BILL WHITTLE always puts things in proper perspective.
Here he deals with the left-wing obsession of “climate change,” a bogus worry if there ever was one.
BILL WHITTLE always puts things in proper perspective.
Here he deals with the left-wing obsession of “climate change,” a bogus worry if there ever was one.
ONE OF THE most ignorant things you hear on the left is that one should embrace Mohammedanism.
Everyone who gives the abominable Mohammedan culture a pass is either a supporter of the PC Party (i.e. Democrats) or some nincompoopery even further to the left.
The never-subtle — but usually correct — Paul Joseph Watson states things clearly in this video.
DARKNESS IS the new black.
The leftist media has cited “darkness” repeatedly since the election of President Trump. The Washington Post, more leftist even than The New York Times, recently added “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to its online masthead.
The Post says it has nothing to do with Trump.
I don’t want to be associated with leftists and their dark obsessions in any form, so I am abandoning entirely the dark photos I’ve used here for avatars for a long time.
Gone is the black hat and the dark bebop cap in black & white photos. I am out of the cave. The new face to the world is this, which was taken about 12 years ago.
While I added this photo to my comments avatar weeks ago, it was only today that I made it official by adding it to the Felipe Page up thataway.
This change has lifted a darkness from my spirit. I feel more upbeat, happier and fulfilled. Let’s leave the darkness to Democrats and other sourpusses.
Conservatives are happy, colorful people.
* * * *
* Churros sometimes are sold filled with something like chocolate. This is an abomination. Churros should always be eaten au naturel.
(For a long spell, since turning my politics rightward about a decade ago, I have been a bit perplexed by my aversion to some elements of traditional conservatism.
(This column clears it up for me. It was written by two young men, Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described “dangerous faggot,” and Allum Bokhari, a Breitbart correspondent who lives in London. Yiannopoulos is also British-born.
(You may have heard of the Alt-Right, the alternative right. There are two versions of the Alt-Right, the extreme and the moderate. The latter makes sense to me. The former does not. Fortunately, the moderate wing is far more populated.
(I am pleased to come out as a “natural conservative” and, it appears, a moderate Alt-Righter.)
* * * *
NATURAL CONSERVATIVES are mostly white, mostly male, middle-American radicals, who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.
In their politics, these new conservatives are only following their natural instincts — the same instincts that motivate conservatives across the globe.
Noted social psychologist Jonathan Haidt described the conservative instinct in his 2012 book The Righteous Mind.
The conservative instinct, as described by Haidt, includes a preference for homogeneity over diversity, for stability over change, and for hierarchy and order over radical egalitarianism.
Their instinctive wariness of the foreign and the unfamiliar is an instinct that we all share – an evolutionary safeguard against excessive, potentially perilous curiosity – but natural conservatives feel it with more intensity.
They instinctively prefer familiar societies, familiar norms, and familiar institutions.
An establishment Republican, with their overriding belief in the glory of the free market, might be moved to tear down a cathedral and replace it with a strip mall if it made economic sense. Such an act would horrify a natural conservative.
Immigration policy follows a similar pattern: by the numbers, cheap foreign workers on H1B visas make perfect economic sense. But natural conservatives have other concerns: chiefly, the preservation of their own tribe and its culture.
For natural conservatives, culture, not economic efficiency, is the paramount value. More specifically, they value the greatest cultural expressions of their tribe.
Their perfect society does not necessarily produce a soaring GDP, but it does produce symphonies, basilicas and Old Masters. The natural conservative tendency within the Alt-Right points to these apotheoses of western European culture and declares them valuable and worth preserving and protecting.
Needless to say, natural conservatives’ concern with the flourishing of their own culture comes up against an intractable nemesis in the regressive left, which is currently intent on tearing down statues of Cecil Rhodes and Queen Victoria in the UK, and erasing the name of Woodrow Wilson from Princeton in the United States.
These attempts to scrub Western history of its great figures are particularly galling to the Alt-Right, who in addition to the preservation of Western culture, care deeply about heroes and heroic virtues.
