Americans started that war, and they fought alongside black soldiers to end the tyranny of slavery. They fought to improve the civil rights and economic prosperity of all citizens, despite their race or heritage or economic status. They also created eleemosynery institutions such as the world had never seen before. And adopted abandoned children and fought against alcoholism and yet died for the freedom to be free. Those are bad things? Pro Hall-of-Famer Jim Brown doesn't think so. I don't either.
We have come a long way in 250 years. Obama insists that structural racism still dogs this country and is the reason for so much poverty and strife among minorities, yakkidy yakkidy yak, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Give it a break, Barack. No one beyond your echo chamber listens to that tiresome diatribe any longer. It's not their fault for not listening. It's yours. You never quit riding the wave you rode in on, even after it hit the shore and washed back out to sea. We do not live in the racist country of your imagination. We're getting tired of reminding you of your privileges -- which you largely earned, by the way. So kick back, roll another doobie and enjoy retirement at your beach house, as we know you will. No harm, no foul. You worked hard and got the rewards that came with it. Armed guards will have your back. Big paydays are in store. And your children will enjoy the benefits of your efforts. Good for you and them. Call it the benefit of privilege. It's there for the taking. All you have to do is reach for it.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" for example. It's a simple yes or no. So go ahead. Pick one. Either answer will make you the talk of the neighborhood. Socrates dealt with this false dilemma about 2,500 years ago. Yet it persists.
Another such question has been put to Donald Trump recently by the legacy media and their Democrat acolytes, namely, "Will you admit that the Russian government, or their surrogates, hacked the DNC prior to the election and laundered their stolen goods through Wikileaks?"
This question is a bit more subtle than the wife-beater example, but in form it's the same. Either answer Trump gives will expose him to brutal attacks by the legacy media, none of which attacks will have a basis in fact. If he answers yes, he will be accused of acknowledging that he doesn't deserve to be President because fifty-million Americans are too stupid to realize they were being pawned by Russian propagandists. If he answers no, it demonstrates he is a Putin-friendly obstructionist who is opposed to the legacy media's propaganda. They basically are asking him: "Are you, Mr. Trump, suggesting that Russia's propaganda is more effective than ours?" Yes, I'm being snarky, but you get the point. For decades the legacy media has enjoyed controlling the flow of information to America. And controlling politicians and bureaucrats who are dependent on media coverage. That's why journalists get invited to Washington cocktail parties and have an annual correspondents dinner during which presidents show up to pay obeisance by ridiculing themselves to the delight of all present. Correspondents like it when politicians dance to their tune. It helps make up for the low wages that most endure. The other payoff is that they get to create the narrative for the rest of America. They get to decide what is news and what is not. And in recent years, they have found ways to justify their journalistic bias for one candidate over another, or else one worldview over another. Objectivity has been tossed aside. Subjectivity is the new potion that fills their ink wells and stains their teleprompters. They are social justice warriors with a keyboard/camera and an audience.
Only, Trump out-flanked them. He beat them at their own game. And they don't like it one bit. They're flexing what little muscle they have left. By means of subterfuge. Anything to get him under their thumb. Only, he won't let them. They call him an airbag and grab the balloon in their fist, aiming to get a hand around him. But each time they squeeze, the air slips beyond their grip. That's what a balloon does when you squeeze it in the center. And that's what Trump does. They can't ever get a choke-hold, try though they do. About a year ago -- after casting my lot with Trump -- I decided to invest in popcorn and watch for a while. It's paid off nicely. The legacy media hasn't disappointed. Despite their best efforts, they have yet to put the squeeze on him. And they won't. They have never lived in his world. The turf is different where he comes from. So are the rules.
The problem with the question to Trump from the legacy media about Russian involvement is that the question itself has no basis in demonstrable fact. Like the wife-beater example, there is no reason to ask the question unless there is credible evidence. If one's spouse has no observable bruises or never has implied to anyone that abuse was or is occurring, why would one ask the question in the first place? Unless, of course, one wants to make the husband look bad.
