David Frenchism

The idea of “progress” becomes a stimulant unto itself. It is commonly assumed that “new and improved” (or at least “new”) is better. Label it as “Progressive” or “forward-thinking” and who really wants to be regressive or backward-looking?

The ability to simply parse the language of scoundrels is all but lost in our culture. We don’t know how to say, “Well, they may have labeled such-and-such as better, but is it really?”

Groupthink pervades everything, especially the aspect of virtue-signaling wherein few have the guts to question those who would tell us that their ideas are better, less racist, more inclusive, etc.

And why are good things easily destroyed? Seriously. It’s a good question. But as you’ve intimated, it’s a completely useless question if one is not even willing to say what is good and what is bad — to get into the details. Talking in generalities is to say nothing and is markedly dishonest in most cases.



I think muddying the issue is the aspect of technological progress which is almost always better. Today’s computer is cheaper and faster than yesterday’s. And it does more things.

But perhaps social progress is impossible to unlink from technological progress. I was watching this episode of Downton Abbey. The daughter, Edith, was pestering her father to buy a radio. He was adamantly against it. When she would so much as hint at bringing up the subject he would cut her short and announce, “No!”

Finally, it was announced that King Edward VIII would be making a first-ever radio broadcast to his subjects. Suddenly the idea of a radio in the mind of Lord Grantham was not a passing fad but something that was now at least marginally legitimate.

Another amusing moment from this scene is when someone commented that “Doesn’t this take away the mystery and majesty of the King?” Someone else answered, “What’s wrong with that?” Maggie Smith’s crusty character then answered, “Nothing, so long you don’t wish to retain residence at Buckingham Palace.”

Brilliant. As you noted, time moves on. Things change. But not everything changes. People are having to twist themselves in enormous pretzel logic to try to get past the idea that there are men and there are women and that’s that.

There are all kinds of timeless principles such as this that are not countermanded simply because someone is wedded to the idea that all things that are new are better.

“An emotional rejection of the world” is a grand idea. We would all be gods if we could. We would. Admit it. And that impulse finds its greatest home in Leftism. They are beyond mere mortals for they can not only imagine a perfect world, they can make it so.

And doesn’t that make them special.

Isn’t their a carte blanche Kungian Rule concerning politicians?



Ahh, did you sense the subtle oder of The Age of Reason idealism? I know I did.

It’s such a wonderful conceit that man is perfect in his soul unless warped by external forces. Jefferson was clearly a man of the Left in that sense. Indeed, I agree with Dennis Prager who absolutely cringes when he hears people say “People are basically good.” No they are not. And conforming to a Kungian Rule that is sure to be written, people love to flatter themselves how good they are by indiscriminately complimenting others or showing sympathy in public torrents.

Sober men understand that, aside from the occasional saint (and even then), it is the nature of the social enterprise that men start out as Little Monsters and have to be formed into civilized human beings. Absent external formation and change, we will be uncouth and ignorant, at the least, and Big Monsters and barbarians at the worst.

There can be little doubt that any uptick in the Libertarian ideology coincides with the lack of fathers (or real men) in the home. Libertarianism is the perfect Little Monster philosophy.

I think Phyllis Schlafly may have been the originator of the point that economic conservatism requires social conservatism over the long haul.  Of course, she was a supporter of both, which no doubt helped.

Probably much truth in that from Steyn.



It’s refreshing to read no-nonsense writing, with a bit of grit, other than from here. Did Kevin Williamson really write an article with the headline Witless Ape Rides Escalator? Yes, yes he did.

It doesn’t offend me that someone has a low opinion of Trump, for he’s not my cup of tea either. But where is the vitriol well deserved by the losers such as Jeb!, Romney, McCain, and the rest of the gutless, Quisling Republican establishment, including the lackeys in the so-called conservative press? Kevin, as Steyn notes, you helped create Trump.



He got that right. And he was prescient in this remark that he made two decades ago:



I haven’t listened to him in years, but (even for him, who tends to live there), I had no idea that Beck had gone off the deep end:



And…



I think we’ve been consistent amongst ourselves: He’s our bum — over-achieving in many areas, a complete demagogue in others — but far, far better than Hillary (or Jeb! or Marco or etc.).

Indeed, some good thoughts by Steyn that do fit the current topic.