Fish And Water

Posted on by accordingtohoyt

A few days ago we had a commenter here who claimed to speak for all Europeans.  We’ll leave aside for a moment his/her vaunting hubris, since you know, speaking for everyone from Russia to Portugal is a bit of a stretch.  I mean their cultures are almost as different as between our states.  (Yes, I’m joking.  Mostly.  Though they’re not much more different, they just have more history. Imagine the civil war… er war of northern aggression… er… late unpleasantness multiplied by 100 or so.  Those people are still arguing about what our Mary said to their Brenda 2000 years ago at the potluck celebrating the fall of the Roman empire.)

But his/her/its/gerbil claims weren’t totally insane.  What I mean is, I don’t know if most Europeans believe these things (I haven’t even talked to a minority of Europeans.  Other than my family) but I know it’s the “reality” their press pushes.

That “reality” (No real realities were harmed in the making of this reality.  Void or restricted according to local laws.) goes something like this: Obama is a moderate right winger, as is Hillary Clinton.  Donald Trump is an extreme right winger.

For us Americans this feels somewhat like having the world suddenly shifted sideways 95 degrees.  We go something like “Excuse me, but what part of bringing 1/3 of the economy under government control sounds like ‘right wing’ to you?  And since when is someone who says ‘at some point you’ve made enough money?’ right wing?  Are you out of your ever-loving mind, tovarish?”  And as for Hilary and Trump “What in hell do you mean someone who wants single payer and thinks they can rule by executive order is right wing?”

First you must adjust your receptor.  Go to it and turn it sideways, to the left.  Look, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: AMERICAN RIGHT AND EUROPEAN RIGHT ARE NOT THE SAME.  In many ways they’re not in the same planet.

Start by assuming you grew up with the idea that the country owns everything, and lets citizens (in most languages they never adjusted from its meaning subjects.  Most places in Europe would function better with a properly brought up king.  Never mind.) hold some of it.  Country/state just slotted in place of king.  No conceptual difference.  (England has some conceptual differences, but seems to have gone a little nuts last 100 years.)  This made a really neat framework for socialism as a base line.  Or at least authoritarianism, with the State run by “those who know better and taking care of the needy.”

This leaves us a choice of authoritarian internationalism (left) and authoritarian nationalism (right.)  Note the closest to “right wing” most countries in Europe have is social democracy.  This is not, as most of them think (because their press is worse than ours) equivalent to our democrats (who over the last 50 years have gone sliding further and further left) but it is equivalent to George H W Bush.  His son, George W Bush was another flavor of European Right “Christian Democrat.”  Both are light flavors of socialism.  Both assume the state knows better, dear, and the elites that run it know better than you what you need, don’t worry your pretty head about it.

At this point you’re stuck in that paragraph above, going “Obama, even under that definition is not right wing!  Obama went around the world apologizing for America!  Obama is a fourth generation red diaper baby and internationalist as they come.”

Yeah.  But wait.

To that European spectrum you must now add one thing: Soviet Agitprop.

Most people were not really aware of it, kind of like most people here aren’t aware of how far Marx’s crazy cakes ideas have penetrated academia, the press and entertainment.  This is because if you take Marx’s ideas out and look at them objectively, after you take a bottle or so of ibuprofen, and wash it down with vodka, you’re still going “OMG, that’s insane.”  But because those ideas were ported into teaching and reporting and the arts, with no explanation, no grounded, and applied to highly situational occasions, you never notice.  It’s the assumption behind the assumptions.  Kind of like water to a fish.  Remember that.

In the same way, the Soviet Union spent millions (or trillions.  eh.  Who knows?  It was stolen money, wielded by authoritarians) corrupting the mind of Europeans for decades.  It had an entry point in the fact that Europe was so horrified by WWI it really didn’t want to fight any more (which is why WWII was allowed to boil till it got really bad.)

And then the Soviet Union, who had ambitions to owning all of Europe, took time to spread certain ideas.  One of them was that you should not allow independent economies (i.e. “greedy bankers.”) and that all business and individual achievement were wrong.  The other was that you should never, ever, ever make war.  Survival, the future, all good things, came from pacifism.

Not only are these ideas insane because neither of those — historically — leads to survival of a family, a nation or a people — but they are exactly counter what the Soviet Union DID.  (Just like Soviet internationalism was actually Soviet Nationalism.  The world should be one nation and that nation should be the Soviet Union.)