This follows decades in which left-wingers on campus sought to remove the study of “dead white males” from the focus of Western history and literature curricula.
An establishment conservative might be mildly irked by such behavior as they switch between the State of the Union and the business channels, but to a natural conservative, such cultural vandalism may just be their highest priority.
In fairness, many establishment conservatives aren’t keen on this stuff either — but the Alt-Right would argue that they’re too afraid of being called “racist” to seriously fight against it. Which is why they haven’t.
Certainly, the rise of Donald Trump, perhaps the first truly cultural candidate for president since Buchanan, suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
The rise of Donald Trump suggests grassroots appetite for more robust protection of the Western European and American way of life.
* * * *
Alt-Righters describe establishment conservatives who care more about the free market than preserving Western culture, and who are happy to endanger the latter with mass immigration where it serves the purposes of big business, as “cuckservatives.”
Halting, or drastically slowing, immigration is a major priority for the Alt-Right. While eschewing bigotry on a personal level, the movement is frightened by the prospect of demographic displacement represented by immigration.
The Alt-Right do not hold a Utopian view of the human condition: just as they are inclined to prioritize the interests of their tribe, they recognize that other groups – Mexicans, African-Americans or Muslims – do the same.
As communities become comprised of different peoples, the culture and politics of those communities become an expression of their constituent peoples.
You’ll often encounter doomsday rhetoric in Alt-Right online communities: that’s because many instinctively feel that once large enough and ethnically distinct enough groups are brought together, they will inevitably come to blows.
In short, they doubt that full “integration” is ever possible. If it is, it won’t be successful in the “Kumbaya” sense. Border walls are a much safer option.
The Alt-Right’s intellectuals would also argue that culture is inseparable from race.
The Alt-Right believe that some degree of separation between peoples is necessary for a culture to be preserved.
A Mosque next to an English street full of houses bearing the flag of St. George, according to Alt-Righters, is neither an English street nor a Muslim street — separation is necessary for distinctiveness.
Some Alt-Righters make a more subtle argument.
They say that when different groups are brought together, the common culture starts to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Instead of mosques or English houses, you get atheism and stucco.
Ironically, it’s a position that has much in common with leftist opposition to so-called “cultural appropriation,” a similarity openly acknowledged by the Alt-Right.
It’s arguable that natural conservatives haven’t had real political representation for decades.
Since the 1980s, establishment Republicans have obsessed over economics and foreign policy, fiercely defending the Reagan-Thatcher economic consensus at home and neoconservative interventionism abroad.
In matters of culture and morality, the issues that natural conservatives really care about, all territory has been ceded to the Left, which now controls the academy, the entertainment industry and the press.
For those who believe in the late Andrew Breitbart’s dictum that politics is downstream from culture, the number of writers, political candidates and media personalities who actually believe that culture is the most important battleground can be dispiriting.
Natural liberals, who instinctively enjoy diversity and are happy with radical social change – so long as it’s in an egalitarian direction – are now represented by both sides of the political establishment.
Natural conservatives, meanwhile, have been slowly abandoned by Republicans — and other conservative parties in other countries. Having lost faith in their former representatives, they now turn to new ones — Donald Trump and the alternative right.
There are principled objections to the tribal concerns of the Alt-Right, but Establishment conservatives have tended not to express them, instead turning nasty in the course of their panicked backlash.
National Review writer Kevin Williamson, in a recent article attacking the sort of voters who back Trump, said that white working-class communities “deserve to die.”
Although the Alt-Right consists mostly of college-educated men, it sympathizes with the white working classes and, based on our interviews, feels a sense of noblesse oblige. National Review has been just as directly unpleasant about the Alt-Right as it has, on occasion, been about white Americans in general.
In response to concerns from white voters that they’re going to go extinct, the response of the Establishment — the conservative Establishment — has been to openly welcome that extinction.
It’s true that Donald Trump would not be possible without the oppressive hectoring of the progressive Left, but the entire media is to blame for the environment in which this new movement has emerged.
For decades, the concerns of those who cherish Western culture have been openly ridiculed and dismissed as racist.
The Alt-Right is the inevitable result.
