You might be asking, “WHO or what is Brooke Whipple?”
Opinion: by Jeffrey A. Friedberg
Brooke Whipple is like nobody else. In her quiet and sincere way, she seems to make current female “role models,” icons, and “superheroes,” look fake and faint.
Politics aside, I have no idea what her views are, and it does Not matter. Not to me, and not to you.
Brooke Whipple (real names) is a rare person. Brooke is a TV Star, and YouTube Sensation–known as, “GIRL IN THE WOODS.”
Is she a prophetess, model, and wonder woman? Yes, maybe.
KEEP your Greta, Whoopi, Joy, Alexandria, Ilhan, Rashid, Adam, Nancy, and all the rest.
Brooke Whipple is a mother, wife, dog and cat-owner, a happy person, camper, survivalist, satirist, bold, courageous, and innovative.
Adventurer. Speaker. Joy miner. These words have come to define Brooke’s life- first growing up in rural Michigan and then searching for wilderness and mountains in Alaska where she has spent most of her adult life. Along the way she became a filmmaker, author, outdoor educator, and guide, eventually ending up on three TV shows: Yukon River Run on the National Geographic Channel, and ALONESeason 4 & Season 5 on the History Channel.
With only 10 items, Brooke…survived 49 days alone on Vancouver Island in B.C., Canada, and Brooke survived 28 days alone in Mongolia. She has lots of stories to tell!
Brooke Whipple can run a chain saw, work a video camera, dig a Dakota fire-pit, skin a deer, build a fire in rain or snow, cook a moose, drive a truck, construct a shelter from nothing, toss wooden pallets around like crackers, looks great–and a lot more.
Brooke Whipple seems to be the consummate woman–like an early America pioneer.
I’m talking, all, like, Jim Bowie, Kit Carson, Josefa Jaramillo, Ann Preston, David Crockett, Daniel Boone, Jim Bridger, and every early American–male or female–who fended for him or herself in the wild frontiers of America.
In addition to All this, Brooke Whipple is Real.
At all times Brooke is a real person. Like a modern Socrates, or Hypatia, she delivers seemingly offhanded, yet, wise, and sincere remarks that hit home runs.
She will sit and talk directly to you. Not only about, say, camping, or building a campfire–but about life, living, and what we should do with our short time on Earth.
Brooke is not some dumb, inexperienced kid, like a Greta, or Hogg. She is a mature woman approaching middle age, but who seems much younger in expressed thoughts, actions, behavior, and innate good looks.
Brooke knows what she is talking about. I know–because I’m 75. I have seen it all three times, done it all six times, and got the tattoo.
When Brooke speaks about Life and Stuff — usually from beside a self-made campfire — she inspires.
The NYT gives us Thanksgiving as seen through a neo-Marxist lens. It is not only political foolish, but historically inaccurate. This is a response.
The NYT gives space to a lily-white George Washington University History Professor, David J. Silverman, who, surprise, thinks that Thanksgiving is a tragedy of colonialism. He states that the “Native American past and present tend to make white people uncomfortable because they turn patriotic histories and heroes inside out and loosen claims on morality, authority and justice. ” According to this donkey’s ass, white people were evil, while red people were pristine, good, and with a culture that was “every bit as ancient and rich as in Europe.”
Thanks for the Howard Zinn version of history, professor.
The reality is that all of the Eastern woodland Indian tribes were a stone age people without iron metallurgy or even the wheel. They were in constant warfare with other tribes each trying to take the other’s land or defend their own. When the professor condemns Europeans uniquely for conducting coastal raids on Indians in the 16th century and taking slaves, the proper response is not “how evil the Europeans were,” it’s “are you kidding, you putz?”
One, the Pilgrims didn’t do any of that. Two, the fact that others than the Pilgrims did, well, welcome to the brutality of life in the 1500’s, whether Indian, European, Middle Eastern, etc. True, those raids represented a tiny sliver of European society at its worst. But what does it say that such raids were simply the equal to the traditional Indian society of the day? Will you tell us the tale of Hannah Duston next, Professor?
Moreover, most, if not all of the Eastern woodland tribes, when it came to warfare and treatment of prisoners had customs that were extremely savage and horrifyingly brutal, such as their penchant for ritually torturing prisoners to death with fire over a period of a day or more. Their morality was not — nor was it superior to — the Judaeo-Christian morality. Their justice was ultimately based on might makes right, and that was not — nor was it superior to — the Anglo legal system. To the extent that the worst aspects of Indian society did not survive their contact with Europeans, we and they should all, dare I say it, give thanks this day.
And sorry, Professor, but Indian culture was hardly “ancient.” Their lineage was ancient, but so is every human’s. The Eastern woodland Indians had no writing or even a rudimentary alphabet. They gathered together for safety and told stories they heard from people still alive from one or two prior generations, but that does not an “ancient and rich” culture make. It was not, in 1621, the equal of Europe of the time. It wasn’t even a shadow of Europe.
The first meeting between the pilgrims and the Indians was, in fact, “consensual and bloodless.” The fact that, long after every one of those Indians and Pilgrims who met in 1621 was dead, their descendants fought a war does not in any way change that initial reality, nor for that matter even color it. Nor does the reason the Wampanoag made allies of the Pilgrims — for their own defense — make their motives or the motives of the Pilgrims somehow immoral. It is the story of civilization. It may surprise you to learn, professor, but if you study history you’ll find that people have been banding together for mutual defense and to bring stability and peace to their land since before the written word.
Lastly, this donkey’s ass of a Professor asserts that “the Indians’ legacy [supposedly proclaimed by Thanksgiving] is to present America as a gift to white people — or in other words, to concede to colonialism.” My, but this professor certainly seems color-centric, doesn’t he?
First, American Indians’ limited run as wholly independent tribes was written by circumstance the moment they came into contact with Europeans. A stone age culture will simply not survive in daily contact with a far more technologically advanced culture. They will adopt technology and seek out goods that will make their life easier and that will inevitably change their societies. They will, over time, blend in with the more advanced culture, hopefully adding good things to what then becomes a shared culture.
Second, if they go to war with the more advanced society (a decision that may seem eminently reasonable at the time, for they are fighting for their survival), they will ultimately lose and pay the price for it, just as they would in their own inter-tribal wars. And that is a major part of the story of Indian and European relations in the 17th and 18th century.
Today, if the Wampanoag Indians wish to live separate and apart from the rest of this country, our nation affords them that option. If they wish to maintain knowledge of their history and origins, their triumphs as a people, it is well and good that they should, as we all should with our own histories. But portraying the Wampanoag as victims and the Pilgrims of 1621 — or “white people” of today — as evil oppressors has everything to do with neo-Marxist progressive politics, not actual history nor the holiday of Thanksgiving. Both this professor Silverman and the NYT are a disgrace.
In 1621, the Pilgrims wished to thank God and the Indians for their help. It is their celebration and wishes for peace and prosperity that we honor, not just the Pilgrims and not just the Indians. We are a nation where to be an American means that you hold to certain ideals of freedom, not whether your heritage is European, Indian, African or anything else. We are all blessed to be here this day, Professor.
This Thanksgiving, I am so grateful for the blessings in my life, including friends and family, being an American citizen, and having Trump as my president.
(This is a companion post to my 34th podcast [and second rather primitive YouTube video], both of which you can find here.)
Years ago, I instituted a family tradition at our Thanksgiving table that asked everyone – after dinner, of course – to state what they are thankful for. I thought I’d share with you the myriad things that make me thankful in 2019.
I am very blessed to be rich in family and friends – and let me tell you, it was hard work. When I was young, I was a prickly, judgmental, snobby person. Part of it was because I was bullied a lot for being short, skinny, near-sighted, and all around kind of weird.
This is not a sob story, though. In the hierarchy of normal children’s behavior, I was a walking target and, in retrospect, it makes perfect sense that other kids picked on me. And as it happened, I had my defenses. My response was to hit people back first . . . using words, not fists or feet.
I became expert at nasty sarcasm. Ironically enough, the more I liked someone, whether it was a girl with whom I wished to be friends or a boy upon whom I had a crush, the more nasty I was. It suited me to reject them first, rather than to have them reject me out of the box.
The other part of my problem was that I was raised by a very charming European mother and I mimicked her behavior. Unfortunately, what was charming in a 40-something European lady was not so charming in an American teenager. Additionally, I mimicked her less charming traits, so that I was judgmental and rigid beyond my years.
How did I finally change? In my teens, I read Dale Carnegie’s timeless How to Win Friends and Influence People. The book’s lesson is simple: Being nice to people and honestly admiring their strengths and virtues will usually lead to them being nice and helpful to you.
As I said, a simple book but it took me another 30 years to understand its message. Knowing you need to change your behavior and actually changing your behavior are two different things. Thankfully, helped by age, teaching my children, and getting good advice, I finally gained the wisdom to make a conscious decision to be a more congenial person. This meant:
Being less judgmental
Being less arrogant
Being less rigid
Being less self-involved
Freely handing out honest compliments
Believing with all my heart that everyone has something interesting to say if only you ask the right questions
The benefits of taking this new approach with both my family and friends – or potential friends – has been staggering. As I said at the beginning of this post, I am rich in loving family and good friends.
This kind of emotional wealth is no small thing. As one 2010 study showed, “people with strong social relationships increased their odds of survival over a certain time period by 50 percent….” Not only do friends help you live longer, having friends means you’ll be healthier too.
