Thursday, September 21, 2017

Post-Charlottesville: We Are on Our Own


We on the right owe something to the leftist mob that, with the assistance and connivance of the state and local authorities, assaulted the lawfully and peacefully assembled protestors in Charlottesville, Virginia last August 13th. Thanks to the Antifas, whatever fleeting illusions or fantasies we may have nurtured about living in a society where there are institutions to protect people who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy have evaporated. Charlottesville was a watershed 21st century moment revealing that the Sovietization of the U.S. (21st century style) is nearly complete.

Since the official interpretation of this Virginia riot seems to one of a resurgent fascism raising its ugly head, it may help to remember how the Soviets in their heyday used “fascism” to keep their fact-free storyline intact and tighten the party’s suffocating grip on the throat of even the puniest of opposition. During those days when the CPSU was calling all the shots on behalf of the Russian proletariat, they relied on an impregnable ideology that happened to explain just about everything that needed explaining. Facts, figures, the reality of empirical discovery and confirmation were secondary to the “reality” in the form of a creation myth fashioned by the CPSU philosophers. It was continuously embellished and promulgated to keep the vodka-besotted peons from beginning to realize that things in the promise land were not quite right and that the people in charge were an assortment of liars, psychopaths and criminals.

The myth in a nutshell was that Lenin, Stalin and their ensemble of good guys at just the right moment of history had taken power on behalf of oppressed toiling masses and were building the socialist workers paradise that Karl Marx had predicted eventually would be installed everywhere. On the way, these good guys encountered some very bad guys – Hitler, Mussolini, the faces of fascism and enemies of humanity – who temporarily disrupted the grand march of progress to abundance and equality. For a while the future did not look so good for Stalin’s utopian pretentions, but with the help of a naïve and enfeebled FDR and a cynical Churchill, the General Secretary got to watch Hitler, Mussolini and the fascist world they threatened to impose come crashing down and see himself emerge victoriously as the world’s greatest anti-fascist, pieces of Hitler’s chard skeleton retrieved by the Red Army from the Fuhrer bunker in Berlin as his most prized trophy. Historically, symbolically and politically, fascism was dead, but fascists of a certain sort could now be permanently featured as key performers in the governing ideology, enemies of progress ready to be summoned for duty when they were most needed. Fascism, as it turns out, had never been completely vanquished and whenever and wherever things went wrong, the reincarnated Hitlers and Mussolinis appeared on cue triggering, of course, the resurgence of anti-fascist brigades to stomp them down once again and modestly proclaim their own courage and heroism.
        
If the recent history of the Charlottesville debacle and its frenzied media aftermath were somehow to be dubbed into Russian and tweaked a bit, the entire sorry episode could easily be imagined to have been staged somewhere in Brezhnev’s U.S.S.R. Charlottesville, home to the University of Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson who was, now brace yourself, a slave owner. His famous home, Monticello, is just outside the city. Soon expect him to be thrust into the cultural Marxists’ rouges gallery of once great Americans because his life did not meet the moral standards set by the likes of Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters. Only in a society completely slipped off its moorings and ruled by a mafia-style clique of pretend champions of the oppressed could cretins like Sharpton and the mobs he leads into the streets be seriously attended to by the mainstream media and courted by the power brokers.

Jefferson’s UVA is now a festering academic cesspool of cultural Marxism, about as a hospitable a venue for right-wing protestors as Berkeley, Madison or Ann Arbor. Just thinking the wrong thoughts in places like this can get you assaulted. These “Unite the Right” (UtR) rubes were the perfect patsies in this pathetic “morality” drama. They were set up to be the chief (the only) villains by the power players ranging from Virginia Governor Terry “Mr. Clintonista” McAuliffe, Charlottesville Mayor, Michael Signer, an understudy of Hillary Clinton-handler, John Podesta, and their police stooges who perp-walked the hapless UtR protestors into the teeth of the masked, club-wielding Antifas, who, incidentally, unlike the patsies, had no permit to assemble. The rioting ensued, people were beaten up and a woman was killed by a troglodyte rampaging in his car.

How then did those who run the opinion-shaping, attitude-adjusting organs of mass media, the major instruments of mediation and interpretation of events like this, explain to the American people what had happened? Predictably, they seemed to have had no inclination to look carefully at the facts and circumstances and raise questions that might have led to more than the usual predicable fascist, racist smear of people who don’t necessarily believe that white racism pulsates from every crevice of American life and justifies the recreational burning down of the cities. This rampant racism, apparently, not only infects people and institutions but stone and marble as well, and the professional grievance mongers and the rabble they arouse are now assaulting the statues and monuments they reckon to be contaminated.

President Trump provoked hysteria from the “virtue professionals” posing as journalists when he refused to parrot the lines from the Pravda-like scripts of the New York Times, Washington Post and the cable news networks rejecting their standard “fascists-evil/anti-fascists-good” trope dating back to the early days of Stalin’s masterful political dramaturgy. His Soviet Union was always locked in mortal combat with fascists of some sort, but who they were depended on whom he had it in for at the particular moment. In the run up to Hitler’s chancellorship they were “Social Fascists” the German Social Democrats who, by playing by the rules of constitutional politics, were obstructing the path to world revolution. When Hitler finished strangling the Weimar Republic, Stalin switched to the Popular Front and the Social Fascists became needed democrat allies in opposition in the face of German rearmament. The British were fascists until the summer of 1941 when Hitler, then Stalin’s partner in the rape of Poland and the Baltic states, double crossed him and launched Barbarossa, after which they became his allies.  How one becomes a fascist, you might say, is situationally dependent on the left’s current priorities.

The fury over Trump’s rejection of the Pravda script and his refusal to sanctify the criminality of masked, armed thugs simply because they were self-proclaimed “anti-fascists” became part of a greater on-going setup, a stepping up of the relentless efforts of the left to de-legitimate his election. Don’t forget: during the 2016 Presidential campaign Trump himself was routinely denounced by columnists in the major outlets, as well as Democrats and Republicans, as a fascist. Post-election, the “resistance” was born; the “fascist” motif never for a moment abates. Trump’s supporters, recall, were consigned by Hillary Clinton late in the campaign to the moral trash heap as “irredeemables” because they were “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.” Well, yes, you can probably go on with the naming game for a long time – there is always a new victim group to be identified and cultivated with its own unique “-ism” or “-phobia”, one more target of “hate” – but “fascist” probably captures the generic essence of bigotry that can be manifested in so many recondite forms.  

Charlottesville became the perfect storm and fueled the left’s continuing paranoid fantasy of an impending fascist America. Ignored is the fact that Klansmen, neo-Nazis and neo-Fascists supposedly on the verge of taking over are such a fringe element in American society so far removed from any sources of power and influence that without the left to constantly raise them to the status of a threatening political force they would probably disappear altogether. But the Southern Poverty Leadership Conference needs them to sustain their fund raising and luxury Birmingham, Alabama digs, and the broader left needs them with all of their crude imagery to smear the right and as a fulcrum for their hysterical moral posturing.

The Democrats always burst orgasmic anytime a real live Klansman or neo-Nazi sallies out from the shadows and gets some attention which means they can pretend that hooded lynch mobs are lurking on every corner and that every conservative is Bull Connor or George Lincoln Rockwell. Not to be outdone, the Republican traveling carnival of gelded hacks – Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsay Graham and, of course, Mitt Romney – did not hesitate to join the chorus of Democrat trained seals sounding like they had just emerged from a “white privilege” indoctrination session led by Barack Obama. Marco Rubio, the classic empty suit, with no intention of the irony tweeted: “When an entire movement built on anger & hatred towards people different than you, it justifies & ultimately leads to violence against them.” Little Marco, apparently, is unable to grasp meaning of psychological projection.