No matter how silly, irrational, tribal or even hateful the Establishment may think the Alt-Right’s concerns are, they can’t be ignored, because they aren’t going anywhere.
As Haidt reminds us, their politics is a reflection of their natural inclinations.
In other words, the Left can’t language-police and name-call them away, which have for the last twenty years been the only progressive responses to dissent, and the Right can’t snobbishly dissociate itself from them and hope they go away either.
LET’S PRAY this will be the beginning of the end of the Flower Power nuttiness that erupted half a century ago.
R.I.P.: Kumbaya, globalism, organic food, unisex restrooms, safe spaces, ObamaCare, open borders, sanctuary cities …
… all that bunkum.
In brief: Yipeee!
GREAT VIDEO addresses one of the main challenges of multicultural America today: the black underclass.
And that class’s tendency to run amok in the streets. It’s not because of police brutality or racism.
(Today’s guest post comes to us from The Wall Street Journal, and it’s written by David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale. The Unseen Moon dedicates this to libertarians and renegade conservatives planning to vote for a fringe candidate or not to vote at all.)
* * * *
SOME CONSERVATIVES have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk.
If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.
In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing. No one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian.
This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be*), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump.
Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?” — cute and charming, Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets — constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie — swish! — right onto the evening news.
And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human.
She is no mere rock star. She is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?
I’ll vote for Mr. Trump — grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.
Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have tossed through the window.
The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.
Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him.
Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president.
For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.
Mr. Obama has governed like a third-rate tyrant. He’s been a stern babysitter to an American public that is increasingly getting on his nerves.
ObamaCare and the Iran treaty are his big achievements. That the public has always disliked them, and hates them worse as it knows them better, strikes him as so unspeakably irrelevant. He doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Do you ask 6-year-olds if they like going to school?
Mrs. Clinton couldn’t agree more. Policy is for smart people, who are people of the left by definition — leftists having scored all those big successes over the years in foreign policy, race relations, policing, restarting wounded economies, making unsecured loans, running school systems and so on.
On topics from Keystone to Guantanamo, Mr. Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t give a damn what people think — he no longer even tries to explain to the citizenry.
Do your homework! Understand?
Yes, leadership sometimes requires that you take an unpopular position and make it popular. We are told that Mr. Obama is working on his “legacy” instead, as if that makes him farsighted instead of irresponsible and insanely vain.
Presidents are supposed to run the country, not worry about their reputation in coming centuries.
Trump voters have noticed that, not just over Mr. Obama’s term but in recent decades, their own opinions have grown increasingly irrelevant.
It’s something you feel, like encroaching numbness.
Since when has the American public endorsed affirmative action? Yet it’s a major factor in the lives of every student and many workers.
Since when did we decide that men and women are interchangeable in hand-to-hand combat on the front lines? Why do we insist on women in combat but not in the NFL? Because we take football seriously.
That’s no joke. It’s the sad truth.
Did we invite the federal bureaucracy to take charge of school bathrooms? I guess I missed that meeting. The schools are corrupt and the universities rotten to the core, and everyone has known it since the 1980s.
But the Democrats are owned by the teachers unions, and Republicans have made only small-scale corrections to a system that needs to be ripped out and carefully disposed of, like poison ivy.
The Emasculated Voter to whom no one pays any attention is the story of modern democracy.
Instead of putting voters in charge, we tell them they’re in charge, and it’s just as good. That’s the Establishment’s great discovery in the Lois Lerner Age.
Enter Mr. Trump. People say he became a star because he just happened to mention an issue that just happened to catch on. But immigration is the central issue of our time.
Trump voters zeroed in because they saw what most intellectuals didn’t. What is our nation and what will it be?
Will America go on being America or turn into something else? That depends on who lives here — especially given our schools, which no longer condescend to teach Americanism.
The liberal theory is that, other things being equal, all human beings have an equal right to settle in America. For liberals this is too obvious to spell out. But it is also too ludicrous to defend.
AN OPEN BACKYARD?