While I don’t cultivate friendships in a cold-blooded merely to gain health and long-life – cold-bloodedness probably negates those benefits anyway – I’m grateful that the relationships I’ve learned how to cultivate have a real benefit for me.
With every passing year, one of the things that makes me most grateful is living in America. I’m not alone. I’ve repeatedly recommended Keith Richburg’s Out of America : A Black Man Confronts Africa. In it, Richburg explains how a stint in the early 1990s as the Washington Post’s African bureau chief left him incredibly grateful that his long ago ancestors suffered the pain, fear, humiliation, and other horrors of the Atlantic trade and slavery in America so that he could be a black man in America and not in Africa. No matter your color or ethnicity, being born in America is a blessing.
I am incredibly grateful that I live in a country governed by a Constitution dedicated to individual liberty. It’s true that we have often fallen short of the goals expressed in that document. Indeed, in the mid-19th century, we fought a Civil War with the loss of over 600,000 lives to right our most grievous fall from grace. Nevertheless, the Constitution is our lodestar and establishes a clear realm of individual liberty, a sphere free from government interference, unlike anything else in the world, here or abroad and past or present.
In the rest of the world, constitutions are just endlessly lengthy recitations of privileges the government sees fit to accord to citizens and rules by which citizens must live. Only in America does the constitution say that the government serves at the will of the people and that the people have inviolable rights that the government can infringe upon only after making the strongest showing of necessity. That’s something for which we should all be grateful.
I am thankful that I live in a society that (at least until recently) is the most non-anti-Semitic society in the world outside of Israel itself. Sadly, anti-Semitism is creeping into America. Progressives and Democrats like to blame white supremacists, whom they define as Republicans, but the reality is that white supremacists are totalitarians who have attached themselves to the fringes of the Republican party only because the Democrat Party has, since 1964, been the political home for African Americans. Let me repeat the word “fringes.”
The sad reality is that the Democrat Party has become anti-Semitic at its very core. I need only point to Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the new darlings of the party, as Exhibit A for the Left’s rising anti-Semitism. Go to any college campus (a hotbed of American Progressivism) or to the New York Times or Washington Post to see anti-Semitism that appears either as open Jew hatred or as Jew hatred disguised (not so skillfully) as anti-Zionism. The only consolation is that I see some Jews catching on. They’re struggling with the fact that their political home is hate-filled, but they’re figuring it out. Without Jews (and, as I’ll discuss below, without blacks) the Democrats are politically doomed.
I am thankful to live in a country with a consistent abundance of food. On that subject, did you know that, by the time of the American Revolution, colonial Americans were, on average, three inches taller than their European fore-bearers and compatriots. Indeed, throughout the 18th and 19th century, European travelers commented on the abundance of food available in America.
These travelers didn’t comment, as they do now, to condemn Americans for their profligacy, greed, and gluttony. Their comments were driven by admiration and envy. Everywhere one traveled in America, there was food and lots of it.
In other words, the huge portion sizes we enjoy today are not a sign of modern American decadence. They are a grand American tradition that enabled us to grow children taller, stronger, and healthier than children anywhere else in the world.
The difference between now and then isn’t the amount of food we eat, it’s the amount of activity we get. Americans ate well before cars, TVs, and computers. We still eat well, we just don’t move enough. Still, when one considers that, for the greatest part of human history, scarcity and famine was the norm, we are singularly blessed.
I am thankful that I live in a society rich in material goods. American enterprise and competition have made it so every person in America can live as well as if not much better than a king in days of old (an idea I stole from Glenn Reynolds).
While Blue State progressives may inveigh against Walmart as an evil enterprise that destroys small businesses and floods America with cheap goods, the fact is that Walmart and stores like it have been an extraordinary blessing for poor people — and the poor know it. When a Walmart finally opened in the San Francisco Bay Area, in Oakland, back in 2005, over 10,000 people applied for jobs.
Although California had a minimum wage back then, it wasn’t wildly above the market rate (and, for all I know, might even have slipped below it). By 2016, though, Oakland had repeatedly raised its minimum wage and Walmart pulled out of the City again.
The citizens of Oakland, rather than being delighted to have that evil store leave were upset. According to a local ABC news report:
“When I saw that in the news, I thought, ‘Oh no, I’ll either have go farther out or don’t go,'” said shopper Gayla Morris.
“Please don’t close this store, I need this store, I need this store,” said shopper Paula Cook.
“This in is the busiest one. Everybody I know comes here,” explained Francesca Cataldi, also avid Walmart shopper.
Walmart serves the Americans who can’t afford the luxury of sweaters from hand-raised Mohair goats or organic arugula and small-batch brewed, all-natural root beer. It’s for the rest of us, and thank goodness for it and for the stores like it.
(I used to count Target in that number, but I’ve disliked strongly Target’s decision to stop just selling its products and to start selling its values.)
I am thankful for America’s beautiful natural environment. Part of it is wise stewardship. We are lucky that Teddy Roosevelt was a nature lover and realized that there were some extraordinary areas in America that needed to be preserved for posterity’s sake. Of late, under Obama, the federal government went a bit haywire seizing land for the National Park Service, but overall I’m glad that America’s gems, both natural and historic, are being saved.
That America has a beautiful environment isn’t just because the government set off some lands. It’s also because we are a free and wealthy country. There is nothing dirtier than a communist country. Long after America had wised up and cleaned up, communist countries were still filthy. I saw this in communist Czechoslovakia in the mid-1980s, when the air was so thick with pollution you could cut it.
Nor is my Czech memory just a thing of the past. Communism is still filthy. This is a picture I took at the Beijing airport three years ago. The haze in the background isn’t bad camera technique. It’s smog inside the terminal:
Once outside the terminal, things were worse. This is Tiananmen Square:
It takes technological innovation to come up with the means to avoid pollution and wealth, of the free market kind not the dictator kind, to put that innovation into effect. We are blessed that we breath clean air and drink clean water.
I won’t lie. I love and am incredibly grateful for President Trump.
I love that Trump puts America first. Contrary to Democrat claims, Trump’s America First-ism is entirely different from “Today Washington, D.C., tomorrow the world.” As was true for George Washington before him, Trump believes that his job as president is to eschew foreign entanglements unless they benefit America and to put American domestic interests (the economy, national security, and individual liberty) ahead of the interests of people from other nations.
I love it that Trump is trying to reinstate the rule of law, especially when it comes to enforcing a border. No border means no country. Moreover, as Milton Friedman wisely remarked, you can’t have a welfare system and an open border.
I love it that, all Democrat protestations to the contrary, Trump is a color-blind president. He doesn’t love white Americans or black Americans or brown Americans or any other color American. He loves Americans — all of them. The same holds true for his views about gender and sexual orientation. When he takes steps that unleash the economy or increase national security or the reliability of the rule of law, that benefits everyone.
I love it that Trump fights back. We had gentlemanly presidents when we had Bush senior and junior. And we had a gentlemanly, and (as it turned out) utterly craven and backstabbing, presidential candidate in Mitt Romney. They were mediocre presidents (the Bushes) and horrible candidates (Romney). Now, though, we have a fighter. Trump doesn’t throw the first punch but, when it comes to defending himself, his family, his values, and American values, he will counter-punch again and again until he wins.
I love it that Trump is a happy warrior. The picture I used to illustrate this portion of my post is one that Trump tweeted out himself. He can laugh at himself and, of course, he enjoys that, when he does so, those who oppose him fail to see the humor and become more inflamed and deranged than ever before.
I love it that Trump believes that American taxpayer money should be spent for American taxpayers and not for other nations, especially highly corrupt ones. When I look at the Democrats’ “Trumped”-up Ukraine scandal, all I see is a president fighting to keep American taxpayer money from falling into corrupt hands in foreign countries. Bless him for doing so.
I love it that Trump supports Israel, a tiny island of liberal democracy routinely attacked by genocidal religious fanatics. Trump understands that Israel is America’s staunchest ally and that Israel’s enemies are also America’s enemies, whether Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah or any of the other nations and terrorist organizations in thrall to a religion that demands world domination and the forced conversion, enslavement, or death of anyone unlucky enough to be in its path.
I love it that Trump believes that the money Americans earn is theirs, and not merely a temporary loan from the IRS. He’s done a lousy job reining in the federal budget, but I forgive him given the fact that the Democrats have refused to allow him to govern for his four year term. Considering the constant barrage aimed at him, it’s remarkable that he’s accomplished as much as he has.
I love it that Trump believes campaign promises are something to be kept, rather than something to be reneged upon. This is especially true because I liked the promises upon which Trump campaigned.
I love it that Trump, working with Mitch McConnell, is doing his damndest to place on the federal bench judges who believe that they are bound by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. This is a refreshing change from judges who believe that their Progressive ideology vests in them some higher wisdom that allows them to make it up as they go along.
I am incredibly grateful that the American people, in their infinite wisdom, elected Donald Trump as our president. I hope that in 2020, they not only reelect him, but that they give him a Congress that is willing to work with him.
Happy Thanksgiving to all of you. We in America are truly blessed and it’s wonderful that we have a day to take stock of our blessings.
An Australian man named Callum Mouncey, who insists he’s a woman named Hannah Mouncey, perfectly encapsulates why it is so wrong to buy into transgenderism.