It is tempting to say that it could be worse, that with a shift in a few tens of thousands of votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin last November Hillary Clinton would be staggering around the White House plotting her revenge on the “basket of deplorables,” another “wise Latina” or a Black Lives Matter savant would be on the Supreme Court, and “hate speech” legislation would be wending its way through Congress. This is not much comfort, however. Trump, whatever his intentions may have been, will never “drain the swamp” and his Presidency is no serious threat to the cultural Marxist hegemon. It is a temporary bump in the road that will probably end very badly before the next scheduled election.  

There is no part of the establishment – the political parties and the Federal behemoth, the courts, the MSM and the entertainment industry, public schools and the universities – that has not embraced the mindless orthodoxy that equates any and all resistance to the cultural Marxists’ program of white guilt indoctrination, with its de rigueur confessional and self-flagellating rituals, as a form of fascism that must be extirpated. There seems to remain no serious institutional, political or legal obstacles to the escalating predations of the left’s shock troops, Black Lives Matter and the Antifas who, like Mao’s Red Guard of the 1960s and 70s are mounting a cultural revolution and marauding with a destructive fury that promises a complete ruination of what is left of traditional America. An avalanche of slander, lies and abuse is raining down from all corners, and a mailed fist in full force is falling on the resistance to it; we are on our own.






Wednesday, September 6, 2017

Words, Weapons and Rituals of the Left, and a Nod to J. L. Austin


 Image result for how to do things with words

 Anyone today who attempts to understand what is happening in the West (America, Europe) – the collapse into a cloaca that is the solipsistic Face Book pop culture, the avalanche of nihilism, the ciphers and the soft-totalitarian apparats, now seemingly unimpeded, closing their long, velvet-covered fingers around our necks – might wonder how a resurrected George Orwell would reflect on the rampant corruption that has greased the slide into this sewer.  

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

Well, yes. This is, indeed, “our age,” politicized right down to the dictated pronoun assignation of transgendered whatever they fantasize they are and their restroom privileges, and you find yourself chocking on the daily output of the “mass of lies” from the sneering, self-infatuated pygmies resting on their glorified perches in the government, journalism, the entertainment industry, the NGOs and tenured professorships. Not to forget the social justice warrior CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg or the vapid, preening Hollywood celebrities who never tire of massaging their bloated egos and publically wallowing in their invincible ignorance.  

The aftermath of the recent leftist-inspired mob violence in Charlottesville with the Pravda-like organs of the mass media in high dudgeon has given us a clear and terrifying vision of the cultural Marxist monopolized control and manipulation of language that is used to shape the public perception of social conflict.

To get a better sense of what the left is all about with the relentless labeling of any and all opposition as fascist, racist, proponents of hatred, etc., and in the spirit of Orwell to try to understand how language in the service of ideology has become so corrupted, it might be helpful to consider the notion of “performative utterances” (hereafter, performatives) as developed by J. L. Austin, a British language philosopher from the last century.

From: How to Do Things with Words, ed. J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisá. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.

[Defining the Performative]
Utterances can be found… such that:
·      They do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are  not ‘true or false,’ and
·      The uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just,’ saying something.

Performatives, as Austin explains, are not, logically speaking, propositions, that is, assertions that can be shown to be true or false. They do not attempt to describe the world or to affirm or deny some aspect of reality. They are “utterances,” actions that change the social world. Austin gives a number of examples, but let me offer a couple to demonstrate the point.

A minister or priest performs a marriage ceremony and at the conclusion utters, “I pronounce you man and wife.” A judge at the conclusion of a trial says to the defendant, “I sentence you to ten years at hard labor.” Neither the minister nor the judge with these sentences describe the world; their utterances are socially sanctioned actions that change it. Now married, the couple has a different social status. The man and woman are viewed and treated differently, view themselves differently and have different roles, expectations and obligations than they had before the performative was made. Likewise, the accused now becomes a convicted criminal who is viewed and treated differently after the judge’s performative.

How then does this notion of performatives apply to the current efforts of the cultural Marxists to control and manipulate public perceptions of politics and morals? The left engages in a profound dissimulation that disguises what are actually performatives as demonstrable true propositions or assertions about reality. While they pretend to be describing someone or something, what they are really about is acting in a way that demoralizes and ultimately de-legitimates the status of those who may compete with them for power or resist their incursions into their lives. As employed by the left, these performatives do not inform; they deform people who refuse to conform. They are weapons the left uses to destroy those whom they always perceive as morally inferior beings, their enemies. Think of Hillary Clinton’s horrific “basket of deplorables” slur during the last Presidential campaign.

How, specifically, do these weaponized performatives work for the left? Let’s begin with oldest, the most reliable and the most predictable: “You are a fascist.” The speaker in making what appears grammatically to be an assertion depicting some feature of reality is really acting out in a well-established social ritual that seeks to alter social reality in two mutually reinforcing ways. First, it elevates the speaker’s social status as a morally superior and courageous person who recognizes evil and stands far above and against it. The speaker becomes immaculate. Second, the moral polarity comes into play and the “authority” of the accuser is established. Very good people must be opposed by very bad people, and what catch-all word seems to work best to capture all those malignancies associated with the villains who occupy the imaginations of the folks who write the opinion columns in the New York Times and who blabber on CNN and MSNBC– bigotry, intolerance, sexism, racism, etc.? “Fascist” works very nicely. There is, of course, no room for Fascists anywhere in “our democracy,” as they like to say (“our democracy” being their euphemism for “our invitation-only clubhouse”). Such an individual is morally contaminated, “irredeemable,” “not part of America” in Hillary Clinton’s parlance, someone beyond the pale, whose ideas and beliefs must be extinguished.

“Fascist” is one of the most important words in the lexicon of the left, wrenched from its historical, political moorings, so vague and protean that it is descriptively useless. Bearing only vague, emotional associations, it has been stripped of its referents, and thus serves as an all-purpose, expandable-contractible label for prospective targets who may pose as obstacles or irritants.
  
Once upon a time there were real flesh and blood fascists, people who were recognized as such because they actually called themselves “fascists,” dressed up in black shirts, took power for a time and talked about how great fascism was as compared to the decadent bourgeoisie. As we know, things turned out badly for them, and Benito Mussolini, the man who brought fascism to the world ended up as a battered corpse hanging upside down from a steel girder above a gas station in Milan next to his mistress, Claretta Petacci in 1945.

That marked the grisly end of fascism as embraced and practiced by people whom everyone, including themselves, recognized as fascists; as an ideology and a movement that attracted a mass following it was kaput, an attraction that has lingered on for a few out on the fringe.

It was Joseph Stalin who recognized the mobilizing power of the word, “fascist” and fashioned an abstract, malleable “fascist,” introducing a being, unlike Mussolini, immortal and ubiquitous (Leon Trotsky was “baptized” by Stalin as one). Fascists who populate the Stalinist universe can only be contained by their antipodes, thus, “anti-fascist,” a word which endows one thus designated with a heroic, moral invincibility. The anarchists during the Spanish civil war who raped and murdered nuns and burned down churches were anti-fascists and thus remain vanquished heroes who fought a losing battle for “democracy.” The antifas who attacked and beat up people recently at Charlottesville and other rallies are lauded predictably by Nicholas Scylla Kristof and Mitt Charybdis Romney as opponents of bigotry and hatred. Stalin’s “fascist” was the gift to the left that keeps on giving and every generation of leftists since his demise has happily and eagerly attached it to whomever displeases them, most recently Donald Trump and his supporters.     