As for the Trump question, Russia and Julian Assange have both denied that the Wikileaks emails came from a Russian source. Moreover, neither the NYTimes nor the WaPo will cite anyone in the CIA who has come forward personally with proof of the alleged Russia-Wikileaks conspiracy. Moreover, no one in our intelligence agencies stepped forward prior to the election with proof of Russian interference. Moreover, the media and now the Obama administration didn't make the allegation until after the election. Moreover, Obama seemed satisfied enough with election results that he called Trump to congratulate him after election day -- despite having up-to-date intelligence on Russia at the time. And finally, why did Craig Murray, the UK's former ambassador to Uzbekistan, state explicity that the leak of Podesta's emails came from within the Democrat machine itself, and that he knows who leaked the information? Also, please note the difference between leaked and hacked. Murray says the emails were leaked from within. The NYTimes and WaPo report the emails were hacked/stolen. There's a world of difference between the two. To me, all those things are newsworthy for interested investigative journalists. Except that investigative journalists don't seem interested.
In effect, the question to Trump is pure propaganda. It illustrates the meaning of "fake news." In fact, all their allegations of "fake news" are but a propaganda effort by the legacy media to insert their own fake news. I'm generalizing, of course, but then again, I'm generalizing about a generally known fact. The Russian conspiracy angle and the fake news meme are on a par with their sudden preoccupation with the electoral college. And their years-long claim that the science of global warming is settled. And their use of terms such as follows, courtesy of The People's Cube, which offers better parody than I can muster:
I thought the media would self-correct after Trump's election. They didn't. They still don't understand why people turned out en masse for Donald Trump on November 8.
Break the habit, folks. Stupid is as stupid does. The legacy media doesn't deserve our respect or our attention.
Media bias. No one doubts it. And no one confronts it quite like Nigel Farage:
The Fourth Estate is teetering. If it doesn't correct itself soon, it will go the way of transistor radios.
_____
Speaking of those who propagandize by promoting"fake news," the Washington Post comes to mind. The WaPo recently passed along a story without even bothering to check it for accuracy or integrity. The article was about conservative websites in the U.S. that have been blacklisted by a website called PopOrNot.org. The researchers at PopOrNot.org accused 200 websites of being uncritical puppets of Russian propaganda -- i.e., websites that promote or pass along "fake news" whether they know it or not. Unfortunately, the PopOrNot folks outed themselves as a fake news source. So what does the WaPo do? It passes along the fake news -- otherwise known as propaganda -- as if it was a fact. You can't make this stuff up. It's a good example of how ideology influences our view of reality. You will find the backstory here and here.
Once you've read it, you'll want to read the response made by one of the blacklisted websites, Naked Capitalism. The website historically has focused on financial markets and Wall Street news in general. But it also dabbles in politics and public policy. In response to the WaPo article, Naked Capitalism offers up a parody on how to do propaganda correctly. The tongue-in-cheek riposte is titled: Is it Propaganda or Not? Your Friendly Guide to Better Propaganda.
All global temperature data sets confirm that global temperature has fallen rapidly in recent months as the recent El Nino ended. Over the last couple of years there have been many articles about how they have been record-breakers in global temperature. It’s often sold as a simple ‘the planet is getting warmer only because of us’ story. As I have discussed before the concurrent El Nino was dismissed by some climate scientists as having an insignificant contribution to that record. However, there is a great deal of confusion and diversity in the assessment of its contribution. Some scientists maintain that it was the recent very strong El Nino that elevated the temperature to record levels.
Nevertheless some maintain that warm records would have been broken without the El Nino (although the significant contribution made by the highly unusual warm “Pacific Blob” is usually ignored).
As the 2015/16 El Nino started to wane wiser heads said the records would fade along with it, “No El Nino, no record,” they said, showing that the El Nino was responsible for edging the years to be records.
It is obvious that the world is cooling after the El Nino and nobody knows how much it will as global temperatures bottom out. So the time is right, one would have thought, to monitor that cooling process and see what can be deduced to set the recent record warm years into their proper context.