I have been writing for many years now about the “transgender” farce that is taking over society. (You can see my posts here, here, here, and here.) Let me say loud and clear a few things that everyone who is neither in thrall to the left nor in fear of the left knows intuitively:
— Wishing you were the opposite sex, or even suffering from the delusion you are the opposite sex, does not make it so.
— Having surgery to cut off healthy breasts, penises, and testicles does not make you a member of the opposite sex.
— Taking hormones that cause your body to mimic some features of the opposite sex, but that also make you sterile and can give you diabetes, cancer, and heart disease, does not make you a member of the opposite sex.
— Unless you’re one of the vanishingly small number of people who are genetically intersex, if you think you’re a member of the opposite sex, you are suffering from a mental illness (or, possibly, if your mother took the Pill within a short time of getting pregnant, a wash of the wrong hormones which can be offset by taking hormones consistent with your biological sex).
— Alternatively, you’re a man who makes this claim, you may also be a pervert who wants to be in bathrooms and changing rooms with naked women or, as I think is the case with Callum Mouncey, aka Hannah Mouncey, you’re a loser who couldn’t make it as a male athlete, and are pathetic enough to think you can compensate by dominating in women’s sports.
Wait! What? You don’t know who Callum Mouncey (who calls himself Hannah Mouncey) is? He’s an Australian guy who was a marginal handball player but who proclaimed himself a woman. He then bullied leftists and/or weak-minded people in the Australian sports world into letting him compete as a woman in Australian rules women’s football:
Recent viral video of Hannah Mouncey, a biological man who has become a transwoman dominating the Australian women’s handball league, reveals an athlete that towers over and seriously outweighs opponents.
The astonishing video shows Mouncey, who stands six-foot-two and weighs 220 pounds, playing against natural-born women. Mouncey is seen domineering over every opponent.
Australian trans athlete, Hannah Mouncey, has been vocal about policies in sport she says discriminate against trans women. pic.twitter.com/Q4bjVi8hAz
Mouncey has been the object of fawning media coverage on TV and in print. The Associated Press recently claimed that the only reason anyone would oppose athletes such as Mouncey is because of “resentment” that transwomen could be successful at sports.
Until 2016, Mouncey played for Australia’s men’s handball league, but now, after transitioning to a woman, Mouncey joined the women’s league.
Mouncey was barred from entering the women’s league in 2017 because of higher testosterone levels and weight but was allowed to play for the 2018 season. During that time, Mouncey complained that weight was unfair criteria for transgendered women.
“My biggest concern is the fact that weight is being used as one of the key physical measures for possible exclusion. Forget the fact that in a game that has such an emphasis on endurance and speed, being heavy is not necessarily an advantage and think about the message it sends to women and girls about their bodies: if you’re too big, you can’t play. That is incredibly dangerous and backward,” Mouncey wrote in the Guardian.
The Western world has spiraled into deathly decadence if it lets this kind of lunacy continue. People make choices and they need to abide by the consequences of those choices.
One of the things I’ve always appreciated about America’s Orthodox Jews is that, while they live by very stringent religious dictates, they do not demand that the world conform to them. They’ve made their choices and, provided that America leaves them alone, they leave America alone. That’s why you don’t read stories about Orthodox Jews suing Abercrombie, a store that lives by selling sex and sleaze, demanding that Orthodox women be allowed to work there dressed in completely body-covering clothing and wigs. Muslims, however, sue to force private businesses to bend to their will. Take this, for example, and I don’t care that even Justice Scalia found it a no-brainer. It may be legally right, but it’s culturally wrong:
The Supreme Court on Monday revived an employment discrimination lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch, which had refused to hire a Muslim woman because she wore a head scarf. The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”
“This is really easy,” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing the decision from the bench.
The company, he said, at least suspected that the applicant, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons. The company’s decision not to hire her, Justice Scalia said, was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice. That was enough, he concluded, to allow her to sue under a federal employment discrimination law.
The vote was 8 to 1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
So, sure, it’s constitutional to force a business to cave to someone’s religious demands, but it’s also an act of bullying by a minority belief system. I feel the same way about these so-called transgender people. If they want to pretend to be the opposite sex, fine. I won’t stop them. But I strongly disagree with their insistence that the entire world allow itself to be shaped around their delusions.
Had Hannah Mouncey just wanted to wear a dress and be addressed as “Miss” at the grocery store, I would have shrugged in a libertarian way. However, the fact that Callum Mouncey wants to destroy women’s sports and ogle naked women in restrooms and changing areas is a very big “NOOOOOOOO” for me.
In honor of Mouncey’s attempt to foist his delusion on the world, I made up a little poster, playing on Magritte’s famous observation that a drawing of a pipe is, in fact, not a pipe. Mouncey, whether or not he still has his male piping, is not a woman:
In America, the term Right Wing is misused to imply that conservative Americans are fascists lusting for world domination; in fact, the opposite is true.
(As my regular readers (to whom I am endlessly grateful) know, I was away from my blog for some time caring for a relative who had surgery. Being away that long gave me time to think about “going a little crazy,” as Bob Ross likes to say when he adds another tree to a painting. In my case, “going a little crazy” meant wondering if I could do a video as well as a podcast.
In addition to the time spent researching how to do go about making a Power Point video (I’ve got to start somewhere), it took me six hours to create a 35 minute video and companion podcast. They both are a little glitchy, but not bad for a first effort. I will get better. But I will never forget my readers, so here is the same content in written form.)
The idea for this video came when I ended my trip with a much-needed massage. Because this is Tennessee, my masseur is a liberty-oriented man so, in the midst of a far-ranging conversation, he asked this question: “Why are conservatives called “fascists,” when fascism is a socialist doctrine?” An excellent question, and one I wanted to answer here.
The reality is that, even though the media loves to talk about “right wingers” (although never left wingers), there is no “left wing” versus “right wing” in America, at least as those terms are understood in the rest of the world. Instead, we only have liberty versus tyranny, along with the supporters of both those ideologies.
Ironically enough, although the French Revolution post-dated the end of the American revolution by six years, the terms “right wing” and “left wing” are leftovers from that overseas kerfuffle. Let me explain.
The French Revolution had as its slogan “Liberté, égalité, fraternité.” Liberty, equality, fraternity! In the context of the French Revolution, those words were always lies.
At the start of the Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy that sat on top of a large, equally absolutist aristocracy. It was not a sustainable system, and the revolutionaries intended to topple it. However, unlike the American revolutionaries who envisioned limited government coupled with individual liberty, that’s not what the French wanted. Instead, the revolutionaries imagined an absolutist commune, with the monarchy and aristocracy replaced by an equally controlling cabal of “the people.”
But what, you may ask, does this have to do with “left wing” and “right wing”? Simple. In the French Parlement during the lead-up to the Revolution, the representatives who sought to retain an absolutist government led by the monarchy and the aristocracy sat to the Speaker’s right. The representatives who sought to replace the existing government with an absolutist government led by “representatives of the people” sat to the Speaker’s left.
And that’s where the terms still used today in American and around the world came from: Those on the right seek to “conserve” the old ways; those on the left seek to upend them. Except, as I’ll develop at greater length, America has not traditionally had any cognates to this European left/right divide.
And now we get to my favorite chart, one that, for convenience’s sake, uses a left/right continuum to show how there are two sides to the political spectrum:
On the left (although it could just as easily be portrayed on the right side of the line) is absolutist, totalitarian government, something with which we are all familiar. It exists under many names – monarchy, socialism, communism, democratic socialism, fascism, theocracy, etc. – but it always plays out the same: maximum government control; minimum individual liberty.
Meanwhile, on the right side of the continuum (although I could have easily placed “liberty blue” on the left), is the political system that has limited government and maximum individual liberty. At its extreme, it’s anarchy. Otherwise, it’s . . . well, it’s really only the American experiment. Everywhere else in the world, government control is the standard.
So what is the American experiment? It was build on Britain’s Magna Carta and its 1689 Bill of Rights. That last document was a statement of limitations on monarchical. William of Orange and Queen Mary II had agreed to this Bill of Rights in order to to attain the British throne in the wake of 1688’s “Glorious Revolution.” (It was glorious because King James II fled, rather than going to war.)
If you look at the British Bill of Rights, you’ll see many echoes in our own Bill of Rights. However, the British Bill of Rights limits only the monarchy. Parliament was not limited, which is why it felt free to impose all sorts of restrictions on British citizens in the American colonies.
When the Founding Fathers decided to draft a Bill of Rights, they did it correctly. Instead, of stating the items as a negative charter (as Obama wrongly put it), one that simply tells government what it can’t do, the Founders stated our Bill of Rights as a set of rights inherent and inviolable in every individual. No government – no monarchy, no legislature, no judiciary, no official whatever – should be able to impede those rights without a high showing of necessity.
Hold that thought in mind as we look at the three most common forms of government outside of America in the years since WWI.
First, we have socialism, which exists not only as a free-standing form of government (National Socialists), but also as an umbrella term for the evil twins of communism and fascism. Under communism, there is no private ownership. Everything – and everybody – belongs to the government. Examples, all of them tyrannical, are the Soviet Union, China (despite its faux market economy), North Korea, and Cuba.
Back in the 1930s, fascism put a softer face on communism, because it did not nationalize all private property, instead limiting itself to nationalizing a few major industries, especially fuel and transportation. However, there is no freedom in a fascist country. Mussolini provided the ultimate definition of fascism: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” (I also include today’s oligarchies in the list of fascist states, since they function much the same way.) In the World War II era, fascist states sought world domination and, in Germany’s case, included genocide and slavery in the service of an imaginary “master race.”