The “You are a fascist” performative is the paradigm for the cultural Marxists’ engagement with all dissent and opposition. It moralizes the speaker, enveloping him with goodness and virtue. As well it immunizes him from (moral) criticism and (legal) accountability and at the same time demoralizes the accused making him into an enemy who represents an existential threat to their fictional “our democracy.” “Politics” for the left is shorthand for conniving at the destruction of the opposition, politically, always, physically, if possible.  

“Racism” works in tandem with “fascism.” “You are a racist” is a weaponized performative camouflaged as a descriptive, yet another one of the expulsion rituals that render the accused “untouchable” while confirming the impeccable moral credentials of the speaker. Like “fascist,” “racist” has migrated from being a word that once perhaps referred to real and distinguishable features of someone to a slippery, nebulous abstraction that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. This is why racism which has risen to the heights of a raging moral plague has of necessity been metastasizing into various strains such as, “covert racism,” “legacy racism,” “economic racism,” “environmental racism,” “systemic racism,” “institutional racism.” There no relief, no escape from it; with this the left is refereeing a game of whack-a-mole that never ends.  

No one today accused of racism can prove the accusation to be false. This means that the accuser cannot be held accountable, and because of this, as long as the threat of being accused of racism is widely and commonly resisted and feared, the left will use it with increasing recklessness and indifference to whatever damage it does. It has worked to perfection for them; whenever the threat goes down, the white flag always goes up. So, it is a near certain prediction that the racism that plagues the West will continue to mount toward epidemic proportions.  

What Austin’s performative utterances may help us to understand is that for the left politics in all of its manifestations is war with no Geneva Convention-style restrains, with unconditional surrender as its end game. For them there is no compromise, no loyal opposition, no notion of fair play or rules of a civil society that limit what the players should do. We are the enemy. We forget it at our peril.

Friday, August 11, 2017

The Detroit Riots of 1967 and its Meaning on the Fiftieth Anniversary

Image result
 
Detroit — “Half of the eight mayoral hopefuls on Detroit’s primary ballot next week have been convicted of felony crimes involving drugs, assault or weapons, a Detroit News analysis shows. Three were charged with gun crimes and two for assault with intent to commit murder. Some of the offenses date back decades, the earliest to 1977. The most recent was in 2008.” Detroit News, August, 4, 2017

As the SNL Church Lady would say, “Well, isn’t that special.” Then again for Detroit, where the typical lead story for the local evening news show is a gristly homicide or two du jour, this Detroit News piece is just another “dog bites man” story that should hardly raise a concern. “What,” you say, “the next mayor might be a convicted felon?” Who cares? … is the correct answer. Not much is left in Detroit to steal, and what difference at this point does the mayor, crooked or otherwise, make with the prolonged unfolding of this nightmare of a place that long ago stopped being a city in any normal sense? Besides, you have to “accentuate the positive,” as the old tune goes; to find four political aspirants in Detroit who are not convicted criminals, I suppose, is a victory of sorts. 

It’s not as if a felon in the Detroit mayor’s office isn’t without precedent, quite a recent one, in fact. His Honor, Kwame Malik Kilpatrick, (pictured above) who plundered his home town from 2002 to 2008, resigned as mayor in 2008. This big lovable lunk was convicted on felony counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice. Sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty, he was released on probation after serving 99 days. In May 2010, he was sentenced to 18 months to 5 years in state prison for violating his probation and sent back.  

Leave it to a hack political consultant and and NAACP activist, aka race careerist, to attempt to decorate this pig with lipstick. Greg Bowens, a former press secretary to Dennis Archer, an inconsequential Detroit Mayor of yesteryear, “said there are candidates with past hardships in every election cycle. It’s not something unique to Detroit or the political arena in general, he said. ‘Black marks on your record show you have lived a little and have overcome some challenges,’” said Bowens. (my italics)

With “black marks” our consultant may have committed a serious micro-aggression, but for obvious reasons, he gets a pass. But wait a second; are these black marks really supposed to mean that “you have lived a little”? Yes. We are operating in an alternative PC universe, and so we have, it seems, a new, improved definition of “convicted felon.”  “Overcoming some challenges” is a very nice touch as well. It sounds infinitely better than “a long rap sheet.” While you might be tempted to think that by “past hardships” Mr. Bowen should be referring to the harm suffered by the victims of our four candidate-felons, don’t forget, this is Detroit where everyone is celebrated as a victim of some sort.  

Let’s take a look at one of the mayoral aspirants because, well, it’s good to know what counts as “living a little” for an up and coming Detroiter and possible next Mayor. 

Again, from the Detroit News. “First-time contender Donna Marie Pitts, 58, has multiple felony convictions dating back to 1977, according to court records in Wayne and Oakland counties….   In 1977, Pitts was convicted of receiving and concealing a stolen 1977 Oldsmobile. She was sentenced to a year of probation. A decade later, she was charged with two counts of assault with intent to murder and two firearm offenses in connection with two separate shooting incidents on March 24, 1987, Detroit Recorder’s Court records say.” (italics added) The list of the “challenges” Ms. Pitts has somehow managed to “overcome” goes on a bit longer, but I think this is enough for you to get the picture. 

“Intent to murder.” Now this certainly gives generous scope in a unique Detroit sort of way for understanding how far “living at little” can take you, if you are so inclined – trying to make a certain someone you don’t like into a certain non-someone, that is, someone who is “not living, period.” “Murder” is, perhaps, too strong a word. Once again, we are flirting with micro-aggressions. Somewhere around the year 1950, Detroit had a peak population of approximately two million people. It now tops out at around 700,000, its diminution, perhaps, due in part to the flight of a lot of folks hoping to avoid the intentions of the “live a little” sorts like Ms. Pitts in between their bouts of auto theft and armed robbery.

How did we arrive here? How is it that career criminals are allowed to compete for public office and have their predations insanely glossed over by an assigned spokesperson as some sort of a valuable “learning experience?” More importantly, how is it that in the course of about sixty-five or seventy years one of the great American cities is now a  squalid, crumbling shell of its former self, a shrunken slum run by sleazy kleptocrats, sucking its basic resources for survival from the Feds and those Michigan tax payers fortunate enough not to live there? Much of the rest of the state would be happy to deed this mess over to Canada and move it across the river. Without Detroit, Michigan’s crime statistics would resemble those of Sweden, pre-Islamic invasion. But, of course, the Canadians wouldn’t dream of it.

One explanation is the 1967 riots, a defining moment presaging the coming collapse. I observed the lawless chaos first hand in downtown Detroit fifty years ago last month, one of my most indelible early adult memories. On a lovely, sunny July afternoon I was with three college friends in a car in downtown Detroit, Livernois avenue. We were coming back from a baseball game at Tiger Stadium, a doubleheader with the Yankees.