Never mind.  Their agit prop and psychological warfare were the only front in which the Soviet Union was better than us.  Partly because early 20th century “intelligentsia” thought that Communism was “idealism” and it became a positional good.

Anyway, using these they’ve managed to slip in “pacifism is the only non-right wing position to have.”

If you’re stunned that Europe failed to notice things like the Soviet Union’s expansion-and-robbing path to prosperity (the most kleptocratic empire since the Arabs, and the most militaristic since Rome.  Maybe more than Rome.) don’t be.  You see, I said their press is worse than ours.  And most were afraid of criticizing propaganda with reality, because that would get them branded as “right wing.”

Because this was never explicit but, like here “leftism as a positional good causing a cohesion of opinions in media and mass communications, and teaching” it was also never debunked, when the soviet union fell.  So they still think “pacifism” is the only not-rightwing philosophy.

Obama didn’t actually stop all the wars (yes, these infants actually believe you can stop wars by throwing a switch and that the enemy doesn’t get a vote) so he’s “right wing.”

Oh, yeah, and he also didn’t put all our businessmen in jail.  Because, you know, they fail to notice any communist regime mutates to crony capitalist as a way to survive and “great leaders” on the left around the world end up obscenely rich.

Anyway — that’s their pathetic excuse for calling all of our politicians “right wing.”

What is both amusing (if you have dark sense of humor) and funny here is that they don’t realize that by corrupting our intelligentsia (government — remember how much they LOVED Obama — and education and culture) with their soviet-propaganda-infected fantasies, they have removed the last barrier keeping the wolf from eating them.

Look, it’s like Derpfish, my betta.  (He’s better, thank you.  An aggressive new filter and part water changes are getting rid of his face fungus, slowly.)  He’s not aware of everything I have to do to keep his aquarium at right temperature, filtration, salt content, etc. to keep him alive.  He’s not aware I buy water so his acidity level doesn’t change.  To him, that’s how life is, is all.  And it’s natural, of course.

Now suppose Derpy were a little derpier and thought to start a war on “people who change water in aquariums at least part way every day” because he doesn’t like the agitation and changes in temperature (though I try to keep it pretty close.)

Well!

If he succeeded in that campaign, he’d be doing the back stroke in no time at all.

Europe is sort of like derpfish.  It never got that “pacifism” and “internationalism” were ideas propagated by the soviet union, to make it easier for them to invade with no resistance.  They also never noticed that the ONLY thing keeping the Soviet Union from marching across Europe was …. the US.  The US whose “militarism” they reviled.

The good (?) thing is that they’re on a collision course with reality.  Their corruption of OUR system is such, they won’t have guardians much longer.  And though the Soviet Union THEORETICALLY no longer exists, Putin is doing his best to bring it back from the coffin.

Which brings us to the next point: Are they smarter than derpfish?  Do they realize that as the water vanishes they WILL die?  Or is this the last great gasp of their civilization.

As for right wing/left wing, RES said it best: Our system was not designed for them, and they’ll never get it.  And that’s fine by us.  The question is if we can remove the infection of European-thought out of our culture fast enough. Or if it will take us down with them.

I’m betting on the former, of course.  I think our “intelligentsia” are a small and derpy minority.  And the people, by and large, are still all right.

And now, in the post mass-media age, we have the means to fight back.

Get to it.

 

 

318 thoughts on “Fish And Water”

  1. To quibble or not to quibble, that is the question.

    The commenter did not claim to speak for all Europeans, merely claiming instead to be commenting as a typical European. I allow the distinction is subtle and easily missed in the fast skim that was all the comment deserved, but it indicates a vastly different type of hubris.

    Who, after all, gets to define what is “typical”? Isn’t that question as significant as who gets to define “centrist”? By asserting the authority to define typical one also commands authority to define atypical, that which is outside the pale of legitimate views and subject to suppression. Part of what has dug Europe into its present hole (not unlike its previous holes) is a self-anointed group of the elite typical who deny respectability to dissident voices, otherizing those, for example, who view a certain reasonable love of nation as a generally good thing.