Today’s Europe is still fascist, although that would no doubt horrify Europeans were you to tell them that. Under both EU rule and the governments of the individual European states, there is private ownership, but major industries, especially transportation, are still nationalized. Moreover, the EU and the individual governments tightly control every aspect of people’s lives.
(When it comes to nationalized services, I have a real bee in my bonnet about these “soft” socialized states’ so-called “cradle to grave” care, something my parents’ European-based friends and family boasted about non-stop. These benefits had nothing to do with socialism. They were available in Europe because American taxpayers funded European defense costs during the Cold War. It wasn’t socialized medicine; it was American medicine. Now that the Cold War has ended and the money isn’t flowing as much, European socialized medicine is cratering.)
The difference between today’s European fascism and Hitler’s is that (a) it’s not called fascism today and (b) it’s not yet engaged in world domination and anti-Semitic genocide. However, given the speed with which Muslims are populating Europe, all in thrall to an Islamic doctrine that calls for world domination and anti-Semitic genocide, I think it won’t be long before Europe starts to repeat the 1930s.
The third type of government in the world today shows up in monarchies or theocracies, both of which thrive, and are often intertwined in the Middle East. Whether it’s Mullahs in Iran or Kings in Saudi Arabia, these are totalitarian governments that use religious doctrine to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives. (In Saudi Arabia, Prince Muhammed bin Salman is slowly trying to change this but, since he holds the tiger by the tail, it’s a very delicate and dangerous process.)
And then there’s America, which has a totally different system, one that, in its purest form, does everything it can both to limit government power and mob rule. There’s nothing else like it in the world.
The American political system as the Founders envisioned it has a limited federal government composed of three parts – executive, legislative, and judicial – each with unique spheres of power, each with some control over the other branches, and each jealous of its own power as a bulwark against any branch becoming too strong.
The Executive branch eschews pure democracy in favor of an Electoral College, forcing presidential candidates to campaign in every state (as Hillary learned to her cost). Without this, all presidents would be elected out of population centers. If the Democrats were able to do away with the Electoral College, something they’re trying to do through the grossly unconstitutional National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all future American presidents would be elected by California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Washington.
Under the Legislative branch, we have two organs. The Senate was originally meant to have its members appointed by each state’s governors, ensuring (a) that the Senators would be responsive to their states and (b) that no senator would be enslaved to the passions of the mob. The 17th amendment changed that in 1912, probably not for the better.
The House controls the power of the purse and, before the 17th Amendment, was the only branch of government with direct democracy. House members must go back to the voters every two years to make their case. This is why impeachment begins in the House and why the current refusal to have a formal impeachment – which would force House members to make their positions known to their voters — is a direct betrayal of the voters.
Finally, the Judicial branch is the least democratic part of our government, for its members get selected by the President, get approved by the Senate, and then sit for life. In theory, it is impartial and rules only on whether matters are constitutional or unconstitutional, a power Chief Justice Marshall arrogated to the Court in the early 19th century.
In recent years, the federal judicial has boldly grabbed for itself both legislative power and executive power. The legislative power appears in its finding emanations of penumbras to justify federally sanctioned abortion, something never contemplated in the Constitution, and writing whole romance novels to allow gay marriage, another concept far afield from the Constitution. Both these issues belong in the states until such time as the Constitution is formally amended. As for executive power, every time some podunk judge in a Leftist district blocks a facially valid executive order from President Trump based upon the judge’s interpretation about the purity of Trump’s mind and soul . . . that’s an improper exercise of executive power.
Lastly, as I said before, our Founders gave us a Bill of Rights holding that certain rights are vested in the people and that the government cannot infringe them. This is extraordinary and differs from all other constitutions in the world, each of which is an endless book of bureaucratic does and don’ts.
So what kind of cool stuff flows from a limited government and a Bill of Rights? For starters, we have free market capitalism, which has been doing wonders since President Trump reformed taxes to leave more money with citizens and cut back on onerous regulations.
Strikingly, our Democrat Party presidential candidates have no room in their platforms for the free market. Bernie is a stone-cold communist. As an aside, given that he’s been alive for the greater part of the 20th century and all of the 21st (to date), he must know about the tens of millions dead and enslaved under communism (a knowledge sadly denied to uneducated millennials). That he still supports communism despite this knowledge means either that he’s the most stupid man ever to walk the earth or an evil tyrant wannabe. Neither reflects well on him or the voters who support him.
Warren also should know better, but I can attest to the fact that she’s stupid. Maybe evil too, but definitely stupid.
The most recent example of the disrespect the Left has for the free market comes from Kamala Harris, another candidate who is dumb as a rock, only dumber. Her candidacy is in free fall, so she’s promising to seize private property to prop it up. (Incidentally, I don’t think the government should fund private companies, but it’s important to note that, government aid notwithstanding, these are still companies with shareholders, employees, and profits.
Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris on if drug companies do not comply with her mandatory set drug prices: “I will snatch their patent so that we will take over”
Audience asks: “can we do that?”
“Yes, we can do that! Yes, we can do that! … I have the will to do it” pic.twitter.com/gpU8nnGt6h
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 23, 2019
Another benefit we have is social mobility of a type that never existed anywhere else in the world before America. I created a little photo montage, just off the top of my head, of people who have attained success in a way that would not have been possible without America:
In America, the fact that your grandparents were rich doesn’t mean you will be, and the fact that they were poor doesn’t mean that is your fate either. We make our own fate in America.
One of my favorite rights – and one that I came to late in life – is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I think this picture says it all:
In Nazi Germany, the government seized arms as a prelude to seizing people. A government should always stand in awe of its people’s right to defend itself against tyranny.
People should also be able to defend themselves against evil-doers in their own community. Mexico, a rapidly failing state, with appalling gun violence and skyrocketing murders, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world.
Of course, the Democrat Party desperately wants your guns. Beto, before dropping out, was open about this – and please note the audience roar of delight:
And then there’s the right to free speech. In England, the cradle of free speech, it’s already gone:
Free speech isn’t doing so well in Leftist America either. In New York, you can be find $250,000 for “misgendering” someone. And in California, when it comes to long-term care facilities, it’s the law that you can be fined for “misgendering” residents there too.
So, going back to my chart and the left/right divide, here’s what you need to know about the rest of the world: it’s not tyranny versus liberty; it’s two different types of tyrants fighting each other for total control over citizens. In America, we have half of that equation. The American left wants total control over American citizens:
“We’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money, but you know, part of the American way is, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product.” – Barack Obama (net worth $40,000,000).
“You built a factory out there, good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads that the rest of us paid for. You hired workers that the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.” — Elizabeth Warren (net worth $18,000,000).
“I will snatch their patent so that we will take over.” – Kamala Harris (net worth $4,000,000).
“Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15.” Beto O’Rourke (net worth $10,000,000-$15,000,000).
On the opposite side of the political aisle in America, however, things are different. Conservatives don’t crave power. They crave a smaller government that leaves citizens alone to pursue their own lives, and that concerns itself solely with such core issues as national security, a stable legal system, functional transportation across the country, and managing (God forbid) major health crises.
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” – Gerald Ford
“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth!” – Ronald Reagan
With the above in mind – American conservatives are the sole political movement in the world dedicated to individual liberty – why are American conservatives called “right wing” or “fascist,” terms that are tied to totalitarian control, while American leftists are called “liberal,” implying a dedication to individual liberty? It’s time for a little history lesson to answer that question.
Back in the 1930s, Hitler and Stalin both presided over socialist governments. The former was fascist (private ownership but government control), while the latter was communist (no private ownership of the means of production). They were hideous, evil fraternal twins of socialism.
As is often the case with sibling rivalry, the two countries (and their leaders) hated each other. Nevertheless, in August 1939, a week before Hitler invaded Poland, sparking WWII, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia entered in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Under that pact, they swore to be neutral vis-à-vis each other in times of war.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Soviet Russia did nothing. Taking their cue from Russia, in America, communists also took a very lukewarm stance against Hitler.
The Pact ended abruptly on June 22, 1941, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa by invading the Soviet Union. When America entered the War, it found itself allied with Russia against the Nazis. On the American home front, communists instantly became staunch and fervent anti-Nazis.
However, when the war ended, with the Allies victorious, and socialist/fascist Germany in ruins, American communists had a problem: Fascist socialism stood exposed as one of the most evil ideologies of all time. How were they to protect communist socialism, which was also one of the most evil ideologies of all time?
The answer was to create a false syllogism that took hold in academia and media, and that now controls American thought:
Communists and Fascists were enemies.
Communists helped win World War II, with the war’s end providing unquestioned proof that Fascists were completely evil.
Communists and American Republicans are enemies.
Republicans are therefore akin to Fascists and, like fascists, must be completely evil.
And what’s the moral of this story?
Next time someone accuses you, or any other conservative, of being “fascist” or “right wing,” object vigorously. You are a person committed to individual liberty as opposed to being a slave to an all-powerful government (no matter how woke, intersectional, and politically correct that government claims to be).
Why does Japan inspire longing in so many people? Why did I devote so much of my university studies followed by 5 years of my life, and countless hours of continued study afterward to a place where I would never fit in? Why do I struggle even today with a language spoken by an ever decreasing number of people, ranked by the US State Department as one of the most difficult to learn for native English speakers?