Heading into the downtown, we had no clue about what had been happening there for the last twelve or fourteen hours. We were just passing through. At first, everything seemed normal for downtown in the Motor City. However, strange things then began to happen. For no apparent reason, traffic came to a halt. We were sitting at a light that kept changing from green to red, then back to green. No movement. My friend driving the car was the first to notice, and initial disbelief at what we were seeing gave way to horror; cars on fire; the sidewalks with mobs in motion, not single individuals. A Detroit cop standing in the street helplessly watched scores of people streaming out of shops and stores (they were closed; it was Sunday) with their windows broken out, loaded down with TVs, liquor bottles, clothing and other loot. The looks on the faces of the looters were unforgettable – happy people no longer bound by silly laws; they were “helping themselves” to free stuff, enjoying the Sunday romp. This was a good thing for us, I guess, since they left us alone in the car.

It, of course, turned out to be something other than a romp. That day in Detroit began one of the worse riots in American history. Detroit police and the Michigan State Police were unable to contain the mobs who were looting stores, torching buildings and in some cases sniping at fire fighters. Governor George Romney pleaded with Lyndon Johnson for federal assistance. As we finally drove out of the city after hours of congested traffic, we witnessed on the incoming roads the Michigan National Guard ordered by Governor Romney, bumper-to-bumper in their military transports. Shortly later, the 82nd and 102st Airborn Divisions arrived, courtesy of LBJ. Five days later the riot officially ended with 43 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 2,000 buildings destroyed. Only the 1863 New York City draft riots during the American Civil War and the 1992 Los Angles riots were greater.

This was the beginning of the end for Detroit as a great city. A lot of the stores and businesses that were destroyed in the riots belonged to Jews and other non-black ethnic people. They were not rebuilt in Detroit. The owners moved away. In 1974 Coleman Young was elected mayor reigning for the next twenty years, Detroit’s first black mayor. Young didn’t bother to hide his animus toward white people, and most of the city’s remaining whites moved out beyond Eight Mile Road, the boundary that separated an almost completely black and increasingly poor and violent Detroit from the white Detroit suburbs. 

Young functioned for Detroit as a Robert Mugabe prototype, a crypto-communist lusting for racial revenge. Put in charge of a rich and vast social-cultural-political asset that took hundreds of years to create, he managed in just twenty years to turn it into a crime-ridden, third-world hell hole that became a world-wide symbol of political corruption, urban blight and destitution. (See: “Take him to Detroit”) The productive, tax paying, property-maintaining Detroiters left, in moved the drug-dealing gangs who laid waste to the neighborhoods – robbery, assault, arson and murder part of the daily routines. Vast tracts of the city became uninhabitable, and ultimately uninhabited, blocks and blocks of abandoned homes. Young infected the dwindling residents with his poisonous racial resentment rendering them indifferent to his accountability for the rampant waste and corruption that engulfed the city, content to play the role of victim, blaming white, racist America for the city’s poverty and misery.   

Detroit became a massively subsidized, highly dysfunctional urban jungle from which most anyone who could would escape. A collapse of such epic and tragic proportions, of course, requires at least some explanation. The one too hard to resist? White racism. Over the last fifty years this explanation has moved from the status of a hypothesis that could be examined, questioned, tested and modified into a rigid, official orthodoxy that defines what race in America is all about. As with all orthodoxies held in place and enforced by the central organs of power, punishment falls inexorably and severely on the doubters and non-conformists. To raise the slightest doubt that any and every manifestation of racial inequality or differential in status is not the result of racism is itself a racist gesture, and being labeled a “racist” in contemporary America does not help one succeed in those basics like employment, education and social recognition.

With this explanation firmly embraced fifty years ago, prodigious amounts of attention, energy and resources were applied for remediation. Whites needed to step up, attone, and make things right. By reducing racism and providing more opportunity for black Americans, Detroit and other urban centers would become better places. Fifty years later, a fair question would seem to be: How did it all work out?

Prior to the Bolshevik revolution, its architect, Vladimir Lenin, supposedly had said, “the worse the better,” meaning, the more wretched the social conditions, the better the chances for a successful revolution. The identity politics of the cultural Marxist left turned this Leninism on its head; “the better, the worse.” By almost all objective measures, the barriers of racial prejudice and discrimination have significantly fallen over the last decades. Jim Crow and its vestiges of racial segregation are long gone. Fifty years ago the equalizing of black and white America became “mission central” with the legislatures, federal, state and local, creating and the courts enforcing anti-discrimination laws in the areas of housing, employment, government contracting and education. Massive federal aid came to the heavily black-populated cities. Affirmative Action and EEOC, came into being with strict compliance requirements for universities and employers to make room for members of “underrepresented” groups. Schools and universities across the south desegregated in a rapid dismantling of the “separate but equal” legacy of Plessy v Ferguson. Schools and universities across the country focused their pedagogy on the evils of racism, the history of slavery and segregation and the moral imperative of equality. Blacks moved into prominent positions in every region of American culture and life, including the American presidency, Secretary of State and Attorney General. Utterance of the “n-word” for whites became a career-killer.

With all of this in the rear view mirror, Ferguson, Missouri and Baltimore, like Detroit a half a century earlier, were burned down by their black residents, the rioting blamed on the excesses of white, racist policemen. The goal of ending racism in spite of all of the legal and political forces moving toward it, the cultural support of the media and the entertainment industry, and the educational-academic establishment firmly in place, turned out to be a colossal fool’s errand. Cities across America – St. Louis, Newark, Birmingham, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore – are now Detroit-like with high levels of criminality, poverty, illiteracy, and corruption. Black rates of incarceration are staggering. Racial tensions and resentment are rising daily.

The orthodoxy, however, remains impregnable. White racism is now, supposedly, even more insidious, pervasive and ineradicable than ever before imagined. “Racism has become much too generic to be useful in explaining racial disparities, and it must be uncovered and exposed in its innumerable recondite forms such as “systemic racism,” “institutional racism”, “covert racism,” “economic racism,” “environmental racism,” etc. To combat racism in 21st-century America is like being drawn into a frustrating, never ending game of “whack-a-mole.” Beat down one and a different one pops up elsewhere. In effect, racism is ubiquitous, as President Obama told an interlocutor, it is in our DNA, a long time before it will be “cured.” This, of course, is vintage Obama on race. There is no “cure.” Racism and white responsibility for it are forever in the future – time to stop resisting “white privilege” education and get with the program.

In the 2016 Presidential election, racism was central message of the campaign, specifically Trump’s racism. Perhaps the most memorable moment of the contest was Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” denunciation of Trump supporters as “racists,” people in her words, “irredeemable …. not part of America.” Would any thoughtful person, even the most pessimistic, reflecting on the future of American race relations in late 1967 have imagined that a half a century later, a Presidential candidate of a major party would be routinely characterized by the entire main stream media and the opposition party as another Hitler, a 21st-century, pogrom-planning fascist, broadly supported by voters (62 million people) motivated entirely by racial prejudice and hatred?

Over the last fifty years “racism” has been transformed into the left’s most potent and versatile political weapon, and in no conceivable way will they ever relinquish it. Why would they? As an instrument of moral blackmail it always works to their advantage. No one can or ever will be able to prove he is not a “racist.” In fact, denial merely reinforces confirmation. Just the threat of the accusation brings surrender. “I am not a racist. How can I show you?” Surrender it has been, and how has it worked for the betterment of black Americans? Look at Detroit and Donna Marie Pitts. There is your answer.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Against Anti-Racism and the Hemeneutics of Hatred


Fighting racism requires knowing what it is – not an easy task….  [R]acism is a Schimfort: a term with pejorative connotations, whose very use inevitably tends to be more instrumental than descriptive. To call someone a racist, even if the charge is intellectually dishonest, can be a useful tactic, either in successfully paralyzing or in casting enough suspicion as to curtail credibility.  
                                            Alain de Benoist, “What is Racism?”