    By limiting the terms of debate one suppresses views that will in time demand to be heard, and make those demands in ever louder and less polite ways. As Malcolm X reputedly said, they deal with Martin Luther King so they won’t have to deal with me. They slandered the T.E.A. Party and got Trump in its place. When you deny people their legitimacy, their status as “typical”, you incite stronger passions.

    When you sow the wind you reap the whirlwind. When you refuse to listen because certain voices are not typical, you force them to raise their voices.

    1. When you push beliefs and opinions underground, the ideas only grow more radical and instead of a river meandering over years you get a dam bursting.

      1. Observers of the EPA’s handling of the 2015 Gold King Mine can testify to the government’s capable handling of such circumstances.

        1. Govt is made for killing people and breaking things. Other benefits are side effects of those two typically

          1. Certainly all governments throughout history. The United States started with the idea that government was a service for the convenience of the citizens (which, at that time, was pretty much limited to landowning males). That idea was so radical that even the men who voted for it couldn’t fully encompass it, and started to weasel around it almost before the ink was dry.

            1. But that is why the USG was small. Government is at its core, force. Instead of merely holding tiger by the tail, they leashed and caged it. Today sadly we’ve cut the cage to pieces and leash is weak.

              1. No, the cage was falling apart from the start. It’s well known that wholesale demolition was begun by Wilson and his contemporaries, but it started not long after the Constitution was adopted. The discussion of the Constitution by St. George Tucker (available by free download, search for it) in 1802 lists a depressingly large number of examples, of which the infamous Alien and Sedition acts (1st Congress) are only the best known examples of a much longer list.

                2. Pretty much everything anyne needs,to know about Progressives can be summed up by the fact that they lionize Wilson, who was an appalling bigot, an air-dreming elitist nitwit, and an all around swine.

      2. A great tactical reason for the dichotomy between us and them: They want us to shut up, we want to give their craziest a megaphone and step out of the way.

        1. Problem is they have it. Lies are very seductive and when they will lie without thinking it just makes more

          1. That’s why we need to make sure to signal boost the craziest. Expose people to the real thing and repel them before they can get eased into it.

            1. The further problem is that without refutation those listening will tend to accept what they’re told for lack of an alternative POV.

    2. They slandered the T.E.A. Party and got Trump in its place.

      My worry is that #NeverTrump at the official level (as opposed to rank and file such as our hostess) is only going to bring about a situtation in 2020 where they will wished they had supported Trump.

        1. Actually, for the Virginia senate when the GOP was running the Iran/Contra carpetbagger Oliver North, and the Democrats were running Lady Bird’s Son-in-Law Chuck Robb, I convinced my family that a good Southern Democrat was better than a criminal liar.

          1. Sadly, there is no longer any sech critter as a good Southern Democrat, and hardly anyone in that party who is not (at best) a criminal liar.

            And when I look at the promise of Senate Majority Leader Schmuck Chumer, I rather think I would prefer a criminal liar and Vichy Mitch as the lesser evil.

            1. Believe it or not, my parents have one across the street. Voted for him in local election (very local, like the six people we personally know who voted for him could have swung it for all we know). But he’s moving.

              1. As currently comprised, if the Democrat Party found a den of baby copperheads they would declare it an endangered species and invoke eminent domain to take the habitat. At best — they might simply drive you off the land and demand you continue to pay taxes on it.

                1. Miller and Lieberman were the last elected Democrats I can remember agreeing with on anything more than once. I think the last Democrat I actually respected was Alvin York; the last Democratic president I liked was….. Grover Cleveland.

        2. I am happy to support a democrat, which is why I always (nearly*) vote Republican. I could never support a socialist, which is why I never vote Democrat.

          #CapitalizationMatters.

          *I confess voting for McGovern in 1972, but only because I was sure he would not win. Had I been in Louisiana in 1991(?) I might well have voted Democrat Edwards for governor rather than Republican Duke.

          1. Vote for the Crook! It’s important!
            (Actual bumper-sticker during that election)
            All the die-hard, wanna get single payor, “I’m A Democrat because they are for little people”, fools I knew then, all Voted Duke.
            Actual Republicans pushed Edwards over the top on that one. Only time I ever supported a Dem.