Twenty two years after leaving Japan as the parent of an infant and without job prospects, I arrived at Narita airport with a solid career behind me and as a successful parent with a wallet filled with plastic buying power and cash. Older, wiser and balder I stood waiting at passport control to be fingerprinted and granted entry.
I noticed a short line of people stood waiting at the residents entry line. It looked like a cast of a freakshow, people with tattoos, hair of rainbow hues that looked like it had been cut by a weedwacker, nose rings and studs. One woman wore a jacket emblazoned with the slogan, “Southern Fried Queer.” I recalled cutting my hair short and removing a single earring stud on the plane over when I arrived 27 years before in order to better fit in to this conservative society. Had things in Japan changed all that much? I would soon find out.
Just like I had grown fatter, wealthier and I hope wiser, Japan had changed. As the taxi sped to the hotel near Kawaramachi-Oike, I struggled to find recognizable landmarks from the past. They were there but you had to look past the changes – the Gucci store on Shijo street, the new hotel where the Virgin record store was, and the disappearance of McDonalds restaurants. Shops had come and gone likely numerous times in the area, including a hideous filthy pet shop that sold endangered species with questionable provenance in Teramachi where I once rescued a cat from a crowded cage. And the ubiquitous beer machines that had fueled my disappointment (and alcoholism) had gone. Even my cigarette brand, Mild Sevens, had changed its name to avoid litigation. Litigation fear? In Japan? Now there’s a change.
Kyoto seemed more prosperous, and much cleaner – even though there wasn’t a trash can in sight – and had many more foreign faces on the streets and in the shops. Overall during the few days spent there, seeing 25 years into the past with my mind and contrasting it with the present seen with my eyes, Kyoto seemed a lot friendlier – at least on the surface (and don’t knock it: as any traveler will tell you, superficial friendliness is just fine most of the time.) Even the office of my old company which went bust in 2007 where I worked 22 years ago was still there.
One thing that hit me in Kyoto and throughout the trip: prices hadn’t changed in 22 years. Drinks machines offered Coca-Cole and various drinks for ¥110, and cigarettes were cheaper in Japan than they were in the US. Boxed lunches. Noodles at noodle shops. Taxi fares. Everything that we purchased during our trip were roughly the same they had been when they had left in 1997.
According to online inflation calculators, prices in the US have increased 60% during that time, and our inflation rate has been very low. The fact that prices hadn’t changed at all in Japan was something I’d never seen before: price stasis.
As expected Chinese tourists outnumbered every other tourist group. I’ve studied Mandarin so can easily tell the difference between the three main languages of east Asia: Japanese, Chinese and Korean. I’ve found busloads of Chinese in unexpected places such as Vik Iceland, and they were in Kyoto and Tokyo. But strangely not in Hiroshima.
I’d never been to Hiroshima, but bullet train rides covered by our JR Passes, as well as bad weather in Kyoto gave us the impetus we needed to visit. Hiroshima was just like everywhere else we had been so far, except Peace Park was filled with a sea of Japanese school children on field trips, a few Falun Gong supporters protesting organ harvesting by the Chinese, and no Chinese tourists.
The peace museum detailed the atomic attacks in horrific images and artifacts, including conglomerates of concrete, steel, ash and bone. It was meant to be stomach churning, and it was, and children less than 10 were seeing it just as I was. I didn’t expect context of the blasts – the horrors the Japanese had perpetrated on the Chinese, Korean and Southeast Asians including European and American civilians and POWs, the potential slaughter of millions in a land invasion that both my father and father-in-law were training for in the Philippines and Burma, or the starvation of more through a blockade meant to starve the regime to submission. There were charred backpacks of children, but none used in the exercises to train them to run towards foreign soldiers, so that they could be filled with explosives and remotely detonated during a coming invasion. Perhaps it wasn’t the place for such a contrast, but given the revisionist historians both in Japan and elsewhere who see the bombs out of context, and therefore unmitigated instruments of evil, such context is necessary. And I think that’s why I didn’t see any Chinese tourists: The view of Japan as “victim” of the war doesn’t fit with the actual victims of Japanese aggression.
Then it was onto a hike in Nagano where we stayed in traditional Japanese inns, ryokan and visited hot springs. Neither had been options for us in the 1990s since we lacked the money for these luxuries and the knowledge about where foreigners were accepted. Even with the supposed acceptance, there is nothing quite like being stared at while you’re nude by naked Japanese men. I had had the experience back in the day, visiting the local public bath in our neighborhood and bathing with Japanese yakuza members with their punch perm hair they covered with shower caps, and their elaborate tattoos. Still they got used to our tour group and pretty much left us alone. Sleeping on futons had definitely changed for us. It’s one thing to sleep on the floor when you’re in your 20s or 30s: something completely different when you’re in your 50s or 60s. But the food at the ryokan was good for the most part, although the staff at one of the four ryokan we stayed at ignored us – rude even by non-Japanese standards, particularly on a $2000/person tour.
We ended our visit in Tokyo, a city that had always frightened me even before I became a hermit and had to live in the woods. But it was no problem thanks to the preparations the city was making to be tourist friendly for the coming Olympics. Many train stations had multi-lingual female workers posted at the ticket machines to help explain how to navigate the multitude of train lines and 1000 train stations in the city. We hit various neighborhoods: Harajuku on Halloween night. The Japanese take the holiday seriously, and whenever they get serious about something they’ll run with it and surpass everyone else at it.
The neighborhood was filled with young people in costume, many taken from anime or manga characters. Lots of vampire Victorian maids and characters dressed in leather that looked like they stepped out off a Mad Max movie set.
We also visited the Akihabara neighborhood which has been famous for electronics since the 1960s. There not only could all manner of gadgets be found, there were multi-level stores devoted to obsessions such card games, video games, and realistic dolls with eye-watering prices, with some reaching $5000.
In Japanese otaku has always been an insult, yet entire segments of the economy are devoted to “dedicated hobbyists” to use a gentler euphemism. Whether it’s dolls or realistic Gundam models the Japanese show no restraint when they pursue an idea to its logical conclusion. In a sense that is no different from the traditional arts of flower arrangement, tea ceremony or kimono wearing. Instead of viewing the men and women buying the dolls or the card games with disdain, I felt a strong kinship with them. After all, I too played video games, modeled trains, and delved deeply into my own fascinations. While I had no interest in collecting these dolls, I understood why they were collected: they were beautiful, well made and carefully crafted. You didn’t need to collect them to appreciate them.
While sitting in a Starbucks a group of “elderly” women sat around a table talking. I looked over at them, and watched them. Then it dawned on me.
“These are my tribe,” I said to the Wife.
In my mind and heart I am in my 20s or 30s, but watching them carefully I recognized that the women were likely in their 50s and 60s. My age group. I was no longer the young man who had come to Japan with a vision of learning Japan’s innermost secrets and using that as the foundation to a career in the Foreign Service. Instead I was a middle aged American man sipping coffee with his wife in a Starbucks in Japan. That was all I was, and that was okay.
But it wasn’t okay. The trip back to Japan had rekindled that love, that obsession that had motivated me 40 years earlier to devote myself to the study of East Asia – its languages, history, people, and cultures. And on this trip that kataomoi – that longing I felt for Japan that I had left in the past – came back, stronger than ever.
THIS IS WHAT SO-CALLED, “JOURNALISM” IN AMERICA HAS COME TO, in 2019. The minutest Tweets, Twitters, Facebookings, Writing, analyses, and a lot more.
A Presidential candidate “ALLEGEDLY” farted.
ALLEGED NEWS! NEWS! NEWS!
“Democrats’ efforts to impeach President Donald Trump are going over with the public like a juicy, wet fart.
“Seriously. Such wind was broken live on MSNBC on Monday night on the eve of the Democrats’ next round of impeachment hearings on Tuesday, where a Democrat Congressman helping lead the charge for impeachment was being interviewed by a network host. Then, mid-interview, a loud fart broke out on air.”
(What allegedly happens if you don’t allegedly say, “allegedly” anymore? Does Social Media get on your case, call you “racist,” get you fired, and destroy your life?)
This headline (above) seems to be all that remains of a once-great Democrat Party. The party of JFK, of Hubert Humphrey, Daniel Moynihan, Harry S. Truman, and others. All that remains now are clowns, liars, psychopaths, Communists, Propagandists, and Totalitarians.
So…there’s nothing really left to write about. How many times can a conscientious analyst write about Democrat lies, bullsh’t, and Hollywood-scripted make-believe socialist Reality?
Why Write about it? Why politely chronicle it? Why treat evil or deranged Democrats as if they were sacrosanct? Why these Marquis of Queensbury Rules of “ethical” boxing?
IT SEEMS TO ME: THERE’S REALLY ONLY ONE MAIN MESSAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE REPORTED. AND IT’S THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE EVERY, SINGLE TIME THE DEMS FLING THEIR LYING SH’T AT THE WALL….
Democrats and Leftists have nothing–other than their own sh’t, to throw at us: at Democracy, Freedom, Truth, Justice, Trump, and the American Way.
Democrats have sunk to the bottom of their pig pond–and just throw whatever sh’t they grab hold of–every day, and every night, to see if it maybe sticks to anything. As in Trump.
This is utter, shameless Democrat desperation, born of Terrified Democrat Desperation.
Because the Democrats–among them, Pelosi, Schiff, Clapper, Comey, Clinton, Brenner, and all others sucking off the tit of the Deep State– feel spiked walls closing in upon them. Because Punishment is said to be coming. And they know it.