Wait for it in 3...2...1. Someone will respond that global cooling is just one more proof of global warming. Seriously. Watch for it. The complainant's name will rhyme with Al Hore. And he will make no more sense tomorrow than he did yesterday. On a different note, does he look like a beached whale, or what? Yes, that is derisive. And intentionally so. He stood to make a fortune off the global warming scam.
Fighting against those whose opening comments begin with statements such as "the literature says" or "experts agree" just proves those folks don't understand "the literature" or the nature of hard science. Just ask Ptolemy and Newton. For every one of them there is an Einstein. The list goes on.
So don't sweat global warming. My advice is to grab a jacket and button up. A 'norwester is on its way.
For those who don't pay attention, the United Kingdom opted out of the EU back in June. It was a major blow to the globalist efforts of market makers everywhere. Prominent pundits said it would spell disaster for the British financial markets. It didn't.
In November, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. It was a major blow to the globalist efforts of market makers everywhere. Prominent pundits said it would spell disaster for U.S. financial markets. It didn't.
Today, Italy said "NO" in a referendum to keep Italy in the EU. It is a major blow to the globalist efforts of market makers everywhere. Prominent pundits say it will spell disaster for the Italian financial markets. It won't.
Ugh. Talk about fake news. Will these mainstream media pundits ever give up their losing narrative? I guess not.
Want a thread that ties the United Kingdom to the U.S. and to Italy (and also to Austria, Slovakia, and France, all of whom have looming elections)?
Try this one: IMMIGRATION and OPEN BORDERS.
Italy's referendum was not simply about the amount of unilateral power that their president should have to make decisions without parliamentary approval. The real issue smouldering beneath the surface was immigration, or more appropriately, the way globalists view immigration and the impact their policies have upon sovereign nations. That most of these immigrants come from Muslim countries is not insignificant. Here's a sample of Italy's experience:
It's a subject on the minds of many Italian citizens, as you can see in this broadcast on Italian TV:
Slovakia also has a problem with the EU immigration strategy. It has become a major platform issue in Prime Minister Robert Fico's re-election campaign. And, again, it has to do with the influx of Muslim immigrants. Here are the particulars:
Parliament in Bratislava has approved a bill that effectively prevents Islam from being registered as a state religion in the near future.
Sponsored by the Slovak National Party (SNS), which is a member in Prime Minister Robert Fico's coalition, the legislation was passed Wednesday, Reuters reported. The law was approved by a two-thirds majority in parliament, comprising both ruling and opposition parties.
The new law more than doubles the required number of a religion's followers for it to qualify for state subsidies and run its own schools. At least 50,000 members, against the previous 20,000, has now been set as a threshold for gaining official status as a religion.
Currently, 62 percent of Slovakia's 5.4 million population are declared Roman Catholics.
Slovakia's far-right People's Party-Our Slovakia wanted to raise the bar to 250,000, but their proposal was turned down by a majority of lawmakers. "Islamization starts with a kebab and it's already under way in Bratislava, let's realize what we can face in five to 10 years," chairman of the Slovak National Party (SNS) Andrej Danko said, as cited by Reuters. "We must do everything we can so that no mosque is built in the future," the politician was quoted as adding. According to the last census, Islam has some 2,000 followers in Slovakia, Reuters reported, adding that there are no recognized mosques in the central European country. The Islamic Foundation in Slovakia, which has not commented on the new legislation so far, puts the number at around 5,000.
Google the problems that have unfolded in Germany and Sweden and you'll get the bigger picture. Be sure to include the words "Muslim immigrants" and "rape" in your search.
This fellow sums up a popular sentiment found throughout western Europe these days:
Simply put, there seems to be an effort afoot to break down borders all across Europe and North America. Notions of nationality are intentionally meant to be destroyed. The goal is to make us world citizens. A global community. Literally. And politically. The financiers are the ones who want this. They aren't evil people. They simply enjoy money and power, and globalization is the way to get more of it. They live in gated communities apart from all the hubbub of enforced multiculturalism. It's no skin off their noses. And the best way to create a single multicultural world is to nix the notion of sovereign statehood by destroying borders and mixing the gene pool beyond recognition. This means sacrificing customs and cultures that have been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years (think Athens and Rome, for starters). If you think this isn't part of the plan, you simply aren't listening.