A proposal: to make the charge of “racism” an automatic criminal offense if made by a private citizen, an impeachable act with the loss of government pension if made by a public official.  Punishment falls on the accuser unless the charge could be substantiated and confirmed by empirically verifiable evidence based on a single, legally promulgated definition of “racism” with clear, operational terms. What about free speech, you counter? Well, what about it?  Free speech has done a disappearing act in Canada where the Canadian Senate recently passed Bill C-16 which puts yet another hate crime on the books, this one making it a hate crime, are you ready? -- to refer to a transgendered person who has become a “he” as a “she” and vice versa. “Transphobia” is born joining its morally defective cousins, homophobia and Islamophobia, phobias that will put the possessor in the cross hairs of the local prosecutor.  Also, free speech in western Europe has given way to government regulated speech where any criticism of a member of a designated protected class is prosecutable, again, as hate speech. Here in the U.S.? Try going to any university and college campus and see how far free speech takes you before some social justice warrior throws a plastic bag of feces at you because you are deemed a “hateful” person, or some self-designated “anti-fascist” starts punching you because disagreeing with him makes you a fascist.

Essentially, the governments in the western world have clearly shifted away from the long-held high priority of liberal, democratic polities for freedom of expression to the suppression of “hatred” selectively and arbitrarily interpreted and enforced by high placed ideologues who get to determine whose hatred gets punished and whose is justified. This turns the business of legislating, of making readily understandable rules that everyone is expected to follow, into a contorted hermeneutics of hatred where the subjectivity of moralizing displaces the objectivity of law and the intended universality of its application. The ideologues who operate the abstruse moral machinery that is designed to suppress hatred have theorized individuals into distinct groups, the oppressed and the oppressors, the later who exploit and, of course, hate the former. The social world the ideologues envision is a deeply morally fractured one populated by helpless, blameless victims who need protection from the malevolent, menacing bigots who fail to recognize the humanity of those they oppress. The moral and legal order of such a world then must be structured to protect the oppressed and punish the oppressors, and so the moral and legal standards and expectations necessarily differ depending on whether you are an oppressor or one of the oppressed.  The mad scramble then commences. You join, if you can, the community of the oppressed, articulate your grievances, agitate for revenge, and demand the assistance and protection of the state.  Failing that, retreat, submit, be quiet and hope the political police will leave you in peace.  Whatever one might wish to call this kind of social-political order, a “democracy” is not what firsts jumps to mind.

But a swift and resolute implementation of the above proposal would have many immediate and enormously salubrious effects. Below are just a few. To begin with, it would liberate public discourse from the fetters imposed by the preening moralists and scolds in so many places who wait to pounce on any and every deviation from the script of political correctness.  Some of the scolds are even highly paid to do so. In the workplace, at cocktail parties, in schools, churches, labor unions, political assemblies, and, even as unimaginable as it might now seem, university classrooms, people could speak their minds, express their concerns without the threatening, censorious race commissars launching protests and coercing apologies, Chinese Cultural Revolution style.  Fewer lobotomized college students would be assaulting campus speakers who might hurt their feelings. No more time wasted on deciphering “racist dog whistles.” No longer would we have to endure the hypocritical, disingenuous calls from the likes of Barack Obama, fresh from consorting with a scurrilous race-hustler like Al Sharpton, for a “national conversation about race” because it would actually be possible to have real one, or rather, many, without a threat to your career, reputation, even your physical safety.

The enacted proposal would reduce the current mass hysteria most recently manifest with the election of Donald Trump, christened during his campaign by Hillary Clinton and the MSM as an “unredeemable” racist along with the sixty-two million people that voted for him. There would be fewer reincarnated Hilters and Mussolinis, Bull Connors and George Wallaces to fear, agonize over and scare small children.  The Ku Klux Klan would be the laughable fringe-guys in pointy hats numbering of a couple of thousand nationwide, not, once again, all the Trump voters from Hillary’s “basket of deplorables.”  It would be less likely that another disillusioned Democrat like James Hodgkinson would take target practice at Republican congressmen.  The Southern Poverty Law Center, unable to smear any conservative individual or organization it took a fancy to, would have to close up shop.

This proposal enacted would also mute the multitudes of charlatans and extortionists who populate the “diversity” industry.  Unable to affix “racist” to every conceivable thought, gesture, word, and institution that strikes their fancy, the vast “victim” community under their care, one which they now relentlessly endeavor to expand, would begin to shrink.  The elaborate taxonomy of racism, now in a growth mode – “overt racism,” “covert racism,” economic “racism,” “systemic racism,” “institutional racism,” “environmental racism,” “legacy racism,” and many more – would be duly recognized as mysterious and incomprehensible mumbo jumbo and thus sink happily into oblivion, a subject matter for anthropologists sometime in the far future to ponder as a practice of post-modern superstition or witchcraft.  With many fewer individuals and institutions certified as “racist,” there would be a substantial decline in micro-aggressions which, like a reduction in crime, would make everyone happy. Especially pleased would be university presidents who could relax a bit and not worry about whether they must grovel and apologize every time they hear of one on campus and whether they will be fired for being too lenient on the micro-aggressors.
 
Many “professors” of English and sundry area studies programs would have to seek actual, useful employment. There would be little demand for professors of Post-Colonial Studies, even less for literature courses that are all about the racism in Shakespeare, Milton and Faulkner and every other dead white male in the literary canon. African American studies programs would wither since they are premised on discovery of “racism” as the core of the American experience.

Calling or labelling a person now a “racist” is an excellent way to do accomplish several things that enhance your self-esteem and elevate your status as a superior person.  Firsts, it shows how deeply you care about the disadvantaged, the magnanimous dimensions of your personality and your sensitivity to the suffering of others. As well it immediately separates you from that “racist” you have identified, who, of course, is your complete opposite. Thus the contrast dramatically demonstrates your vast moral superiority and justifies your self-righteous disdain.  It also bolsters your standing among friends and colleagues as a truth-to-power speaker even if that “racist’ you have called out is an unemployed mechanic from down the street whose house is in foreclosure. Best of all, you don’t have to do anything else to bolster your virtue credentials, like send your child to that rundown inner city school full of, well, you get the picture.  Sometimes it is even fun, especially when that “racist” gets really angry and flustered after you have outed him and you get to relish his discomfort as he stumbles through all of those futile protests to convince you otherwise.
 
However, this proposal if enacted would constitute a bold step toward making people more accountable and responsible for the language they use to assert their superior virtue, and it would impose a cost to what is now, cost-free moral preening.  Taking “racism” out of the compendium of popularly permissible slurs would mean that “racist,” as an accusation with all of its invidious comparisons would have to give way to an honest, “I don’t like you,” which is fine. No one is required to like anyone. But not liking someone only means just that, with no implications for your moral stature, no put-downs that testify to your own goodness. So, if you accuse someone of an offense that relegates them to, as Hillary Clinton so elegantly put it, “a basket of deplorables,” as “irredeemable,” you should be able to prove it and suffer some penalty if you cannot.