Desperately–Democrats know they must discredit or remove Donald Trump before his Magical, Sh’t Disruption Ray Can melt them!
But, Democrats have gotten so good at throwing sh’t, that deranged, communist followers and dreamy watchers of TV, actually BELIEVE them.
And deluded haters and idealists can not WAIT to vote for the Democrat of their “choice”–ANY Democrat Leftist who might be “nominated.”
Anybody at all.
Many “Voters” pray it will be the current President of Mexico, or the President of China, Iran, Cuba, or the beautiful Michelle Obama, or the scintillating Hillary Clinton, or the massive genius of Señor Butt Gig–you know, the gay guy–or even a housebroken mastiff, if offered.
Democrats will vote Democrat. It doesn’t matter for Whom.
Every “registered” voter, every dead person still on the rolls, every illegal alien, or pissed off meth-user. Every person with a gripe, “identity,” special protection, a leftist agenda, or totalitarian goal. They will all vote.
Additional “votes” will be “harvested,” by Democrats–as needed–wherever they are found. In school desks, in closets, under beds, in car trunks, warehouses, filing cabinets, or just laying around “uncounted.”
Or Democrats might just disrupt the elections entirely, and declare them null and void–“RESIST El Trump.”
Democrats will continue to lie, cheat, steal, subvert, and stage, their public coup d’etat.
While Republicans in Congress and the Senate sit with their thumbs up their ass and do–what? Nothing? Follow polite rules of boxing–Marquis of Queensbury rules.
“You think that’s air you’re breathing?” (The Matrix,. 1999.)
Nothing you do will matter. It’s a falsified “Reality,” Neo.
Democrats will not accept a loss–they can’t. To lose is to be obliterated. This is the “game” they have set up for themselves and Trump. In the end, there can be only one.
Morpheus The Matrix quotes:
“The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work… when you go to church… when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth. “Neo: What truth? “Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.” ― Morpheus The Matrix (1999)
When The Saxon Began To Hate is a poem by Rudyard Kipling, a Christian, dead, white man (1865-1936). By standards today, he was very toxic.
Kipling just failed–to be gay, transgender, a communist, socialist, propagandist, Trump hater, or a So-called “Anti-Fascist” (Totalitarian) blackshirt.
Kipling was a short-story writer, poet, journalist (when it still meant something), and novelist. He was born in India, which inspired some of his work, such as The Jungle Book (Mowgli The Jungle Boy.)
I recall watching movies based on The Jungle Book. This was maybe about 1952, when they were being used on TV by Andy Devine (Andy’s Gang). Some of Andy’s sidekicks were Froggy The Frog, and Midnight The Cat.
Midnight could say, “Niiiiiiiiice.”
Froggy was quite talkative. He could also say, “Hiya kids! Hiya, hiya, hiya!”
You felt safe back then. You knew Midnight wasn’t going to kill and eat Froggy, or vice versa.
Nobody’s head would get ripped off, or their eyes gouged out. There was no “hood,” no drugs in public, No back-talk to cops, and women were still the Keepers Of Virtue.
As to this particular poem, it rhymes pretty well and is dramatic. I don’t actually know its point. But it might be this:
If you pick on somebody long enough, call them names, and do things to them that are not niiiice…you may eventually provoke a reaction you don’t expect or want.
Or do you?
Expect violence, and want it?
I don’t know :)
THE WRATH OF THE AWAKENED SAXON by Rudyard Kipling
It was not part of their blood, It came to them very late, With long arrears to make good, When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved, They were icy — willing to wait Till every count should be proved, Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low. Their eyes were level and straight. There was neither sign nor show When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd. It was not taught by the state. No man spoke it aloud When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred. It will not swiftly abate. Through the chilled years ahead, When Time shall count from the date That the Saxon began to hate.
…It is a sobering reminder of how successful the propaganda of the leftist media and higher education system has been when one realizes that socialism is viewed by nearly half of the millions of young Americans as a sociable way of life — a better way of life where they feel people work together for the good of everyone, where the wealth generated by the sweat of the worker is not accumulated into the bank accounts of a small group of the mega-wealthy.
The Democrat candidates for president continually talk about getting the wealthy to pay their fair share to make public college free and to offer free health care for everyone.
Socialism, they say, is the sensitive political system, whereas capitalism is ruthless and runs on greed and profits, where the poor worker sleeps on the streets outside the mansions of the factory-owners.
Currently leading the Democrat socialist field are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who are both trying to see who can be more “caring” to young Americans by “out-socializing” the other. Offerings of the lowest-cost or no-cost health care for all, free education for all, and forgiveness of student debt are just some of the key areas that both candidates are struggling to rule….
For many, “Socialism” seems just a nicer way of saying “Communism.”
Millennials seem to believe Communism sounds “pretty good.” They have been taught this almost from birth. How “wonderful” Communism is, compared to Evil Capitalism and Especially to “Evil” America.
They have been taught this in daycare, in schools, in universities, in the “news,” movies, and on TV.
It’s a twenty-four hour, world-wide drum they have banging inside cellphone-blurred heads. They are organized around it–the cellphone–liberal TV, leftist Internet sites, and “social media.”
There is no world, other than the one illustrated, scripted, and foretold to Millennials on their “magic” oracles–the phones.
Totalitarian Communism–is what Democrats And their enablers/supporters seem to want. Evidenced by the Full-Stalinist, Schiff-Trials. Adam Schiff, it seems, in whatever universe he populates, seeks total command and control.
The “problem” is– not that “The Schiff Has Hit The Fan.”
The problem is that too many are “set-up” to actually BELIEVE Schiff, and that he is viewed and reported as Absolute Truth.
Communists, Globalists, Politicians, and World Money Masters seek total dominance of Earth. Some may seem to be Capitalists, but actually foment and promote Socialism/Communism.
Elites want to rule Earth, with a population of walking dead enslaved to them–the same way ancient serfs were to feudal lords.
Socialism is not for the masses. Socialism is for the Elite, who seek wealth, power, luxury, and Dominance.
No. Millennials aren’t born “dumb.” They are made that way. Almost from birth.
They are made dumb. Stupid. Unable to learn. Blocked. Enslaved to the Phones. To a make-believe, made-up “Reality.”
Millennials are inculcated by foreign nannies, in daycare, in schools, and universities. They are made to “trust” their emotions and feelings. They are made into life-long Liberals.
They are made into suburban housewives, metrosexuals, and trans-Whatever. They are made inured to the violence of History.
“Trump and America –Evil. Facebook And social media –Good.”
Millennials have been recreated by World Masters.
Millennials are made by “social engineers.” They are scripted and cast in walking dead roles, with no lines–other than the Democrat Communist Party-Line.
Das Partei (That’s German, kids.)
DNA is never wiped out. But it can be modified. When liberals have children with other liberals, you just might get more liberals.
Groups, and herds of them.
Flocks and gangs of them.
Liberals, to populate a niche. Liberals, as a permanent part of the gene pool.
On October 28 of this year, I wrote a long post entitled Under Obama, there came to be a cancer in the Pentagon. I was triggered, if you’ll pardon my using that now-noxious millennial word, by news stories about two Obama-era admirals and one Clinton-era general. I won’t re-hash the whole post here because you can read it at the link, but let me give you the high points:
Under Obama, the Pentagon purged high ranking officers at a rate unheard of in modern times. By the time he was through, he’d gotten rid of almost two hundred officers. Some, I’m sure, weren’t performing well, but an inordinate number were reluctant to get with the Obama program of turning the American military into a social justice experiment, complete with women in combat and openly transgender troops. I suggested in my post that those who survived the purge might be unlike America’s past military officers. Very unlike.
As my examples, I looked at three recent pronouncements from retired officers. The first was Admiral McRaven, who was in charge when special forces killed bin Laden. Although bin Laden masterminded the gruesome, terrifying mass murder of 2,996 people on American soil, McRaven made sure that bin Laden had a respectful Muslim funeral service at sea.
McRaven recently wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post, in which spent paragraphs boasting about the military and his military affiliations. He then claimed, in pretty stark terms, that Trump is vile. He ended by saying, again in stark times, that it time for Trump to leave office ASAP. He didn’t say, “that’s why you should vote Trump out in November 2020.” No. He suggested an immediate exit:
And if this president doesn’t understand their importance, if this president doesn’t demonstrate the leadership that America needs, both domestically and abroad, then it is time for a new person in the Oval Office — Republican, Democrat or independent — the sooner, the better. The fate of our Republic depends upon it. (Emphasis mine.)
That crude suggestion, along with McRaven’s constant references to the military, can easily be read to mean that the post-Obama Pentagon will look favorably upon a military coup.
The next officer I called out was General Barry McCaffrey, who served under Bill Clinton. McCaffrey had a complete mental collapse when Trump said he didn’t want the government to subscribe anymore to the New York Times and Washington Post, two papers that are now open propaganda outlets for the Democrat party. McCaffrey’s response to an action that John F. Kennedy once did was to call Trump “Mussolini.” Mussolini, of course, didn’t cancel subscriptions. He canceled reporters.