No, I do not think there is a shadow government of evil people out to destroy the world. Nor do they meet with Dr. Evil and Mini-Me to plan their next move. But I do think there are a lot of very wealthy and powerful players who don't seem to mind chaos on the streets of Athens and Rome and Paris and Stockholm because, hey, they don't walk through those neighborhoods at night. Instead, they're watching the equity and futures markets on CNBC, more concerned about the rise and fall of global investments than the rise and fall of neighborhoods and cultures. That's why today's referendum in Italy is so important. The people are pissed. Italy just said "no, no, no." And by a 20% margin. Renzi bet his political career that they would say "yes." I suggest he call Hillary Clinton for consolation. She'll understand. Here in the U.S., we call it The Donald Effect. But in reality, it's the people's effect. They are the ones who vote.
People don't easily give up what takes them centuries to create. Not for an ungodly dollar. Or an ungodly euro. Italy can go back to the lira and do passably well, thank you very much. And Greece can print drachmas again. It won't be easy. But they don't need Brussels telling them how to live or what to make or who they must make room for. That's the meaning of today's referendum. We just held our own referendum on November 8. Buh-bye, Barack, we said, and hell no, Hillary. But it was the United Kingdom that got it all started.
For those just learning how to cook, I'll share the first recipe I mastered. The year was 1989 ... my first venture into haute cuisine.
Directions:
Mix two cups of water with two tablespoons of water.
Add more to taste.
Freeze.
It may look difficult, but once you discover ice trays, you'll get the hang of it quickly. Only took me a few tries. ProChef tip: You also can boil water without really changing the flavor.
_____
Word of the Day: Dufuss (doo-fuss)
Definition: Seriously, you don't know?
_____
This just in!!! California outlaws cow farts. You know, to save the planet from global warming. I'm sure Nevada and Oregon are elated, what with sharing a border and all. In related news, button up for a cold winter. It seems Mother Nature is not much interested in cow farts or California politics.
Is there a chance California still might secede from the union? At the least, Sacramento, San Francisco and L.A.? Here's hoping so. Or maybe the San Andreas Fault will rise to the occasion.
When people ask me why I was confident Trump would win the Presidency, I send them this YouTube video and tell them to call me after they watch it.
Why did Trump win? Because America is tired. Its people are exhausted.
They're tired of working all day and then coming home to newscasters and TV pundits who call them racist, sexist, islamophobic, stupid and deplorable, And for what? For working all day so they can pay bills and be good citizens? Democrats still don't get it. They just put Nancy Pelosi back in charge of the House minority -- a minority position she almost single-handedly helped them achieve, though Harry Reid deserves credit in the Senate.
They're tired of splinter groups who spew hatred and contempt beneath a divisive false flag of righteousness. BLM, anyone? #NeverTrump? #OccupyWallStreet? La Rasa? LBGTQ social justice warriors? MSNBC and CNN? And plenty of others, depending on whose sacred cow was gored. (Note: I think the Occupy Wall Street idealists and the Tea Party pragmatists had much more in common than either realized, though their policy solutions might only be reconciled by someone who understands the art of the deal.)
They're tired of being scolded about political correctness. The scolding has been so severe and unremitting that most people have lost their instinct for simple communication and good-natured fun. When I was a kid, I heard a lot of funny jokes, like the Pollack who hijacked a submarine and demanded $10 million and a parachute. And of course any joke that began with a priest, a rabbi and a baptist preacher. And dumb blonde jokes, too, such as the one who used white-out on her computer screen. Trump voters are tired of being told they don't take life seriously enough, when in fact, working an eight to ten hour shift while raising a family and being a responsible community member and fixing stuff around the house isn't ... what ... serious enough? And isn't it racist to claim that I'm talking only about white people? I have black friends who work for a living and raise children. Hispanics and Asians, too? And people whose heritage is ambiguous. What does skin color have to do with it? Who's the racist here? Do you understand what I mean by tiresome?