        3. I’m thinking that Herb is thinking if Trump loses, we’ll get somebody really nasty. 😦

          1. It is going to be a tremendous opportunity. America’s next President, Hillary Clinton will continue Barack Obama’s policy of plausibly being in favor of Islamic terrorists murdering Americans. She had Pa Mateen placed favorably at a recent rally.

            The anger that helped some people overlook Trump’s flaws will be even greater in 2020.

            I could win by running on a platform of my willingness to exterminate European populations if it is in America’s interests.

          2. It isn’t his losing that is going to create GOP problems in 2020 but the active campaigning against the nominee. They couldn’t just STFU and let chips fall where they may. They had to give validity to every “they’ll never allow an outsider to win” argument by working to prove them true. Floor fights, third party candidate after most states are ballot closed, openly voting for Hillary by sitting party official (as in House members), NROnline having 4+ anti-Trump articles on the front page and not one anti-Hillary one some days, etc.

            They seem convinced after Trump loses his supporters will return and appologize and beg forgiveness. I think the same 40% of GOP primary voters who supported Trump will support someone worse in 2020 who will latch onto the “they proved they want to stop you” meme that their actives have made true even if it wasn’t true prior.

            Trump embarasses me but #NeverTrump has done more to discredit the GOP in my eye and I suspect I’m nicer about it than most.

            1. And that 40% will be an even greater portion of the reduced GOP membership, since those of us not Trumpkins are leaving the party in increasing numbers. But you mistake what’s happening. The #NeverTrump people aren’t so much the GOP hierarchy as the principled conservatives that the GOP has shat upon once too many times.

              1. The ones that are proclaiming loudly that they will vote Hillary and putting pawn “nominees” in just to stymie Trump *are* GOPe hierarchy folks. Principled Conservatives, while disliking Trump and making no bones about it as he’s decidely not conservative in policy or attitude, are *not* actively trying to sabotage him, but seem to be hoping he can convince them.

                1. The #NeverTrump people I first came across were not, to my knowledge, in the GOP hierarchy. The people in the hierarchy seem to have been the ones convinced that they could fix Trump’s flaws through organizational influence. My understanding is that #NeverTrump, in its primary incarnation, was people of lesser means who had been paying the primaries very close attention.

                  2. None of us are. The hierarchy LOVES them some Trump. They can do business with them. Trump has convinced his followers otherwise, I’m not sure how, except all the Trumpers who are on the right are “burn it all downers” so I suspect subconscious cooperating.

                  3. Same here– a lot of long-time republicans, and Republicans, and conservatives that oppose Trump, or are even #nevertrump, while the party guys are with the media; they think there’s no way he can possibly win, even though he got the nomination. He was just the easiest way to lose when their preferred route didn’t work, and they don’t think he’ll be able to DO anything.

                2. No, they really aren’t the GOPe hierarchy. The GOPe hierarchy starting with Boehner far preferred Trump to Cruz and basically told the #NeverTrump they can win without us. This is one of those ridiculous “the people in power pretending to speak truth to power” asinine outbreaks. I thought only the left had those.

                  1. That’s not 100% true…there are GOPe types in #NeverTrump, principled conservatives that are #NeverTrump, and “principled conservatives” whose primary principle of maintaining their spot in the conservative machinery who are #NeverTrump.

                    Groups 1 & 3 are really shooting themselves in the foot. Group #2 is a mixed bag.

              2. Some are, some aren’t.

                The whole NR crowd couldn’t seem to find anything wrong in the past and are now more anti-Trump as the MSM and even more silent on Hillary.

                A lot of them will be proclaiming they never betrayed their principles while nooses are put around their necks by the supporters of those they were too good to fight.

                1. Errr. no, not silent on Hillary. But National Review has never been a Republican magazine, any more than the Republican Party has ever been a conservative party.

                2. Hehe, at least one of them– Goldberg– has taken to making a game out of asking people exactly whom he supposedly never said anything about, and then linking to one or more articles from the NRO archives on exactly that person’s shortcomings. Usually includes arguments for why they’re Less Bad, and those don’t generally depend on “but he SAID so!” (man, that argument for Trump bugs me. Trust him, riiiiight…..)