The third embarrassing, and worrisome officer, was Admiral James Winnefeld who served as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Obama from 2011 to 2014. When Trump described al-Baghdadi’s death by talking about Baghdadi’s miserable cowardice, an approach that is a wonderful psy-ops tactic against primitive, violent ISIS recruits, Winnefeld fell on his fainting couch. Trump, he said, was disrespectful to the man who presided over the murder of tens of thousands of civilians, the rape and sexual slavery of tens of thousands of women, and the routine torture of men, women, and children, including such charming things as crucifixion. A better model, said Winnefeld, was that under the Obama administration: “If you look back at the bin Laden raid, we treated his body with respect that is due under Islam.”
My point in highlighting these three officers was to say that, beginning with Clinton and accelerating under Obama, something went seriously wrong in the upper echelons of America’s military. In personality, they’ve become indistinguishable from millennial hysterics. And in politics, they are aligned so closely with the Left that they’ve abandoned reason and have chosen instead to ally themselves with those who openly and loudly advocate for America’s destruction.
The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.
Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.
In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29, wearing a full military uniform.
To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance. The willful blindness is concerning, but it gets much worse.
Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving countermanding instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore President Trump’s policies. The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard. Consider…
After the material I quoted, sundance went on to highlight multiple pages from Vindman’s testimony in which Vindman says that, while Trump (all accusations to the contrary) never actually made any demands, the disparity in power between him and Zelenskkyy left Vindman thinking that maybe the latter was being bullied . . . which Vindman strongly felt just wasn’t right:
VINDMAN: The power disparity between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine is vast, and, you know, in the President asking for something, it became – there was – in return for a White House meeting, because that’s what this was about. This was about getting a White House meeting. It was a demand for him to fulfill his – fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.
REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE: Okay. Well, and I understand that based on that answer that your opinion is that it was a demand. I’m looking for where in the transcript you think there are words used that justify the use of that term, “demand,” as opposed to what you just said, which was ask for.
VINDMAN: You know, I guess I didn’t – frankly, Congressman, I didn’t parse the words all that clearly. This is, you know – I’m not – I guess I – I’m not an attorney by training. This is – I just wrote it the way I kind of felt it. And that’s the way I described it. (Emphasis mine.)
Let me translate: As Vindman conceded at a different point during questioning, the transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelenskyy was accurate. It was just that Vindman, like a 19-year-old girl at a Leftist college, had the feelz. He just “felt it” — with “it” being that Trump made some sort of unseemly and bullying demand on Zelenskyy.
In the many other pages of testimony at Conservative Treehouse, you’ll find Vindman endlessly talking about his feelings, about poor little Ukraine compared to the power of the United States and, ironically enough, about his military training to interpret requests, no matter how politely phrased, as commands. I say this is ironic because Vindman refused to obey his Commander-in-Chief’s order that he not show up for a faked hearing.
The thing about Vindman is that we need to remember that being in the American military is a starting point for assuming good things about someone. It’s not the ending point. We still must look at each individual in a “trust but verify” way. After all, Benedict Arnold was also an American military officer and a brilliant one at that.
Those of us paying attention remember from last week that one of Vindman’s former commanders wrote a series of tweets about Vindman’s slavish devotion to Obama and his deep disrespect for Americans. Of course, if you try to search for that information through the search engines, all you find is hundreds of articles saying that Trump insulted American troops when he suggested that Vindman was not on the up-and-up.
It was only because I remembered that my friend Debra Heine had written an American Greatness article about the tweets that I was able to make my way back to the Twitter thread from retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman. (And as an FYI, while the media was up in arms that anyone would dare disparage Vindman, it went haywire insulting Hickman for speaking up about Vindman’s service.)
You can see Lt. Colonel Hickman’s tweets here. I’ve reassembled them in ordinary paragraphs for ease of reading, but they are otherwise verbatim copies of Hickman’s own words:
a) I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 12 in Grafenwoher, GE.
He worked w/the Russian Embassy & I was assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), w/in USAREUR (US Army Europe). He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, & I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.
The following account of LTC Vindman’s words & actions are completely accurate to the best of my recollection & have been corroborated by others.
We interacted on several different occasions throughout the planning cycle, but it was during the actual execution of the exercise, that we had an issue relevant to his recent testimony.
As stated earlier, Atlas Vision 12 was conducted at JMTC in the VBS2 (Virtual Battle Simulations 2) Classrooms for Simulation. Vindman, who was a Major at the time, was sitting in one of the classrooms talking to the US & Russian Soldiers, as well as the young Officers & GS Employees about America, Russia, & Obama.
He was apologetic of American culture, laughed about Americans not being educated or worldly, & really talked up Obama & globalism to the point of uncomfortable.
He would speak w/the Russian Soldiers & laugh as if at the expense of the US personnel. It was so uncomfortable & unprofessional, one of the GS employees came & told me everything above. I walked over & sat w/in earshot of Vindman, & sure enough, all was confirmed.
One comment truly struck me as odd, & it was w/respect to American’s falsely thinking they’re exceptional, when he said, “He [Obama] is working on that now.” And he said it w/a snide ‘I know a secret’ look on his face. I honestly don’t know what it meant, it just sounded like an odd thing to say.
Regardless, after hearing him bash America a few times in front of subordinates, Russians, & GS Employees, as well as, hearing an earful about globalization, Obama’s plan, etc…I’d had enough. I tapped him on the shoulder & asked him to step outside.
At that point I verbally reprimanded him for his actions, & I’ll leave it at that, so as not to be unprofessional myself. The bottom-line is LTC Vindman was a partisan Democrat at least as far back as 2012. So much so, junior officers & soldiers felt uncomfortable around him.
This is not your professional, field-grade officer, who has the character & integrity to do the right thing. Do not let the uniform fool you…he is a political activist in uniform. I pray our nation will drop this hate, vitriol & division, & unite as our founding fathers intended!🇺🇸
I need to make a slight correction on my statement, it was actually Atlas Vision 13 when the incident occurred. I was thrown off, as the next year Russia invaded Crimea. Also, I was promoted to Chief, Regional, Joint & Combined Exercises Branch, USAREUR, over many exercises.
Okay, so Vindman bad mouths his country and worships a president whose politics were 180 degrees opposite from Trumps. (And by extension, Vindman would undoubtedly have worshiped Hillary’s politics except that *snap!* the American people wanted something 180 degrees different Obama’s politics.) That doesn’t mean anything. After all, he’s got that impressive salad bar on his left chest, which completely dazzled the media when Vindman showed up in his spiffy, unconstitutional uniform.
The hero tag gets used rather indiscriminately and so it has been applied to Vindman. I don’t know the guy but I can tell you a lot about him by his ribbon bar.
This is what we have:
First row: Purple Heart, Defense Meritorious Service Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Second row: Meritorious Service Medal Army Commendation Medal w/3 Oak Leaf Clusters Army Achievement Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Third row: National Defense Service Medal Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Fourth row: Korean Defense Service Medal Army Service Ribbon Army Overseas Service Ribbon w/numeral 2
There are no ribbons for combat heroism. The absence of a Bronze Star, with or without ‘V’ device, indicates he got an Army Commendation Medal during his combat tour. I won’t throw shade on the “wrong time, wrong place” medal (my ROTC detachment commander was an SF officer who had six Purple Hearts, that’s what he called them), the Purple Heart, but I will note that Dan Crenshaw got one and lost an eye. John Kerry got three and never went to a hospital. He’s served at least two tours as a field grade officer in a high-level Defense staff position. He’s only served overseas twice, once in Iraq and once in Korea. It is sort of a shock to me to see an infantry officer wear an Army Achievement Medal. I have three and never bothered putting them on my ribbon bar.
The primary reason I’m even mentioning this is because this bullsh** is circulating on Twitter. It is mostly false, starting with his bio. He was commissioned via Army ROTC in January 1999. He has never completed the Special Forces Officers Qualification Course. He has no prior enlisted service. He has very few of the ‘scare badges’ attributed to him in this tweet. This is not a ding on Vindman but it shows the lack of honesty and absence of integrity common to his loudest defenders.
Let me translate: Vindman is a desk jockey, not a warrior. Of course, a military needs good desk jockeys. It needs the best desk jockeys. Napoleon nailed it when he said “an army marches on its stomach.” However, let’s not pretend that Vindman has put his life on the line for America. He’s a weasel, regardless of his uniform.
So what was really going on here with both Vindman and with those Leftists Pentagon hacks, the ones who are willing to engage in a coup against their duly elected commanding officer? Brit Hume hints at what’s going on:
The Deep State in the Pentagon disapproves of Trump’s approach to Ukraine. The fact that the Pentagon is constitutionally subordinate to the elected civilian President of the United States of America has become irrelevant to the Obama-era Manchurian candidates staffing the upper echelons of our American military. For them, a coup, whether with arms or propaganda, is their tactic of choice.
So let me get to my second point in this post, which is that Trump isn’t evil; he’s a hero. I’ll explain.
Ultimately, once you toss all the schiffy fecal matter that Schiff is throwing in the air, what this whole thing boils down to is the fact that Trump stands accused of withholding money from Ukraine because he wanted assurance that the money would benefit the nation as a whole and not get sucked into the kleptocrats’ pockets. (And Ukraine is famous for its kleptocrats. Zelenskyy, if he can keep himself honest, represented the Ukrainian people’s rebellion against that corruption, just as the British voted for Brexit, and the Americans voted for Trump.)
In a sane world, Trump’s laudable goal to clean out corruption abroad even as he works to clean it out at home would be celebrated. However, Leftists have for decades been all-in when it comes to funding Third World corruption. Remember, please, that Yassir Arafat died a multi-billionaire, all the while blaming the Israelis for the fact that his people lived in abject squalor.