They're also tired of identity politics and the notion that reality is only what we wish it was. There was a time when gravity was real and walking off a cliff wasn't advisable. Not so much these days. Doctors are rarely confused about circling "male" or "female" on a birth certificate, and even if confused, the doctor can always perform a genetic test to see whether the X or Y chromosome is dominant. Such gender determinations once were simple. And accurate. And almost always observable. But not anymore. Now we are told that science has little to do with reality. What do geneticists know about gender identity? Who put them in charge? Or parents, for that matter? Doesn't that kind of decision-making authority belong more properly in the women's study department or queer study department at your local university? Or, better yet, with politicians? Who knows what's best for us better than academicians and elected officials? And so we are told that each person should be free to self-identify and use whatever bathroom corresponds to their preferred identity, while the rest of us are admonished to memorize the new lexicon of personal pronouns that befit an inclusive and properly-educated society. Moreover, we're told that physicists should not use scientific terms such as black holes, college students should never have a theme party that appropriates someone else's cultural tradition, kids should never wear halloween costumes, and bakery owners should bake whatever wedding cake a customer demands, whether they want to or not, Yes, folks, people actually get tired of supercilious crap like that. And they vote.
They're tired of factory shutdowns, out-of-wedlock babies, unemployment, poverty, crime, cronyism, wasted taxpayer dollars, ignorant college students, and the crucifixion of common sense. Those problems got worse under eight years of the Obama administration, not better. Obama proved that he never knew how to fix anything. And Hillary proved that she would only make things worse. It's not good when your legacy is "anyone but you."
Want to know why the chant "lock her up" was so popular at Trump rallies during the campaign? Because people are tired. They're tired of all the BS. They're tired of liars that lie. They're tired of hypocrisy. Of gaming the system. Of cheating. And they're tired of watching their elected leaders double-down on stupid. It went on for one election cycle too many. Hence Donald Trump ... and the distant voice of the prophet Amos:
Thus says the Lord: For three transgression of Judah, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they have rejected the law of the Lord, and have not kept his statutes, but they have been led astray by the same lies after which their ancestors walked. So I will send fire on Judah, and it shall devour the strongholds of Jerusalem. (Amos 2:4-5, RSV)
Whether you're religious or not, you gotta' like the prescience of Amos. No one confuses Trump for a biblical prophet. But people do want justice. Just not the modern-day snowflake social justice warrior variety. They want the same kind of justice they expect for themselves. And for others. The common-sense kind that requires a blindfold over Lady Justice's eyes.
Trump inspired America to feel alive again. Daring. Hopeful. Ambitious. Determined. The country needed a strong dose of adrenaline. He offered it. And America took it. So did I. In the process, we took Trump to the White House, and we expect him to take Obama and Clinton to the woodshed, if only figuratively. Enough is enough. Most folks aren't eyeing the past. They just want the present to make sense.
I believe Trump will pull it off. After all, he's a major league 'bidness man who has sat across the table with a lot of smart people worldwide. He knows what makes sense. And he knows how to get stuff done.
Into the ash bin of history go Obama and Hillary. Their deeds will follow them. They simply didn't understand how reality works. Or how tired we are of surrealism.
What is being called "Pizzagate" began with John Podesta emails that recently were released by Wikileaks. I don't know what to make of the allegations of organized pedophelia rings and their link to occult ritual worship among society's elite, other than to say that, if true, it would involve a depravity of heart and mind that deserves the harshest penalties allowed by law. Since I'm not doing any original research, I simply try to follow the details from whichever sources provide links for independent research.
Anyway, if you want to explore it further, here's a good starting point:
For an international perspective on the topic, there's this article, which provides numerous links to original data. More links are available in the comments section beneath the article.