            2. #NeverTrump is the only reason I am willing to consider that the GOP might be even partially salvageable. I am not in any way representative of a typical past Republican voter, as I am heavily motivated by quixotic opposition to the Democratic Party of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

              I am ticked that the RNC backed the nomination of a Democrat who they knew would lose to Clinton. They wouldn’t have shifted their messaging if they didn’t know he was going to lose, and know they would need plausible deniability. Trump wouldn’t be talking about the election being rigged unless he knew he was going to lose, and going to need an excuse. This election is now simply failure theater, a stage show to con us rubes.

              The 2016 administration is lost, perhaps also the 2020, but a new party that can win state and local offices might be able to win in 2024.

              1. I expect it to be much like the previous two Presidential elections where we “had” to vote the guy they propped up Or Else!!1! Yeah, that worked.

                I’ve used variations of the “fool me once” saying and noted that this would be three times. So does it mean you’re even dumber to be fooled yet again or does the whole thing reset back to shame on the one who fooled you?

                Though I do NOT wish Hillary would win, despite the more cultish Trump supporters’ screeches when I do not praise their Leader. I sort of hope Trump will win, though not because I think he will Save Everything and more so I can hear what the TrumpTrain/TrumpTsunami types bleat when his Sudden, But Inevitable Betrayal begins.

                But then I’ve seen the excuses cultish follower types have made for President Obama so I suspect it will be the same with President Trump.

                (I’m not a SMOD voter either. We’re headed for some colossal stupidity, but our species needs to survive to be able to correct it.)

                1. For me the strongest reason to hope Trump wins is the schadenfreude inherent in the weeping, wailing, rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth of all the Hillary supporters. The strongest reason to vote against Hillary is consideration of the delirium amongst the idiots who support her.

                  As Heinlein said, if you can’t find a reason to vote for one candidate there is almost always a reason to vote against one.

                  Besides, I can think of almost no areas of policy where Trump would be worse and several (energy development in particular) where he would surely be better.

                  But more than anything, if I cannot have Conservative governance, I would crush my enemies, see them driven before me, and hear the lamentations of their women.

                  1. My main reason to vote for Trump is that I live in an area of irrigated farmland. If the next president continues to push Obama’s”waters of the United States” rule, and isn’t stopped by the courts, we’re looking at a full-time Highlands Clearance.

                    Of course, the second major reason is that over 40% of my valley’s population is now comprised of illegal aliens. I really want to reach through the monitor and thump some ignorant pencilnecks who claim that this is a good thing.

                    2. Semantic proposal to counter the “people are not illegal” meme:

                      Use the proper term of “border jumpers” rather than “illegal aliens”

                    3. I’ve long inclined toward the locution “Line jumpers”, especially as those defending such intruders seem to have failed to advance from what they learned in kindergarten about fairness.

                      Given a choice between two categories of people, those who respect our laws and processes enough to queue up and apply for documents for entry into our polity or those who just burst in and make themselves at home, I have no trouble deciding which I prefer as neighbors.

                      While it is inappropriate to analogize rape in this context, I cannot help finding it amusing that the people who demand positive consent for sexual interaction have no problem accepting those who do not ask consent to join our nation.

                      I fear the results expressed by Brecht & Weill will forever play out.

                      I used to believe in the days I was pure
                      And I was pure like you used to be
                      My wonderful someone will come to me someday and then it will all depend on me
                      If he’s a fine man, if he’s a rich man,
                      Wears a fine cravat, smokes a cigar
                      And if he’s gallant and treats me like a lady then I shall tell him
                      Sorry

                      Chin up high keep your powder dry
                      Don’t relax or go too far.
                      Look, the moon is gonna shine till dawn
                      Keep the little rowboat crusing on and on
                      You stay perpendicular
                      Oh, you can’t just let a man walk over you
                      Cold and dignified is what you are
                      Such a whole lot of things can happen
                      So firmly say but sweetly
                      Sorry

                      One day comes a man
                      But what kind of a man
                      Do you know why he does what he does
                      He walked into my room and he hung up his hat
                      And I just didn’t know where I was
                      He was a lean man, he was a mean man
                      He didn’t own a cravat, smoked no cigar
                      And God knows he never made me feel a lady.
                      Just wasn’t time for sorry
                      Chin up high my chin was down
                      My shoes and I relaxed, but far too far
                      Oh, the way the moon kept shining on
                      The night was nice for rowing and this girl was gone
                      Not so perpendicular
                      So you let a man just walk right over you
                      Who said dignified is what you are
                      Such a wonderful lot of terrible things did happen
                      And now it’s you can tell me
                      Sorry

                2. I expect it to be much like the previous two Presidential elections where we “had” to vote the guy they propped up Or Else!!1! Yeah, that worked.