Most importantly, this proposal enacted would also greatly advance the possibility of making an honest consideration of what the implications are for the mass migrations from the third world that are currently assaulting the countries of the west.  In much of western Europe, native Europeans who question the inundation of refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Asia are shamed by the politicians, in collusion with the media moguls, as bigots and xenophobes.

Immigration is an enormously complex issue with incalculable cultural, political, economic and security implications. Millions of immigrants, many destitute and low-skilled, carry an enormous financial burden that falls mainly on the middle and working class natives. Many of those entering Europe are unable to speak the language of the host country.  Many come from societies with very different cultures, whose values are in conflict with those of western secular society. Not surprising then is that some of new comers are resentful of their hosts and inimical to their norms.  This means that cultural conflict is inevitable and that the sheer number of new-comers threatens the long-enjoyed stability of the host countries.  All of these concerns are real, pressing and legitimate, but the elites who have opened the gates remain crudely reductivist in their own defense, seemingly blind to the coming catastrophe and resolutely self-righteous in their condemnation of those who question them.  Those native, French, Germans, Swedes and Dutch who doubt the wisdom of the inundation and fear the destruction of their own culture get the reductio ad racista treatment so long successful in beating down legitimate dissent.  First, you de-moralize dissent and make it into bigotry; then you make into criminals those citizens you have turned into bigots, unable now in any way to participate in the decisions that affect their lives and those of their children.  That the likes of Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Stefan Löfven continue to call their soft tyrannies run by unelected bureaucrats who punish their citizens for speaking the truth “democracies” is one more expression of their treachery and dishonesty.
 
If the above proposal were enacted the social and political elites would have to begin to argue their case and relinquish the smear that has served so well for so long.

Friday, July 21, 2017

When Hillary met Donald, or, how HRC got Rope-a-Doped


Related image

 You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that....  Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.  Hillary Clinton, New York City, September 9, 2016



For one unfortunate enough having to cull through the last thirty years or so the reams of Hillary Clinton’s tedious, mostly pre-programmed verbiage – the speeches, interviews, press conferences, campaign stumps -- the challenge is to find anything that is not (a) pandering and grievance mongering (b) self-servingly invented or false (c) a projection of her own hostility and paranoia (d) malicious and rancorous slander of her numerous “enemies,” that is, anyone who had the temerity to remind the public of her frequent detours around the truth.  At some point when Hillary Clinton no longer remains a threat to the American people and some hapless biographer must, out of the “sow’s ear” of her long, sordid career attempt to produce a readable “silk purse,” a starting point might likely be the most memorable and enduring of her many slurs, the one above, the “basket of deplorables,” combining all the elements of ‘a’ through ‘d’ above, made during her abysmal 2016 Presidential campaign.

To grasp the true “Hillaryness” of this moment one must not just read the words but watch her actual delivery captured on the You Tube video, where she does a passable impersonation of Joseph Goebbels.  She is speaking in New York City to an LGBT group, people with whom she, perhaps, feels the most at home, real Americans, as she suggests to her enthusiastic followers, not the Untermenschen she is complaining about. When she gets to this point, her demeanor changes. The frantic, screechy voice slows down a bit and lowers. She takes deeper breaths and her gestures are more rhythmic and forceful. This is not the routine, robotic pandering one typical sees with HRC. There is a slight weariness about her, the kind she must frequently experience that comes from having to pretend to tolerate so many stupid people on the campaign trail, like those who can’t quite get the hang of transgendered pronoun assignment.  She is more deliberate and calm, off script, speaking from her heart.

Unfortunately, what comes from the heart of Hillary Clinton, whatever its rare composition might be, unintendedly reveals how politically simple minded, ideologically primitive, and power grasping she is, sort of a severe, undeviating national schoolmarm, singling out and shaming those rowdy, naughty kids so that the nice, well-behaved ones can feel rightly and proudly superior and understand just how well favored and special they will remain by constantly sucking up to the teacher, affirming her wisdom, benevolence and authority. Hillary has never risen above being a cold moralist on the hunter’s prowl, a maniacal, unselfconscious ideologue driven by the need to make those multitudes of nasty, unworthy people out there do what they they are supposed to do, or, to make them face the consequences. What the consequences she had in mind for the designated “unredeemables” can only now be a matter of grim speculation. This malignant moralism tainted as well by avarice, perhaps, helps to explain the single largest flaw of her campaign that likely scuttled her election, one that frustrated even her acolytes, her inability to create a rationale for her presidency beyond the heights of her own ambition.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and even more so, the aftermath of the election has brought us to the nadir of identity politics, American-style, always a churning, roiling miasma of grievances, always the drive to recruit more victims, stoke the raw resentment higher.  A first in American post-election politics for expressing disappointment and frustration over the result was when a disaffected, resentment laden Democrat tried to gun down a bunch of congressmen because they were Republicans. Afterwards, Phil Montag, a Nebraska Democrat Party official, was recorded saying of the wounded  Congressman, Steve Scalise. “I’m glad he got shot.” Scalise must have been one of the irredeemables Hillary had in mind.  Montag was just saying out loud, what many Democrats, I suspect, were thinking.  

Identity politics did work out better eight years ago for Obama, but Obama was young, fresh and black, adept at working the levers of white guilt, whereas Hillary even by then was, well, none of the above, and with the warmth and personality of cobra (ironically and cruelly noted by fellow candidate Obama, “you’re likeable enough Hillary” in her failed 2008 primary campaign).  She was trying to be Obama II in the 2016 Presidential election, but there was only one Obama, and Hillary was carrying a lot of baggage.

There is so much irony to relish in the retrospect of the 2016 campaign: the Clintonistas plus the MSM early in the primaries salivating at the thought, improbable as it was at the time, of a Republican Donald Trump facing Hillary in the general election.  Given HRC’s well known, shall we politely say, “limitations,” who could possible have been a more magnificent target?  Here was the raging bull in America’s china shop of politics, a tailor-made, larger than life caricature of all those horrible things the Democrats had long taught the American voters to believe compose a typical Republican candidate. The only voters both Democrats and establishment Republicans could predict to turn out for this rude, ineloquent braggadocio with the orange comb over would be a couple of unemployed coal miners fresh off their bar stools, the knuckle-dragging bigots from the sticks who cling to their religion and their guns, and the remnants of the Klan. Everyone else was going to be “Ready for Hillary!”  However, they failed to realize, if this declaration were reformulated as a question, “Ready for Hillary?” it would resonate more like a promo in a trailer for a horror movie.

The irony throughout this most bizarre election in American history persisted up to the end.  As the election season moved toward completion, reality for Hillary and most of the Democrats never seemed to dent their fantasy of a landslide and coronation, never intruded enough to make them realize that Hillary, with all her material advantages and full alignment with the organs of mainstream culture, plus Trumps numerous blunders, was just not going to be able to seal the deal. 

Late on last November 8th reality came crashing down on the aspiring national schoolmarm and the entire establishment. The country, it seems, was not quite ready for Hillary. Given over as she as always been to the delusion of her self-perfection and given, as always, no inclination for self-introspection, her defeat, she bitterly complained, was the fault of Jim Comey, Vald Putin, and too many, “you know, to just be grossly generalistic,” deplorables -- racist, sexist white guys, one and all, who once again took away what was rightfully hers.  Not enough “progressives” out there, too little progress.