When grief suddenly befalls us, denial and anger are the initial and most formidable emotions we experience. Unable to accept tragedy, we deny it. But unable to deny tragedy, we get angry. The ultimate goal of healing is to accept what has
happened without resentment. But to get there we must first
deal with turbulent feelings of anger and denial and find our way beyond them. It’s not an easy task. We don't want to face painful facts. Instead, we vacillate between dream states and waking states, anger and denial, caught in an anguishing battle of emotions. Many strong people are unable to work beyond anger. They remain resentful for years to come. It drips from their lips. Others surrender to the neurosis of denial, a pitiful way to live. Most people eventually work through it, beyond the next stages of bargaining and depression that eventually lead to acceptance. Emotional equilibrium is restored only when we accept the facts for what they are and make peace with them. Most readers are familiar with Elizabeth
Kubler-Ross’s five stages of grief. I won’t belabor the details.
Instead,
come with me back to the 1980s, when I was a young professor of philosophy at a
university in the south. One of my undergraduate courses was
introduction to logic. I often brought a newspaper editorial to class,
and I asked my students to help me analyze it. The goal was to help them
understand the difference between statements of fact and statements
of opinion. Statements of fact oftentimes are nothing more than cleverly disguised statements of opinion. The writer may not even be aware that he is shifting from fact to fiction. Verbs, adverbs and modifiers are the clue. Helping students recognize the shift is a satisfying experience. I enjoyed watching the scales fall off their eyes...then watching them smile like a butcher's dog.
In
those days, I didn't care to weigh in with my own opinion about a chosen
editorial other than for analytical purposes, or else to parse the logical
implications of a truth-claim. Liberal and conservative editorials were on the table, whether about politics or social issues, and it made no difference which.
Sometimes, with a particular editorial in hand, I divided the class into a "pro" and "con" side and required each side to defend their assigned perspective. The point of view they had to defend might conflict with their personal views, and perhaps wildly so. That didn't matter. The point of the exercise was for each side to research their assigned position and make the best case they could, based on "facts" and reasoning from those facts I served as moderator. It was always fun. I could jump in at any time and stoke the fire, as I often did, but equally for both sides, as needed.
Times
have changed. So have I. These days, I care little about weighing
in unless my personal opinion is included. I guess that happens with age. But the pedagogical approach is as useful
today as it was then.
Here's
an example of how I might analyze a piece of journalism in a classroom today.
My editorial at hand is an article entitled The demagogic genius of Donald J.
Trump, by Damon Linker, which I happened upon because of the title. The title itself is snappy.
Sounds like the author might be a full-throated Trump
supporter, except for the word demagogic, which catches my eye,
especially when coupled with genius. Still, the header works. I'm curious. Words have both denotative and connotative meaning. Here's how the logical math works for most readers. Demagogue = Hitler = bad. Genius = Einstein = good. Einstein had little in common with Hitler. Therefore, the descriptor demagogic genius sounds like an oxymoron...the earmark of an editorial that is perfect for classroom use.
In
an effort to simulate what I once did in the classroom, I have added editorial
comments after each segment of Damon Linker's article. My comments are in bold.
Anyway,
let's begin. Here's the opening paragraph of Mr. Linker’s article, along
with my comments and questions to the
class:
(In)
the two weeks since Donald Trump's shocking victory, the press has devoted a
substantial chunk of its coverage to enumerating the president-elect's many
faults. He's temperamentally unfit to
serve as president. He's ignorant of
policy. He's corrupt.
His early choices to serve in his administration are racist, anti-Semitic, extremist, unhinged.
And of course the whole thing is frightening, terrifying, horrifying.
This appears to be a straight-forward summary of how the press miss the boat by fabricating the visage of a horrible monster. They assign false, imaginary, and pejorative attributes to Trump that most Americans know to be untrue, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for him, but the fabricators (ie, the press) still don't get it, so they continue to fabricate. That's how the paragraph seems to read. The press bought into their own made-up monster stories. Too bad for them. Live and learn seems to be the lesson.
But, wait! When Mr. Linker refers to Trump's many faults, enumerated in the sentences that follow, is he describing the press's mistaken perspective of Trump or voicing his own belief about Trump? The answer matters. One can read the paragraph several ways. More probing is needed.
So on we go, forging into the meat of Mr. Linker's article. In the next paragraph, he writes:
The
ominous fact is that Trump is undeniably one of the greatest intuitive political geniuses in
history.