Does all mankind have a right to camp in your backyard, eat in your kitchen, work at your office and borrow your best jogging outfit? We fail in our duty if we don’t think carefully whom we want in this country, who would be best for America.
Furthermore, we know that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
But that’s got nothing to do with immigration. Freedom of religion means freedom for American citizens — what else could it possibly mean?
We must not tamper with Americans’ religious life. We must not admit, as possible future citizens, anyone we don’t choose to, anyone we don’t think will be good for America.
Not to admit Muslims is bad policy, but it does not violate freedom of religion, and the American people have a perfect right to discuss and debate it.
Hold on, some of my fellow conservatives say.
Never mind Hillary. Trump would be dangerous. He would further endanger our national security and world position.
He might start unnecessary wars. He might even push the nuclear button.
These are important objections, but after thinking them through I’m unable to take them seriously, either in political terms or psychological ones.
HILLARY FEELS ENTITLED
Mrs. Clinton is right at home in the Oval Office and thinks she owns it. She holds herself entitled to supreme power, as her friends are entitled to fancy positions with enormous salaries and her followers to secure government jobs or ample government funds, as the case may be.
But forget psychology. Ordinary politics says that Mr. Trump will not do crazy things or go off half-cocked, because Republicans in Congress will be eager to impeach him and put Mike Pence in charge.
That was the subtext of the vice-presidential debate, though Mr. Pence himself (probably) didn’t intend it. When it’s my turn, you can all relax. Democrats, obviously, will be eager to help when the task is removing a Republican.
Impeachment is Trump-voters’ ace in the hole.
It’s an abnormal measure, but this is an abnormal year. Impeachment has temporarily dropped out of sight because of special circumstances. Republicans impeached Bill Clinton but got burned in the process.
Mr. Obama, as the first black president, was impeachment-proof. Any other president would have encountered serious impeachment talk on several occasions, especially when he ignored Congress and the Constitution and made his own personal treaty-in-all-but-name with Iran.
But Mr. Trump will not have Mr. Obama’s advantages — to say the least. Mr. Trump will be impeachment bait. So will Mrs. Clinton. Even some Democrats have had enough.
Nothing can stop Mr. Trump from shooting off his mouth, but that’s all right. I want America’s enemies off-balance and guessing. For eight years it’s been Humiliate America season — buzz our ships, capture and embarrass our men, murder an American ambassador — a resoundingly successful attempt to spit in our faces and tell each one of us to drop dead.
Thanks, Mr. President. Enough is enough. You know that Hillary is Obama Part III. We can’t let that happen. Parts I and II have brought us close enough to catastrophe.
That is the problem for those whose integrity or nobility won’t allow them to vote for Mr. Trump despite their dislike of Mrs. Clinton.
There is only one way to take part in protecting this nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump.
A vote for anyone else or for no one might be an honest, admirable gesture in principle, but we don’t need conscientious objectors in this war for the country’s international standing and hence for the safety of the world and the American way of life. It’s too bad one has to vote for Mr. Trump.
It will be an unhappy moment at best. Some people will feel dirty, or pained, or outright disgraced.
But when all is said and done, it’s no big deal of a sacrifice for your country. I can think of bigger ones.
* * * *
* The sudden outbreak of groping allegations is a repeat of the Democrats’ successful gutter campaign against Herman Cain. Neither Cain nor Trump had ever faced sexual-harassment accusations in their long careers until they decided to oppose the Democrat Party. What does that tell you?
Pay a person enough, and she’ll say anything.
The sexual-harassment issue is a beloved, useful, politically correct cudgel for leftists. Think Mattress Girl writ large and often. This asterisk is from Felipe, not the guest poster.
SCARCELY A DAY passes in which I fail to see a cringe-worthy photograph depicting the abysmal condition of women in the Mohammedan world.
This one, however, contains an extra poignancy.
When I saw the photo, my first reaction was that it must be a beached whale in Zihuatanejo. But it’s not.
It’s a Mohammedan woman or girl. Who can know her age, appearance, anything about her?
The poor creature is trying to enjoy a day at the beach.