Perhaps, but consider another possible explanation, one best illustrated with reference to the outcome of different contest, a sports one, billed as “The Rumble in the Jungle”, a huge upset that shocked the world -- a boxing match staged in Kinhasa, Zaire, October 30, 1974.  The massively hyped matchup featured World Champion, George Forman battling former champ, Muhammed Ali.  Forman, 25 years old, bigger and stronger, at the peak of his career, was heavily favored to defeat Ali, at 32 his dazzling skills fading, a step or so, slower than in his prime, seemingly unprepared to withstand the onslaught of Forman’s herculean power.  Under the blazing African sun that day George Forman, too late, came to understand what “rope-a-dope” meant and to taste defeat bitterly seasoned by overconfidence. Laying on the ropes for the first seven rounds, arms up to protect his head from a knockout blow, Ali let Forman pound away at his mid section draining his energy and exhausting his huge, powerful punching arms.  In the eighth round Ali danced into the center of the ring and knocked out the man everyone expected to win the fight.

In the 2016 election Donald Trump, a novice, underdog political pugilist, did to Hillary Clinton what Ali did to George Forman.  He rope-a-doped her. Massively funded and staffed, arrogant and overconfident, buying the hype from the MSM and the happy-talk from the retinue of sycophants she kept in tow, Hillary apparently came to believe that she was going to be President simply because she thought she should be President. Trump was a loathsome, sexist slob: all she had to do was to keep repeating it.  Throughout the most of general election, like George Forman flailing away at Ali, Hillary was daily pounding Donald Trump. Vague and unclear to the electorate as to why she should be President, other than the fact that she was not Donald Trump, all she needed to do to put him on the mat was to keep throwing the usual Democrat punches: Trump was a racist, sexist, xenophobe, Islamophobe who would wear a pointy hat and white robes in the White House, a Hitler here, a Mussolini there, everywhere a Trump Brown Shirt.  From the vernacular of identity politics she extracted and threw every sock of PC feculence at him imaginable hoping to make him so politically and morally toxic only the troglodytes would want to vote for him.  Trump, however, laid on the ropes and let the insults rain down, treating them as being just that, pure insults, not the substantive, irrevocable moral stains intended by the Democrats to stick to him and destroy his character and sink his election.  Unlike conventional Republicans, Trump seemed unphased, offered no apologies, used the insults to energize his base, and did not walk back his own controversial, sometimes outrageous cuts at Hillary and her crew.  Like the effects of Forman’s shots to Ali’s ribs, Hillary’s “racist” jabs and “sexist’ roundhouses at Trump failed to put him away. Hillary’s strategy of PC name calling found her “preaching to the choir” and the choir in the swing states like Ohio and Michigan couldn’t quite find the right tune.  Late on November 8th the cable news anchors (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CBS) in stunned disbelief and unable to disguise their horror, began to grasp that the Orange Man was going to be President. Trump had weathered Hillary’s best shots, come off the ropes and turned her “inevitability” upside down.


“More than anything else, Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” was her defining and damning moment. Her comments reveal the corrosive core of identity politics, its cultural Marxist premise that affirms that the most fundamental feature of social reality is the domination and exploitation of the weak by those who are privileged. Hillary’s politics is a North American Peronism, making needy, “have-not” voters into grateful clients by punishing those reluctant and selfish “haves.”  It is also, as noted above, a malignant moralism, a quest for victims who fall under her protection and patronage, and the “outing” of the victimizers, very bad people who deserve to have no power, influence, or opportunities to participate in civil society. These people, as she noted are “not America”, and presumably, should not be allowed to be a part of America.  The ominous and threatening implications of her remarks reek of the persecution and purges in the last hundred years coming out of movements that represented progress and promised equality for everyone.  That they barely stirred a comment suggests how deeply embedded Hillary-style Peronism is in mainstream American culture. There is no doubt that she truly believed what she said, and though she lost the election, the party that nominated her will continue to promote the same kinds rising from the ranks, even more open and aggressive in their antagonism for the imaginary haves.


After his defeat George Forman went on to become a charming sort of guy, a minister and well known TV pitchman for his grills. Also he regained his heavyweight crown at age 45, the oldest man to hold the title. Hillary?  Hopes are not so high.

  

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Trump's would be Assassins



 Image result for kathy griffin trump

But we – Communists, the party – will not divide power with anyone.”

Thus spoke Anatoly Lukyanov, Secretary of the Central Committee, Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1987four years before the Soviet workers’ paradise collapsed.  Lukyanov’s chest thumping boast suitably edited composes the “Vision Statement” of todays’ Democrat party hacks. They have long channeled Vladimir Lenin, who had only one rule, which is: there are no rules.  Whatever puts you in power – lying, suborning, cheating, character assassination, pay-to-play – stays in the playbook. You gotta do what you gotta do”, as Bill Clinton quipped to an aggrieved Bob Dole after he whipped him in 1996. Or, as President Obama put it more recently, “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun.”  Democrats have dropped any pretense to their aim for a one party state where they completely own all of the power.  No competition allowed.  We are almost there.

After eight years of Obama bloviating about such things as “the racism in our DNA,” hob knobbing with the likes of Al Sharpton, siccing the IRS on his critics, and entertaining Black Lives Matter thugs in the White House, his party decided to ramp up his 2008 promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America. To move even closer to what in retrospect appears to be his goal of making America more like Venezuela, the Democrats in 2016 with no shame or conscience surrendered completely to Obama II, Obama, minus the charm, but with more testosterone, Hillary Rodham Clinton. A soulless grifter, a Brezhnev-like mummy, minus the general’s jacket and forty pounds of fake medals, she could have come straight out of a dark political satire, perhaps, Erich Honecker in drag. She was cheered on by the propaganda organs of the media syndicates, Wall Street and the Hollywood idiots. At the time of her nomination she was a target of a federal criminal investigation. No matter. This talentless, humorless kleptocrat, waddled, and on occasion, staggered, through her uninspired campaign, struggling, and then finally giving up on coming up with a rationale of why she should be President other than being President (“I get to boss everyone around and manage their lives”) is what she always wanted to be. 

The Republicans, a pretend party of loyal opposition, could no longer cover the stench of their faithlessness, or rather their faithful devotion to their own sinecured backsides.  During the eight years of the Obama administration, in spite of rolling over for him like pet poodles hoping he would scratch their tummies, the bearer of Hope and Change called Congressional Republicans his “enemies” and treated them with the contempt they so richly deserved. Obama, completely normalized the Bolshevik-inspired Alinsky approach to politics employing his favorite Alinsky rule, number five: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.”

Republicans were nothing if not the consummate patsies, concessionists, Pavlovian in taking the bait of the Democrats and their propagandists and loudly howling: “No, we’re not the mean-spirited, ignorant bigots and racists that you Democrats unrelentingly ridicule us for being. Please, we’re not racists!  We celebrate MLK day. We’re nice. How can we show you?” Donald Trump, unlike the Republican Grandees and previous candidates, Romney and McCain, refused to play game of MSM bootlicker and court stooge.  The 15 or so 2016 Presidential primary Republican stiffs who huffed and puffed about how unfit Trump was to be President got the backhand from the rank and file who finally had a candidate who didn’t wilt and start vomiting apologies when some airbrushed CNN nobody or a New York Times Clinton bum kisser like Nicholas Kristof called him a “racist.”