Hmm. That's an interesting twist and quite an astounding claim. In the first paragraph, we were talking about mistakes made by the press, or so it seemed. In the second paragraph, the author seems to stating his personal opinion. Let's investigate.
An ominous fact? To whom, Mr. Linker? The press? You? All of us? I'm starting to enjoy your writing, but the sense of it is confusing. Please clarify.
An ominous fact? What makes it factual? Facts are stubborn things. Give me some.
Then there's the word undeniable. Undeniable to whom? Are you still talking about the press and its fantasies? It doesn't seem you are.
And then there's your most creative phrase in the article. After referring to the claim as undeniable, you insist that Trump is one of the greatest intuitive political geniuses in history. That's a creative assembly of descriptors. I'm jealous of your wordsmith skills. But, seriously? Who are you comparing him to, and why? A genius? Seriously? Who believes this, other than you? And for what reasons? Birds seem like geniuses to lizards. But does that make birds hyper-intelligent? Maybe the only difference between them is that birds can fly. Might you feel insecure over having been caught with your pants down. Give us some facts. Trump claimed that he tapped into a movement. Does that mean most Americans are intuitive geniuses...among the greatest in political history...merely by virtue of recognizing Trump's siren call? Such as moi? That's doubtful. And you know as much. Most of us are just plain folks who understand plain facts.
I'm getting confused by the author's lack of facts and substantial evidence. This is beginning to sound a lot like journalistic hyperbole, a guy with a keyboard, some word skills, and an axe to grind. But, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Mr. Linker may be promoting me from vulgarian to genius. I'll read on to find out.
He continues:
This
doesn't mean that Trump had it all planned out ahead of time, like some
Machiavelli from Manhattan . On the contrary, I suspect he's as surprised as
anyone that the quixotic campaign he launched in June
of 2015 has delivered him to the front door of the White House. As I said, he's
an intuitive genius. Radicalizing certain recent
tendencies of the Republican Party and diverging
from it in others, Trump tried something new and itworked.
The most discontented voters in the party listened to his message and responded
to it, probably without realizing that this is what they wanted. In that sense, Trump conjured into existence the very
populist movement that has now catapulted him to the presidency. In the
process, he managed to rejigger the GOP electoral coalition and wrest control of the
party away from its leadership.
First, if Trump actually contemplated running for President before he announced it, does that make him a scheming Machiavellian? Consider that it might also make him normal. Most people know what they are about to do. Machiavallian scheming is not a prerequisite. Is there something you're not telling us, Mr. Linker?
Second, suspect is a weasel word. It means you are simply guessing but want to sound wise.
Third, you claim that Trump radicalized tendencies among Republicans. But hasn't it been shown that it was Democrats who paid good money for activists to create havoc and violence at Trump rallies? Do you recall the hired activists who shut down a Trump rally in Chicago and blocked traffic and incited fights at other rallies around the country? You might want to mention those facts. Bernie fans will nod in approval if you do.
Fourth, why might Trump have been surprised by his success? Can you cite the moment when his surprise was evident to you or any other reasonable observer? And what about it was quixotic? As in Don Quixote, tilting at windmills? Facts, please. At least a couple. And explain what you mean. I'm getting impatient. As I mentioned earlier, your writing style is lucid but your meaning is opaque. It makes me antsy. I'm getting frustrated.
Fifth, are you saying Trump's discontented voters didn't realize what they wanted? Or were not self-aware? Or were stupid? Please clarify. You claim they didn't realize what they wanted until they heard him speak? Does that mean they can't think for themselves until someone tells them what to think? Isn't that a silly conundrum? All these questions are making me dizzy. I need some answers. Anything. Throw me a bone.
Sixth, you go on to say that Trump conjured into existence a populist movement. Really? He claims that he tapped into a massive national sentiment. You say that he hypnotized the masses. To quote Jeb Bush in the primary debates, C'mon, man. Pick one side or the other, Mr. Linker. Are they naturally stupid, or did Trump mesmerize them into stupidity? Please choose one, or choose an alternative, and then explain.