                  A lot of those guys are #NeverTrump…one of them is drive time here is Atlanta.

                  After being told I had to vote for someone whose proudest achievement was trying to gut the first amendment and who stood on a debate platform and said Obama was ready to be President I find their invocation of “principles” to be a bit ironic.

                3. The thing that bugs me is that a lot of folks in the last two elections were really, really loud about how there was zero difference between ____ and the Republican.

                  And now… they’re supporting Trump.

                  Who really isn’t.

                  This kinda ties into the “a lot of Trump stuff seems to be him saying what Democrats think Republicans think.”

                  1. And yet, nearly all of Trump’s announced positions remain Right of Romney’s and McCain’s official positions.

                    I don’t expect he’ll keep his promises to us, but neither did I expect it from either of the two other clowns.

                    3. If he is a con man, his deception strategy for many issues is to make wildly conflicting statements, and trust in desperation to make voters pick the one they need to be true. If this correctly describes him, one might draw some conclusions from which issues he doesn’t contradict himself on.

                      If he were genuinely right wing and erratic, one would have expected a proposal to massacre all the homosexuals by now. Or massacre the druggies.

                4. (I’m not a SMOD voter either. We’re headed for some colossal stupidity, but our species needs to survive to be able to correct it.)

                  But the sMOD (small Meteor of Death) might be OK, especially if it were to impact the debate site.

        4. Well, what we call a “Democrat” in Montana would be more or less a middling-Republican anywhere else (much to the left of that and the only place you can get elected is Missoula, aka Berkeley North). Folks here tend to vote for the man more than the party, and party means a lot less than most places.

          That said, I still haven’t seen more than a bare handful of even nominal Democrats I’d seriously consider.

          1. The biggest problem with Democrats, even Montana ones, is that they belong to the victim disarmament party. That means any support for Constitutional rights they may proclaim can’t be trusted.
            The biggest problem with Republicans is that they are much like that, too.

            1. Any Democrat elected to the national legislature is a vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker or Schmuck Chumer as Senate Majority Leader. It is also a vote for all the people they will empanel as committee chairs. Your Democrat representative/senator may (be permitted to) vote in the home state’s interests so long as that vote is not needed to attain a majority, but the one vote you can be absolutely sure they will cast once they reach DC is the vote to organize their branch of the legislature.

              That is why Party often matters more than the candidate, as Michigan’s “Bart” Stupak (D-MI):

              In March 2010, President Obama and Stupak reached an understanding whereby the President promised to sign an Executive Order barring federal funding of abortion through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,[18] and Stupak and several of his allies promised to withdraw their opposition to the bill.
              Wiki

              Obama also promised insurance premiums would only rise slightly and that “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.”

              In April 2010 Stupak announced his retirement from the House.

              One other way our elected representatives play tricks is to vote against a bill or amendment in committee, knowing it has sufficient support to pass) and then “reluctantly” vote for it on the floor. Senators have an even neater ttrick: they can vote against a bill after having voted for cloture, preventing a filibuster from blocking the bill while still retaining plausible deniability on the bill.

          2. This really hasn’t been the case since Bill Clinton neutered the state parties and consolidated power in his hands.

        5. I was speaking of the attitude among many in the GOP establishment/leadership/nomenklature/whatever you want to call it that having fought openly against Trump (and in some cases openly for Hillary) that the GOP unwashing will coming kneeling in profuse appology and begging forgiveness.

          I think they will find in 2020 that the same people who pushed Trump to the nomination will bring forth something even worse to displace next cycle’s John Marco Bush.

          1. And they may find it easier to do as a fair part of their former base has left the party due to their treatment during this primary.

      2. Their problem is that you cannot beat something with nothing, and they offered nothing in his stead … or rather, the only alternative at the end was somebody the establishment feared and hated even more than Trump.

        And then there was Kasich.

        1. I believe they would have done to Cruz what they are doing to Trump in spades.

          If the official level #NeverTrump types had just sat down and shut up and quietly not supported him the damage to the GOP would be an order of magnitutde lower.