In Trump’s improbable path to the Presidency from his entry into the race one can look back and see how his opposition (MSM, the entertainment moguls, the Democrats, the neoconservatives) upped the ferocity of attack at each step of his ascent. He started out, of course, as a joke – Trump as President?  Followed by derisive laughter.  It was inconceivable.  Once, however, Trump’s rude disdain for the PC manacles that bound both parties helped to lift him into a position of serious contender for the GOP nomination, the derisive laughter gave way to Alinsky rule number five, ridicule.  Never before has a national candidate been bombarded with such a massive, combined, sustained barrage of ridicule and insult from all the major powerful interest groups.  The Republican establishment, now completely in (номенклату́ра) nomenklatura mode, threw in with Hillary peddling the howler that their party would survive a Clinton presidency.  But beyond a gaggle  of well-heeled Washington DC insiders, who would care, one way or another?  

Once Trump had secured the nomination and moved into a head-on collision course with the Lady-Brezhnev of Chappaqua, the Democrats moved into the realm of reincarnation – Trump now became sometimes Hitler, sometimes Mussolini. Presto! Parachuted into USA 2016 fresh right out of the 1930s Fascist Europe. Or, was he the KKK Grand Kleagle from the 1920s America?  Of course, the Democrat party was heavily invested in the Klan at that time, and Hillary had bragged about being mentored by the recently deceased Democrat bigwig Senator Robert Byrd, a Grand Kleagle himself in his earlier days, but none of this fit the narratives peddled by the Washington Post or the cognitively challenged talking heads at the cable networks. Trump was now, above all, a virulent racist, impossible to conceive as a legitimate contender for power, the tool of brutal atavistic political chauvinism. 

As the election pushed into the fall, in spite of the 24/7 proclamations by the MSM and the pundits of Trump’s utter loathsomeness and Hillary’s electoral invincibility and inevitability, there was some unease. On September 21st, speaking to the Laborer’s International Union of North America, Hillary let it slip with her characteristic whine, “Why aren’t I fifty points ahead”? Excellent question, Madam Goldman ca-ching-ca-ching Sachs, given the conventional wisdom of the impending electoral doom for the Orange Man.  Fortunately for Hillary and her vast retinue the answer was obvious.  When you embody the politics of goodness, wisdom and perfection the doubters and naysayers have to be defective, that is, seriously, morally defective, and thus, the moment of truth.  No longer did she need to mince words: Trump’s momentum and support came from that “basket of deplorables” the “racist,” “sexist,” “you name it” bigots. These were the folks, apparently, who refused to relish a future of unemployment, failed to grasp the intricacies of transgenderism and its pronoun assignations, and remained convinced that “Black Lives Matter” was just a euphemism for a bunch of cop-hating, white-people-bashing, riot fomenting bullies.     

In the Soviet Union, the GDR, Casto’s Cuba, any of the socialist paradises, any and all shadows cast on how the “progress” engineered by the party bosses was working out was dismissed as the work of those pesky fascists, who were, of course, “irredeemable” and thus completely outside the pale.  “Racism” has become the American, go-to version of fascism for the Democrats.  If you oppose them, you are a fascist, generic for racist, and racists are not legitimate competitors, they are enemies, “haters of people not like themselves.” They are as Hillary so graciously put it “thankfully, not America.”  “Racism” is the ultimate “Orwellianism” of our time, invoked wherever and whenever needed by the ideologues to smear the opposition and keep the rabble on a slow boil.

Hillary’s campaign reduced Trump and his supporters to Klansmen, neo-Nazis and white supremacists.  You don’t do business or share power with people like this. You don’t become the loyal opposition to Nazis: you resist, then eliminate them. The elimination envisioned before November 8th was a massive electoral triumph for Hillary. That “basket of deplorables” would then no longer have been much of a problem.  With a Hillary-packed Supreme Court, an Al Sharpton guest room in the White House, some hefty, no nonsense “hate-speech” laws like the kind they have in Europe, and a few million more third world immigrant dependents to import and turn the remaining red states blue, the “bitter clingers” Obama complained about in 2008 would, indeed, no longer be, at least much of a part of America.  Poof! Goodbye red state America.  Welcome to Hillary-Land where boys who want to can be girls, where only good intentions are allowed and where no suspected racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobe will go unpunished.

With Trump’s astonishing, upset election incredulity gave way to derangement and then desperation.  “Elimination” now became de-legitimation – massive protests featuring vagina-ware, failed, baseless recount stunts, attempted electoral college subversion, immediate impeachment chatter and invoking the 25th amendment, Russian collusion.  The “Trump as Nazi” motif by the left transitioned into “the Resistance,” America under occupation.

Finally, “elimination” for the Democrats has become, well, elimination, as in sporting a mock severed head of President Trump, his nightly murder as Trump-Caesar in the Delacorte stage in Central Park, NYC to cheering crowds and raving critics, a rapper in a new music video assassinating a clown dressed like Trump, a well known celebrity talking about “blowing up the White House.”  No leaders in the Democrat party have pushed back, even slightly, on the rhetoric of violence and hatred coming from every direction of the culture.  The violence of the language and imagery at some point crosses a line, which it did when James Hodgkinson the Bernie Sanders supporter attempted to kill a couple of dozen Republican congressmen. Because?  Well, they were Republicans, racists who are thankfully, not America.   

All of this reveals a familiar trajectory of violence on the part of the left in quest for power, for ultimately the elimination of all political opposition. Power is exclusively the possession of the (self-declared) virtuous and must never be shared with the irredeemables.  Lenin, Stalin, and Mao began with the use of language, making their opponents into sub-humans, “irredeemable”, so to speak.  For Lenin, the opposition were “bourgeoise scum” “insects,” “cockroaches” and “blood suckers.”  For Stalin, “fascist hirlings,” and Mao, “running dog capitalists,” “monsters and demons.” For Hillary, “racists” “sexists” “homophobes,” “you name it. Yes,  “you name it, as she said, a blank page for creating even more enemies of the people. Removing the “scum”, or the “facists” by violence becomes not just defensible, but required:  immoral, irredeemable people must not be in power nor should they even be close to power. 

The branding of Trump running up through and after the election by the mainstream Left as a Nazi, a fascist, a Klansman essentially removed any moral obstacle, in the view of so many, to his physical removal, which is why “assassination” has become a chic popular culture trope, indulged in not by the fringe but the establishment.  The late-night comedians, the Hollywood glitterati, the Congressional Black Caucus, none of them would ever initiate a physical attack, but were Trump to get in the way of another James Hodgkinson who was a better shot, make no mistake, there would be no limit to their cheers and celebration.  Sic semper tyrannis.

The left will cry, tu quoque, but the fallacy aside, Obama in 2009 faced no massive counter inaugural demonstrations, no recount demands, no wide spread celebrity “joking” about and mimicking his assassination, no critically acclaimed theater featuring his tyrannicide.  George W. Bush’s outgoing Attorney General, did not, like Obama’s Loretta Lynch call for the Trump opposition to take to the streets, to “march, bleed and die.”  Ironically, the legitimacy “birther” question supposedly raised by Obama-hostile Republicans after his election now appears likely to have been an invention of Hillary liegeman, and smear artist, Sidney Blumenthal who was trying to bring Obama down during the 2008 Democrat primary campaign.

For the Democrats, Trump will never be a legitimate President because only Democrats possess the requisite wisdom, virtue and purity of intention to rule over the American people.  They will never rest until they have put an end to Trump’s “usurped” power – by any means necessary.