Finally, isn't jiggering racist, and rejiggering even more racist? Have you no decency, Mr. Linker? Two can play this game. And, BTW, Trump's alleged rejiggering led to more votes from blacks, hispanics, independents and cross-over Democrats than occurred in either the 2008 or 2012 election, based on actual facts, so please explain the jiggering involved, other than suggesting that the jigs are white and non-white people who are stupid and subject to hypnosis. Perhaps you simply are referring to Hamilton cast members? Your referent is unclear.
I'd like to say that Mr. Linker is done, but he's not. Having built a head of steam, he heads straight for the brick wall:
The revolution was about policy — immigration, trade, and the economic and cultural decline of the white working class — but it was at least as much about attitude. Trump was (and continues to be) George Wallace with a Twitter account— a demagogue spewing venomous anger and disgust about the multiple "disasters" confronting the country directly to like-minded voters with no intermediary at all, circumventing the heads of his party, mainstream media outlets, and even the retinue of advisers who ran his campaign.
Trump's unorthodox actions, regularly ridiculed by pundits, revealed just how institutionally conservative the
gatekeepers are. They strive to uphold
norms, propriety, habits — and Trump shredded them
over and over again.
Ah, finally, we're introduced to the taxpaying white working class, 'cause at this point you knew it was coming. Those folks once were the darlings of Democrats, who demanded justice for the working man and woman. Not so much these days. Social Marxism now requires working-class whites to be thrown under the bus, along with any minorities who share their work ethic. Since Nov 8, we've been constantly reminded that nothing ruins a good election like those damn tax-paying working-class white people. You know the ones. They finished high school and went to work. Or went to college and got a job. The same folks that voted twice for Obama, or at least most of them did, though they now regret it. I guess that fact didn't fit the narrative of Linker's mythical genius.
Donald Trump is George Wallace with a twitter account? That's a clever phrase but too cute by half. What happened to the Hitler analogy? Too hackneyed? Is the mask now off, Mr. Linker?
He is a demagogue? Supporting evidence, please. He was as popular among voters as Obama in 2012, under the circumstances, a fact that cannot be parsed merely by throwing out the word demagogue. You can do better, and you know it.
He spews venomous anger? Please cite compelling evidence of venomous anger and spewing,
Trump's anger has arisen due to multiple "disasters?" Note to Mr. Linker. Putting a word in quotes does not make its meaning trivial.
Who are the intermediaries you reference? Do you mean yourself? Or the NY Times, WaPo, NBC, CNN or their corporate media cousins? Are you claiming they are our paradigms of propriety and the true custodians of public information? You say they uphold the norms, propriety, (and) habits that Trump shredded? In what sense are they institutionally conservative? Normative? Proper? I'm not familiar with those features of contemporary journalism.
BTW, who comprises the retinue of advisers that Trump ignored. Weren't son-in-law Jared Kushner and campaign strategist Steve Bannon central players in that retinue? What did they recommend that he ignored? Facts suggest just the opposite of what you claim.
Nice try, Mr. Linker, but sorry, you can't put lipstick on that pig.
I'll stop the fantasy analysis here. It becomes tiresome after a while. The rest of the article is but more of the same drivel.
You might read it f you need the practice. I'll
warn you in advance, though, you won't learn much in terms of fact.
But it may help sharpen your analytical skills.
In the final analysis, Mr. Linker proves to be a butt-kisser with a conflicted conscience. He attempts to discreetly signal his solidarity with his media colleagues. He knows they have been as presumptuous and willfully blind as he is. They have been myth-makers, in fact, though none will admit it. Mr. Linker wants to be the one to say so. Confession is good for the soul. I regard Linker's confession as a left-handed mea culpa. And I say this to his credit. He's almost beyond the denial stage. I'm rooting for him.
Grief is painful. Denial and anger are difficult emotions to maneuver on the
way to final acceptance. Mr. Linker has a ways to go. But he seems to be on the journey. He might consult Kubler-Ross on the various rites of passage. It's a road less traveled by journalists these days.