          Instead their actions have given ammo to every “they’ll burn it down before they let someone else have it” conspiracy I’ve been hearing for 20 years.

            1. Just remember what Patrick Henry said: “Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell and George the Third — .”

          2. I will concede their argument is unfit to be president. Hillary is also unfit, possibly even more so. There is no viable third choice. Continuing to argue NeverTrump in these circumstances is akin to demanding Burger King offer vegan options. They would do well to focus their fire on Hillary or sit down and shut up.

            Consider me unconcerned over their fates. Weren’t folks complaining during the primaries about the the party’s failure to adhere to conservative principles? One might be tempted to believe that the GOP establishment lacks commitment to such principles and deserves what they’ll get.

            OTOH, is there any doubt that their complaints are helping Trump?

            1. Consider me unconcerned over their fates. Weren’t folks complaining during the primaries about the the party’s failure to adhere to conservative principles?

              The schadenfreude over their fate is the only thing that has me wavering between my own write in candidacy and voting Trump.

  2. Are the Europeans really so clueless that they do not understand that the only way they were ever able to fund their very socialist lifestyles was by diverting most of their GDP away from their puny military forces? Forget that we spent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. Forget that for many years US servicemen sat just west of the Fulda Gap knowing that at any minute a wave of Russians could come washing over them. But do remember that Obama’s stated goal, and his legacy, was always to fundamentally transform America into just another little EU wannabe socialist nation.

      1. If only the US hadn’t been so hostile to the benevolent USSR there would have been no tensions.

          1. I know it is sarcastic but I know the mindset. One reason I loathe these people is I grew up in them. No blood for oil and all that shit. I try to minimize family gatherings and have my own car at them so I can leave without belting people.

            1. “When rape is inevitable, lie back and enjoy it” is not an American creed but seems to have been long practiced amongst the Europeans. When you are accustomed to being a subject, a change in sovereignty is merely yet one more management overhaul; when you are a citizen it is a theft of your property.

                1. In fairness to the Queen, it did matter whether she produced an heir. Advice less useful to those not in her situation, however.

                  1. Chuckle Chuckle

                    Katherine Kurtz has a humorous use of that idea.

                    Her character King Kelson has finally gotten a wife and after all sorts of interesting situations they get down to thinking after providing him an heir.

                    The conversation was all about their duty to the Kingdom but it was obvious that they would be enjoying their “duty”. 😉

          2. I was aware that Lenin tried to export his version of Socialism to the rest of the world. I wasn’t aware that he had tried it by force and was stopped by Poland in 1920; after the Americans had gone home from WW I.

            1. The Poles, plus a few American fighter pilots and a few foreign (mostly French) advisers, spent the years 1919-1921 fighting the Bolsheviks. It was often a complicated, multi-sided affair, with some of the ex-Russian states on one side or the other, sometimes even with armed forces from multiple factions of ex-Russian states, involved.

              1. Lenin had all kinds of problems with counterrevolutionaries and dissidents, and his attempts to out-Tsar the Tsar in his treatment of domestic opposition certainly put the tarnish on the glorious rhetoric that his spinmeisters were producing.

                1. Yeah, I wonder. [not]

                  That phase of the struggles against Progressivism should not be forgotten. This is why I really am starting to write (outline, anyway) that anti-Bolshevik Ruritania story, and why the Poles may have roles.

                  1. You might want to look into the life of Tadeusz Kościuszko who fought for Americans in the Revolution, designing the fortifications at West point, and fought against Russian control of Poland & Lithuania afterward.

                    Returning to Poland in 1784, Kościuszko was commissioned a major general in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth Army in 1789. After the Polish–Russian War of 1792 had resulted in the Second Partition of Poland, he organized an uprising against Russia in March 1794, serving as its Naczelnik (commander-in-chief). Russian forces captured him at the Battle of Maciejowice in October 1794. The defeat of the Kościuszko Uprising that November led to Poland’s Third Partition in 1795, which ended the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth’s independent existence for 123 years. In 1796, following the death of Tsaritsa Catherine the Great, Kościuszko was pardoned by her successor, Tsar Paul I, and he emigrated to the United States.

                    A brilliant man and staunch fighter for liberty, he deserves to be the basis of some novel character.