The sheeting of women is not in the Koran. It’s a tradition begun later by sand-leaping, scimitar-swinging, bloodletting, towel-headed, camel jockeys who just want to keep their womenfolk to themselves, in their place.
Simple as that. Possessions of the highest order.
It’s no surprise that where actual slavery still exists in today’s world, it’s often in Mohammedan zones.
Mohammedan men’s attitude toward women make the most macho of swaggering, tequila-swilling Mexicans seem tailor-made for banner-wavers in a Gay Pride Parade.
* * * *
IRONY AND HYPOCRISY
And yet in the United States, dimwitted university students and nincompoop faculty stand ready to support Mohammedan cultures while mouthing anti-Semitism that would make Heinrich Himmler puff up with pride.
And 99 percent of them vote for the Democrat Party.
These are the same vacuous people who advocate freedom of choice and claim all cultures are of equal value.
Anyone who truly believes in women’s rights, freedom of choice and equality has to be a cheerleader for Israel, the sole Mideast nation that embraces democracy and religious freedom.
And then there’s the U.S. presidential race with a cackling crook in designer tents facing an arrogant tycoon* with a comb-over who can’t keep his hoof out of his mouth.
I weep for the future.
* * * *
* No matter. I’m still voting for the arrogant tycoon over the cackling crook. Ugly choices must be made. Meanwhile, I continue to mourn for Ted Cruz’s candidacy.
(The adulation of “diversity” and multiculturalism is a given in high-end Western society. Schools, corporations, clubs, you name it, all bow daily to the Goddess of Diversity. This Goddess also goes by the name of Multiculturalism.
(For years I have pointed out that multiculturalism is a problem to be confronted in the kindest way possible. It is not something to be pushed and promoted. A multicultural society is a troubled, often violent, society. This is patently obvious today in the United States and Western Europe.
(In spite of my frequent mentions of this, I don’t recall even one person passing by here who touched on the subject negatively or positively. It is a no-go zone enforced by fear. To question the glories of multiculturalism is to risk banishment from polite society and your gainful employment too.
(A recent example was Diversity’s Paradox. There were 27 comments and not one soul touched on the topic at hand in spite of my mentioning that no one was addressing the topic.
(The mailed fist of the Left enforces this stance with the same ferocity that Adolf Hitler compelled hatred of Jews.
(No matter. It is nonsense. Here is a guest post by Walter E. Williams, who is black so he gets a small, temporary, pass from Polite Society for his horrendous opinions.)
* * * *
German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has “utterly failed,” adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could “live happily side by side.”
The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.
Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one culture cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.
That’s unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value?
Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan.
In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed.
In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?
The vital achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, which saw its birth with the Magna Carta in 1215. The idea emerged that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Individuals do not exist to serve government; governments exist to protect their rights.
But it was not until the 19th century that ideas of liberty received broad recognition. In the West, it was mostly through the works of British philosophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.
Personal liberty implies toleration of differences among people, whether those differences are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Liberty also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways.
This is not the vision of the new immigrants.
In some parts of Britain, Christians are threatened with violence for merely handing out Bibles. Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is seen as a hate crime. Women are accosted by Muslim men for “improper” dress.
Many women are sexually assaulted. In many European countries, no-go zones where civil authorities will not enter, in which Sharia is practiced, have been established.
According to the Express, “London, Paris, Stockholm and Berlin are among the major European cities that feature on a bombshell list of 900 lawless zones with large immigrant populations.”
Both in Europe and in the U.S., multiculturalism is a leftist elitist vision with its roots in academia. The intellectual elite, courts and government agencies push an agenda that is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a live-and-let-live philosophy.
Instead, multiculturalism/diversity is an agenda for all kinds of conformity — conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what’s politically correct thinking.
Part of that lesson is non-judgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another and all cultures and their values are morally equivalent.
Western values are superior to all others. But one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values.
By the way, it is no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person.
There’s an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living.
There is also indisputable evidence that we in the West are unwilling to defend ourselves from barbarians. Just look at our response to the recent Orlando massacre, in which we’ve focused our energies on guns rather than on terrorists.
* * * *
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.