The Left’s affinity for funding overseas corruption reminds me of something Keith Richburg wrote in one of my favorite books, Out of America : A Black Man Confronts Africa. Richburg, a black man, was thrilled in the early 1990s when his employer, the Washington Post, assigned him to be the African bureau chief.
(As I’ve said repeatedly, I cannot recommend his book highly enough. The fact that it was first published in 1997 does not make it one whit less relevant to what’s going on in the world today and, indeed, given the iniquity of the 1619 Project, it makes the book more relevant than before. If you have $12 lying around for the Kindle edition, do yourself a favor — follow my link to the book and get yourself a copy.)
After seeing the daily horrors of African life, Richburg reached a rather stunning conclusion:
Maybe now you’re asking yourself: How does he deal with it? How does he cope with seeing those horrific images every day? Does he think about it? Does he have nightmares? What on earth must go through his mind?
I’ll tell you, if you’ll let me describe it. Revulsion. Sorrow. Pity at the monumental waste of human life. They all come close, but don’t quite capture what I really feel. It’s a sentiment that began nagging me soon after I first set foot in Africa in late 1991. And it’s a gnawing feeling that kept coming back to me as the bodies kept piling up, as the insanity of Africa deepened. It’s a feeling that I was really unable to express out loud until the end, as I was packing my bags to leave. It was a feeling that pained me to admit, a sentiment that, when uttered aloud, might come across as callous, self-obsessed, even racist.
And yet I know exactly this feeling that haunts me; I’ve just been too embarrassed to say it. So let me drop the charade and put it as simply as I know how: There but for the grace of God go I.
You see, I was seeing all of this horror a bit differently because of the color of my skin. I am an American, but a black man, a descendant of slaves brought from Africa. When I see these nameless, faceless, anonymous bodies washing over a waterfall or piled up on the back of trucks, what I see most is that they look like me.
Sometime, maybe four hundred or so years ago, one of my ancestors was taken from his village, probably by a local chieftain. He was shackled in leg irons, kept in a holding pen or a dark pit, possibly at Goree Island off the coast of Senegal. And then he was put in the crowded, filthy cargo hold of a ship for the long and treacherous voyage across the Atlantic to the New World.
Many of the slaves died on that voyage. But not my ancestor. Maybe it was because he was strong, maybe just stubborn, or maybe he had an irrepressible will to live. But he survived, and ended up in forced slavery working on plantations in the Caribbean. Generations on down the line, one of his descendants was taken to South Carolina. Finally, a more recent descendant, my father, moved to Detroit to find a job in an auto plant during the Second World War.
And so it was that I came to be born in Detroit and that thirty-five years later, a black man born in white America, I was in Africa, birthplace of my ancestors, standing at the edge of a river not as an African but as an American journalist—a mere spectator—watching the bloated bodies of black Africans cascading over a waterfall. And that’s when I thought about how, if things had been different, I might have been one of them—or might have met some similarly anonymous fate in one of the countless ongoing civil wars or tribal clashes on this brutal continent. And so I thank God my ancestor survived that voyage.
Does that sound shocking? Does it sound almost like a justification for the terrible crime of slavery? Does it sound like this black man has forgotten his African roots? Of course it does, all that and more. And that is precisely why I have tried to keep this emotion buried so deep for so long, and why it pains me so now to put these words in print, for all the world to see. But I’m writing this so you will understand better what I’m trying to say.
It might have been easier for me to just keep all of these emotions bottled up inside. Maybe I should have just written a standard book on Africa that would have talked broadly about the politics, the possibilities, the prospects for change.
But I’m tired of lying. And I’m tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards I hear and read about Africa, much of it from people who’ve never been there, let alone spent three years walking around amid the corpses. Talk to me about Africa and my black roots and my kinship with my African brothers and I’ll throw it back in your face, and then I’ll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh.
One of the things Richburg struggled with while in Africa was the fact that the various countries seemed inextricably mired in poverty and violence. Nor did he find the answer to this problem in the pat solutions offered him, both in Africa and America. To those who pointed to past colonialism, Richburg noted that myriad former European colonies were doing much better than Africa, places such as India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, even war torn Vietnam. (p. 171.) I would add America to that list too.
He also rebutted the “you can’t fix it; it’s tribalism” argument for Africa’s problems. Indonesia, he noted, has more than 360 distinct tribes and has been suffering from chronic internecine warfare, including a bloody army-led massacre in 1965 that left more than a million dead. (p. 172.) Even now, more than 20 years after Richburg’s book came out, Indonesia, a Muslim country, still struggles with Islamic violence, yet it’s better off than Africa.
Richburg was also unimpressed by the claim that Africa’s problems were rooted in its lack of natural resources. As he said, Singapore has done fine without natural resources. (p. 172.) I would add Hong Kong to that list. I’ll also point out that, since the book was published, Zimbabwe, one of the lands richest in natural resources, quickly became a violent, impoverished hell on earth under a single corrupt ruler.
What was really going on, said Richburg, and what still goes on in Africa today, is endemic corruption. Indeed, I’ve often quoted at my blog Richburg’s anecdote from Africa about the way corruption works there. You can read the whole anecdote here. I’ll only say that in Africa there’s no “trickle-down corruption.” In other parts of the world, the corrupt bureaucrat pockets 10-90% of the money that passes through his hands, but always allows some to trickle down to the beleaguered people. In Africa, the bureaucrats take the full 100%.
Richburg’s riff on corruption in Africa is startling insofar as it also talks about some of the endemic problems in American black communities. I’m quoting it here, though, not to point at ongoing problems in America’s inner cities, but because of the point Richburg makes about the way in which entitled American politicians keep pouring American taxpayer money into African kleptocrats’ pockets:
World Bank economists like to point to Ghana as an example of an African country that is “recovering” under a strict fiscal discipline program; what they don’t tell you is that the economy today is propped up by foreign aid. (p. 171)
Most Africans were born in independent black countries, but their leaders still harp about colonialism they way black America’s self-described “leaders” like to talk about slavery and Jim Crow. There’s another similarity, too: Black African leaders talk about foreign aid as if they’re entitled to it—it’s something that is due to Africa, with no strings attached—the same way many American blacks see government assistance programs as a kind of entitlement of birth. In both cases, you’re left with black people wallowing in a safety net of dependency.
In that sense, I guess some of the old African tyrants are right—there really is a white conspiracy out there that keeps black people down. Only it’s not the conspiracy they’re probably thinking of, but it’s so broad and so insidious that it makes The Plan look like kid stuff. What I’m talking about is the grand conspiracy of silence, a collective willingness of white people in the West to bury their heads when the talk turns to Africa. It’s so pervasive that even the word “tribe” gives some white people the jitters because they think it’s racially laden, condescending. The more polite term now is “indigenous ethnic group.”
Of course blacks, too, are unindicted coconspirators in this grand silence. Here I’m talking about those self-anointed spokesmen who purport to represent all of black America, as if we were a unified group with a single worldview. They make their ritual demands for debt relief. They call for ever-increasing amounts of foreign aid to these corrupt little black potentates. They have even now begun trumpeting the call for the United States to pay “reparations” to African countries for the past crime of slavery—even though some of the traditional African rulers of the time were themselves guilty of complicity in the slave trade, rounding up slaves from the interior for the white traders who created a booming market for humans. All of this talk about Africa skirts the real issue—the need for a critical reexamination of independent Africa’s internal failings. (pp. 180-181)
Leftists need poverty and corruption. In some ways, the best explanation for that ugly side of Leftist human nature comes from another book, this time Jean Webster’s 1912 classic Daddy Long Legs. The narrator in this charming epistolary novel is a girl who grew up in an orphanage but who, thanks to a benefactor, ended up at a women’s college modeled on Webster’s own Vassar. Although Webster was a Fabian socialist, and had her heroine be one too, Webster was still enough of a creature of 19th century common sense to believe that the poor do not exist to make others feel good and powerful. So we get this little passage:
I forgot to post this yesterday, so I will add an indignant postscript. We had a bishop this morning, and WHAT DO YOU THINK HE SAID? ‘The most beneficent promise made us in the Bible is this, “The poor ye have always with you.” They were put here in order to keep us charitable.’
The poor, please observe, being a sort of useful domestic animal. If I hadn’t grown into such a perfect lady, I should have gone up after service and told him what I thought.
For the Left, the poor at home are a source of political power; the poor abroad, especially in Africa, are a way to show their woke beneficence and to justify taxing Americans more and more to maintain useful corruption in other countries. (And do keep in mind, for example, how Biden benefited from overseas corruption by channeling billions to his coke-snorting schlemiel of a son.)
Okay, those are my two long rants. Just a couple of other little points:
Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella. Eric Ciaramella. I’m not bad-mouthing him. I’m just saying his name. I’m writing it here because I’m making a point. Saying or writing his name on Facebook or YouTube (a wholly owned Google subsidiary) will get whatever you published or uploaded deleted. Indeed, Facebook deleted four posts in which I simply spelled out Eric Ciaramella’s name. So far, though, Facebook hasn’t caught on to this one:
Sometimes a little illiteracy can be a useful thing.
And lastly, I have my own commentary about Jeffrey Epstein. I’ve tried flooding Twitter with tweets along these lines. I think it’s a clever idea myself and one that actually has some profundity. You can see where I’m going so feel free to join in the fun on social media: