|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 15, 2019 8:48:03 GMT -8
I think the feminism is an aspect of victimhood culture. As Tammy Bruce found out during the trial of O. J. Simpson, race trumps "gender" in the victimhood rankings, no doubt because there are more women (and maybe even more femocrats) than there are blacks. And as many women are learning now -- in sports, in shelters, in bathrooms -- sexually dysphoric males (and those claiming to be) rank even higher. For that matter, so do Muslims, which is why their misogyny (and resulting sexual abuses) are hushed up.
Leftists, of course, have a revolutionary orientation. That explains their hatred of all traditions, including those involving civility and fair play (as we're seeing in their impeachment quest). And, as you pointed out, that includes a rejection of religious sexual morality.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,469
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Oct 18, 2019 20:22:45 GMT -8
The link will take the reader to an interesting article by Conrad Black. Trump to Win Big TimeBlack's analysis of America is a little harsh, but only a little. Nevertheless, for much of our history, the heavy hand of government rested more lightly on Americans, than it did on other nations. Trump may or may not be able to restore that felicitous state, but the hope that he does is a large reason people voted for him. I certainly hope Black is correct in his prediction as to Trump's reelection. I also hope the Dims continue to go crazy once he wins. While I would also like the Republicans to take back the House, I am not so sure that I want them to do so in a big way. If Trump feels too powerful, or is not continuously insulted by his opponents, I think he may just revert to his normal deal-makers self and sell out the conservative base for a legacy. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 18, 2019 20:58:05 GMT -8
It would have been nice if Black explained why he thinks Trump will win big. But you don't have to worry that the Demagogues will stop insulting him if they're defanged. Given the nature of virulent leftism, they would be more insane than ever. And that includes increased violence.
|
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Oct 18, 2019 22:25:09 GMT -8
I find it very disturbing that the great divide in our culture is not only getting wider and deeper but increasingly violent. Black has always been an astute political observer even if not always correct in his analysis. This country has survived other crisis and will, I believe, survive this one. However, that does not mean there will not be violence.
In 1858 if you asked the typical man on the street if there would be civil war. The shocked response surely would be an absolute no. They would cite, common religion, western ideals, common language, and the rule of law. The same things we would say today. Yet, by 1865 we had warred on each other in a fashion that the wars of Europe could be counted as a mere sideshow for entertainment.
Our enemy is not just a corrupt ideology but the absence of thought. It is nearly impossible to have a rational conversation with people who have come by their ideas in an irrational manner. It may have been, at one time, progressives had a basis in rationality but that time is over.
For the last 100 years they have gotten everything they wanted, social welfare, eugenics, big government and an even bigger bureaucracy. The sad thing is, that is the fault of the GOP. In a go along and get along government there has been no, repeat no, real pushback telling them to sit still and shut up. The people we elect that claim to be on the side of the American people have failed every sad step of the way since 1865. How many Paul Ryan's does it take to destroy a government? G-d knows, we have had too many.
I mentioned earlier that the 2020 election could be a landslide. I hope that is true, but even if it is the cultural rot that has infested the coasts is spreading and must be stopped. I recall in high school history class discussing the causes of the civil war. The question was asked--could there be another civil war? It was a serious question in 1964, as there were riots in the streets, violence all over the country. Mrs. Hinton, answered that she thought the possibility to be < 1%. In today's terms my answer to that question would have to be >20% and growing. It is a bleak possibility for my grandchildren.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 19, 2019 6:23:06 GMT -8
The cause of a civil war is irreconcilable differences. Slavery developed into one during the 1850s, the best explanation being Lincoln's "House Divided" speech: The South believed slavery was right and ought to be extended into the territories (cf. Jubal Early to John C. Breckinridge as they rode south after the Third Battle of Winchester: "Well, what do you think of 'our rights in the territories' now?"), the North believed slavery was wrong and ought to be confined to where it was and eventually eliminated. (In reality, most northerners were probably satisfied as long as there were no slaves where they were, with only a small number of genuine abolitionists, as Raphael Semmes once pointed out to some British naval officers in a discussion. We see something similar today.)
Similar divisions led to the Russian Civil War between the Bolsheviks and various anti-Bolsheviks and ethnic nationalists who opposed them. One reason the Bolsheviks won is that their opponents had a wide variety of goals and didn't work well together. Many were monarchists, some wanted a republic, some were peasants seeking relief, some wanted to leave the Russian empire (some of them succeeded).
The Spanish Civil War had very similar origins. Neither left nor right could tolerate the other in power. There was a strong center in Spain (the by-now misnamed Radical Party) for a while, but once they allowed a rightist party (the CEDA, an alliance of conservative Catholic groups) into the government, the left revolted. In 1936 the difference was that the Nationalist pronunciamento failed to win immediately (in particular, the Loyalists still held Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia until the end), but they weren't put down immediately (as General Sanjurjo was in 1932) and succeeded in forming a strong regional base that was quickly increased to about half the country.
In many ways, I see Spain as the model for where we're heading. That doesn't mean a long civil war, but that could happen. Right now we have -- as we did in the late 1850s, especially in Kansas, and in the late 1960s -- a great deal of scattered (and so far generally not fatal) political violence, mostly by the left. But the potential is there, and the fact that the synoptic media at least tolerates and maybe favors the violent radicals, who also have a great deal of acceptance among the Demagogues makes it very possible. Unless violence is rejected by both sides, a Spanish-style revolt is inevitable. Who wins in the end, and how quickly it happens, is something no one can know until it happens. But if it does, America will lose in any case.
I also think this may be more dangerous even than in the 1850s. Neither South nor North, Democrats nor Whigs and Republicans, actually favored violence then. That's why most of it happened in Kansas and was pushed by small groups on both sides. The radical (often anarchist) violence from around 1890 to 1920 likewise was opposed by everyone but the small group of (mostly immigrant) radicals themselves. Even in the 1960s, neither party supported the hippie revolt. Most Republicans actively opposed it, and so did a lot more Demagogues than people realize. Only a small number of the most dovish actually tolerated, much less supported, the youth rebellion -- though many liberals, especially on college campuses, responded too weakly. (S. I. Hayakawa gained fame, and eventually a Senate seat, by standing up to them at San Francisco State.) Today this is no longer true.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 19, 2019 8:38:59 GMT -8
Black continues to be an abject asshole. He writes a whole bunch of anti-American stuff before getting to a summary of his basic point (below). He could have started and ended with that and saved us all his baloney.
Black misses the obvious fact that an entire party is now made up of kooks and flakes and they have vast power. That is scary.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 19, 2019 9:20:38 GMT -8
LOL. Yeah. No kidding.
We certainly need a civil war. We need to purge our country of Communism (under its various feel-good guises). The problem is, there are too few honorable men remaining. We are like a people who have been lowered into a dark and vast cavern. Many want to escape the scorpion in the middle of the pit. But there is darkness in any direction away.
Without a guiding light, we’ll simply wander down cul-de-sacs of various half-baked ideology. Some will define “liberty” as the right to own any drug they want and to hire any prostitute they want. Having become so infected by the left, most will continue to define any rebellion in terms of utopian goals. They may want freedom from mental angst. They might want freedom from environmental degradation. And a very large section of the population will want freedom from men.
And have you checked out what passes for religion these days? To say that we should “return to God” is hardly a specific goal. Whose god? The socialist god of Pope Francis? The drag-wearing god of the touchy-feely libtard Prebyterians? Or (perhaps worse) the confused god of the “orthodox” who wouldn’t know Jesus (or Jehovah) if he hit them across the head with a two-by-four?
Alas, for the time being we are left to bitch about it on the internet. Few want to take the battle any further than this. And if they do, well, see: Trump. Although I agree with many of his actions, the man is clearly a lunatic to some degree. But in the context of the nuts and flakes in the Democrat Party, he’s absolutely responsible and sane. But the point is, finding a clear direction and the present moment is near impossible.
And if there was a revolution, who is the enemy? What is the enemy? I doubt most men (who will be the ones carrying the guns) can name that enemy. You can't hit your target unless you know where to aim.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 19, 2019 10:29:37 GMT -8
Your point that we need a civil war is unfortunately well taken. Of course, the radical left would say much the same. This is one of our similarities with 1936 Spain. Both left and right adopted a rule-or-ruin mentality, so the response to an electoral defeat (especially a fairly close one, as was the Popular Front victory that year) is to revolt. If you're lucky the revolt is quickly successful. (Of course, then you're stuck with the results, which probably will be most unsatisfactory.) If you're not -- the Spanish Civil War lasted nearly 3 years and let to (probably) half a million dead (and a large number of refugees) out of about 20 million people.
The likeliest start to a civil war in contemporary America would have something to do with the dishonestly named Antifa, Black Shakedowns Matter, and other obamathug groups. Let the federal government (if it has a GOP President willing to act) try to do the job local governments in places like Portland and Berkeley refuse to do, and there could be violence not only between police and rioters, but between different governments. How long it will take for something like that to happen, I don't know.
It could also come from, say, a Demagogue government trying to enforce Beta Male the Dork's dream (which would be a nightmare for America) of gun confiscation by police going door to door. Many police groups would refuse to enforce the law, but some would, and there would inevitably be some violence, and this might set off an outright revolt. If the actual police and military combine to suppress it, there will be no civil war but there could a form of guerrilla/terrorist struggle. If they split -- well, that's what happened in Spain. That's why the 1936 pronunciamento didn't end quickly either way.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 19, 2019 12:03:18 GMT -8
We say we want a requistion Well, you know We all want to rule your world We tell you that its not ambition Well, you know We all want to arrange your world And when we talk about reproduction Don’t you know that’s one more died The deplorable are going to be Uptight, uptight You say you want a RINO fission Well, you know We don’t hate the Bernie plan You ask us for some opposition Well, you know We need the face time on the cam [Deplorables now…] But if you want money for NRO’s messAll I can tell you Frenchy is…I could care less Don’t you know there’s gonna be a fight A fight, a fight. We say we want the Constitution Well, we know You all want a Marx instead You tell me he’s the real solution Well, we know It’s the cause of social death So if you go carrying pictures of Fauxcahontas We ain’t gonna let you libtards go to taunt us Don’t you know we’re going to pick A fight, a fight A fight, a fight A fight, a fight A fight, a fight A fight, a fight |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 19, 2019 13:04:11 GMT -8
I played the song while reading just to make a good comparison. The scansion didn't always match the original, though that can be hard to accomplish. In particular, AOC would fit better than Fauxcahontas. But it's close enough for government work, and pretty good overall. The song parody would also fit in the David Frenchism thread.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 20, 2019 9:03:06 GMT -8
Speaking of reality, I think Kevin Williamson gave a good dose of it regarding social media in Small Policy Tweaks Won’t Fix Facebook: I think that’s profoundly insightful. And, perhaps it’s a shame, but I do not feel the need to read his book. I think he’s summed it up in a couple paragraphs. And a large percentage of books are of that type. The point they make could be summed up in a few pages. But no one will pay $14.95 for three pages of a Kindle edition. Still, one might argue a couple points: 1) It is human nature to be status-seeking. Only a utopian would deny that or try to wipe it out. Williamson makes not claim one way or the other. But it's worth pointing out. 2) It could be reasonably argued that “social media” has little to do with how Left wing and angry many have become. I see it as an outlet for people, once indoctrinated, not the indoctrination process itself. 3) People do use “social media” for other and more useful things than ranting. But I would agree regarding the overwhelming poisonous nature of “social media,” particularly as it intersects with status-seeking (which I would define as "status-seeking on the cheap...trying to gain status without having earned it). 4) Many people who clam they are using Facebook for more productive means are simply hiding the fact that they are addicted to social-ranting much as everyone else is on there. I think Williamson’s most profound point regarding “social media” is one that I hadn’t very clearly seen or articulated before: “the very structure of the status competition precludes the emergence of fruitful discourse on social media because the respect necessary to respectful exchange is itself status-conferring and hence of negative value in the game at hand.” That’s brilliant. And I think that’s the reality of it. I was just talking to Pat the other day. He was engaged on “social media” with someone who was just giving him truly poisonous dialogue. Pat basically answered back to him, “You have the right to your opinion. But I simply disagree.” He told me that many of the onlookers were astounded by his response. And that spoke volumes to me . . . now. If “social media” is all about status-seeking (in regards to winning — and the primary means of that is trashing someone else), then what Pat committed was a non sequitur, at least regarding Facebook. It wasn’t praise that Pat received for turning the other cheek. It was astonishment. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 20, 2019 9:16:04 GMT -8
And thinking back to StubbornThings, it was always on my mind not to simply get caught up in ranting, in status-seeking, although I didn’t have as clear of an idea of the dynamic as Williamson did. But I was at least intuitively aware of the pitfalls.
And I quickly noticed status-seeking (not what I called it at the time) was prominent with many of the writers, perhaps most of them. I came from the slightly oddball orientation of a creative writer. I say: Write from the heart, make it interesting, and make it useful (for god’s sakes, don’t bore your audience).
But 95% of it was status-seeking. I was naive. But I was self-conscious of my own yearnings in that regarding and did what I could to squash that, if only by spending so much time facilitating the voice of others.
But it is what it is. “Social media” is poison. A lot of what is little more than status-seeking is wrapped up as something nobler.
Right now I feel much better about talking honestly about movies and books with room for asides about all sort of things. But I’ve been out of Facebook now for a least a year and don’t miss it. But mostly that account had been inactive anyway for at least the last five years while doing StubbornThings.
And Williamson’s article gives me new insight into why some wanted to quickly be associated with StubbornThings but didn’t want to actually do any work (or supply much, if any, content): That sort of thing takes work. What people desire is quick and cheap status. That is the infection of social media. But it’s an infection that certainly has antecedents not based entirely in human nature. But I couldn’t really tell you what precipitates so much of it these days. I guess because we live in a celebrity culture, everyone want to be a celebrity, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 20, 2019 9:22:38 GMT -8
I'm not on any social media, but it would seem to me that the proper use would be as a way to carry on a long-distance conversation in the absence of a phone. Such conversations could be about anything -- cat tricks, jokes, politics, health, whatever. They don't have to be vicious.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who want to be vicious, and usually have to be careful because people know who they are. The anonymity of social media frees them to be what they want to be. People sometimes use their own names as handles, true, but they also use handles referring to other people (or things) for any number of reasons. Probably little they say about themselves can be relied on for identification even if it's true.
Let's be real -- even those who identify themselves in any way are still anonymous. This is also true on discussion platforms such as Disqus. Who, reading my postings, knows whether Timothy Lane is really my name? Even if I mention living in Louisville, Kentucky, or having a father who was an Army lieutenant colonel killed in the Vietnam War, how do they know I'm telling the truth? For that matter, even if they know everything I say about me is true, that doesn't completely identify me. I doubt there's still a listing for me in the phone book -- and if there were, it would be in a house we no longer own 3 years after we left it. And there has been another Timothy Lane in the phone book, who even has the same initial.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 20, 2019 9:49:57 GMT -8
That’s a good point.
And to reiterate: We all have some purpose being here (or elsewhere on Facebook). Seeking status is no more a crime than blowing off a little steam or just sharing common interests among friends.
But I had to smile when Williamson wrote: “The ironies are titanic: By offering to connect everyone to everyone, social media has created a new kind of loneliness; by offering a democratized platform for speech it reveals how little of interest most of the demos has to say.”
One can dismiss what I have to say as simple snobbery. But I too (especially at American Thinker) have read what the demos has to say and have been unimpressed (actually, I’ve been bored out of my mind).
But I still do scan and search. And every once in a while I run into someone who has something to say. That is so rare these days that it is worth noting and worth celebrating. I really do enjoy a clear, concise, and interesting article (or book, for that matter).
|
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Oct 20, 2019 10:45:54 GMT -8
The loneliness of relying on social media contacts is a very interesting point. Communication by phone is better than communication by letter, and communication in person is better than communication by phone. In fact, there used to be a commercial dealing with that -- a business had just lost a major customer because he "didn't know them anymore". The boss decided it was that lack of personal contact -- they usually did so by fax, which is probably less personal than a letter. I suspect that social media contact is in the same range as fax . (Since I've never communicated personally either way, I can't say for sure.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Oct 20, 2019 13:34:45 GMT -8
I’m not the most sociable guy in the world. I don’t have a lot of friends. And I certainly have a deep-seated distaste for your average “social function.”
I know I’m not alone in that regard. But if you remember the last time you want to a cocktail party (or something like that), you may remember that it seems to be a watering hole for shallow people.
Or, perhaps like “social media,” bars and parties don’t lend themselves to anything deeper than idle chit-chat.
I like stuff that’s deeper than idle chit-chat but that isn’t pompous, “intellectual,” and smarter-than-thou stuff. I like to be around creative people and I like to learn things. But I can do without the cocktail parties. And I’ve always felt out-of-place at most social functions. I can endure them if I have to, but that is not where I want to be.
So the various things and places on the internet can have a sort of fill-in use for people who like connecting with others but can do with (let’s say) the alcohol or mindless chit-chat.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 1, 2019 8:00:14 GMT -8
I thought this was a weak article by Tucker Carlson which could be summarized as: Student loan debt is the gateway drug to socialism. First off, the way the socialist indoctrination centers (colleges) are financed seems to me to be a separate issue. Whether you earn your own money for your higher education, get student loans, have the parents pay for it, acquire scholarship funds, or some combination of the above, you’re still going to be thoroughly indoctrinated into socialism. The ivory-tower hierarchy system itself that has made education so expensive is not a product of the free market system. It’s a product of too much government involvement. This should be a teachable moment regarding the ills of collectivism and Big Government, not the problem of student loan debt. At least Carlson and Patel do point out: Even if they fix the above — and they should — the result would likely be less expensive socialist indoctrination. We’re all going to be replaced by robots anyway, so none of this matters in the long run. People who manufacture and purchase robots don’t care whether they have a piece of paper from Harvard or not. Thus (and we’re also about 20 years ahead of the game on this) we’ll continue to see exposed the fraudulence of what that piece of paper is worth. And I’m not just talking about those who get a degree in “gender studies.” There’s a reason the Chinese are kicking our ass in manufacturing. And it’s not just because of cheap labor. Capitalism has never depended on cheap labor but on productivity increases. Our braintrust in America has been rotted out for years due to the degraded academic value to the degrees of all types. Oh, there may be plenty of economic value in some of them. This bubble of paper is reminiscent of the tulip bulb craze of years gone by. You can get a six-figure job as a “diversity manager” somewhere. But we’re beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel on how far fake or make-work degrees can be sustained. And it is a serious error for Tucker to say “taxpayers didn’t cause this problem.” Good god, given the present circumstances, there should be inexpensive colleges popping up all over that give one a concentrated education. But dad and mom continue to put too much value in the providence of that paper as well as too easily feed Junior’s ambition to basically have a party for four years. This article, in my view, does not much intersect on reality. |
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 9, 2019 8:36:16 GMT -8
Once in a while a rant — call it “astute analysis” and you’ll get no argument — catches my eye. This one is in response to an NRO article about the Old Dominion turning blue (and I’m not sure that we can blame Mr. Lincoln for this). The article itself is nothing special. It tells us nothing. It’s presumption is that only white people could possibly vote for Republicans, that Democrat strongholds are produced by immigrants (that is, non-whites). So the article is, at best, superficial, telling us that the horses have bolted the barn but not why they left. Is the barn burning? Did someone leave the door open? Greener pastures elsewhere? Etc. A gentleman named “FrankD92” writes in the comment section: I’ll grant you that the problem is larger than just stupidity, although at least naiveté plays a large role (and stupidity facilitates naiveté, of course). Still, this fellow isn’t wrong. And he is talking reality. |
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Nov 9, 2019 10:09:57 GMT -8
The problem is that the left has an unreality culture based on political ideology springing largely from identity politics and libertinism. This is in fact what Dennis Prager pointed out a few days ago in an article that I believe this sequence was responding to. It's one thing to dream of what isn't but can be, but it's very foolish to think that the dream is reality. That was one of Woodrow Wilson's problems as President, most notably in his foreign policy. And it's a persistent problem with the left today, and we all pay the price for their delusions.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,238
Member is Online
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Nov 17, 2019 8:00:14 GMT -8
Incredibly, and most satisfyingly, Kevin Williams talks a little Reality Culture in response to Rubio (and surely in response to one of the most half-baked articles I’ve read at NRO in a while, and that’s saying something): Marco Rubio’s Half-Baked Political PhilosophyBut I’m not convinced that Mr. Kung didn’t ghost-write this article for him: I think it’s clear, Williamson excluded, that modern Catholic thinking is a social disease. This part is brilliant analysis: And this… Well said, Mr. Williamson. Thanks for the Reality. |
|