                    1. Wahl shoot — please insert a / in that second BLOCKQUOTE command.

                      Copy/Paste is not always your friend, especially if you are hasty.

                    2. Oh, I agree, he does deserve to be the basis of a novel character, somehow. Probably not in the book I’m writing, but yes.

                      I’ve been slowly making my way through Kosciuszko, We Are Here!, which tells the history of the Polish Air Force’s 7th (Kosciuszko) Squadron, made up mostly of US pilots who had volunteered to help the Poles out with their Bolshevik problem. (Fascinating story, but I keep misplacing the book, hence the slowness.)

                    3. RES forgets the ending blockquote tag, I forget the closing italic tag. [sigh] HTML [sigh]

            2. What is interesting about Lenin is his version of Marxism is a result of the failure of Marxism in August 1914.

              Remember, in the Marxist world view the industrial worker, with his solidarity with other workers, would not fight a nationalist war. By late September 1914 a major pillar of Marx was dead.

              Even worse, by 1917 Marxism had produced a revolution but in one of the two major power in Europe (the other being the Ottoman Empire) which Marx thought could not support Marxism because Marxism required industrialism first. So it was not the industrialized British, French, Germans, Austirans, Hungarians, or Italians that embraced Marxism but the agrarian Russians.

              That is why Lenin had to create his vanguard party variant of Marxism to explain how Russia could skip industrial capitalism.

              Similarly Gramsci would explain the failure via false consciousness and Mussilini would fix Marxism by embracing nationalism.

              1. “By late September 1914 a major pillar of Marx was dead.”

                Oops. I initially scanned that as “a major pile of Marx was dead.”

        2. Editorial cartoon from the 1980’s…

          Panel 1: There is a house, and a man (‘USSR’) pushes a big bomb up to one side of it.
          Panel 2: Another man (‘USA’) pushes a big bomb up to the other side of the house.
          Panel 3: A third man[1] (‘Europe’) is out of the house and screaming ‘WARMONGER!” at ‘USA’.

          [1] NOT The Third Man.

            1. That was the other cartoon of the time I recall:

              Two cavemen. “It’s called ‘unilateral disarmament. Turn around and drop your club, and I’ll demonstrate.”

                1. Some do. Criminals do, that’s why they support victim disarmament. And they skillfully market it as “gun control”.

                    1. This simply demonstrates their inability to think things through to second, third and fourth order effects. When all guns have vanished there will still be sticks.

                      A 5’1″, 105-lb woman with a gun is the equal of a 6’4″, 260-lb man with a gun. A 5’1″, 105-lb woman with a stick is not the equal of a 6’4″, 260-lb man with a stick.

                    2. But guns are scawy. One aunt is a teacher and bad about it and I haven’t had to remind her more students harmed by teachers than any school or mass shootings

                    1. I couldn’t find a video of Leslie Fish’s rendition (you should totally buy Lock & Load), so the original will have to do:

      2. Largely because it lets them see themselves as “enlightened” rather than “spineless.” They can look back on the 40 years we defended them (1949-89) as a concession they made to America to keep America calm rather than a sacrifice America made for them to keep Europe free.

    2. Yes. Denial is a major defense mechanism, the only way they could maintain self-respect. Sadly, America has longed looked to Europe admiringly, as a kid brother does to an older one, yearning to be as “cool” and “sophisticated” without recognizing the fatal weaknesses of that older brother.

      This was a frequent element of American literature of the 19th Century, and in films of the Thirties, such as Ernst Lubitsch’s film Desire with Marlene Dietrich personifying Europe opposite Gary Cooper as America: he’s smitten by her charms and she reluctantly requires his strength and integrity.

      BTW: if you watch the entire film (a delight at one and a half hours, free on youtube) the key scene is at 1’21’.

      1. For those not familiar with the film, Dietrich is a “Countess” who steals jewels from the bourgeoisie while Cooper is an automotive engineer. The symbolism could hardly be more blatant.

      2. You say “America” long looked to Europe admiringly, but I think you must mean “a certain element in America.” In the rural world I grew up in, this admiration was pretty thin on the ground (that is to say, virtually nonexistent).

        1. In the rural midwest we considered the Europeans arrogant, inbred, and annoyingly overly proud of accomplishments performed by very distant ancestors.
          Having dealt with a lot of Europeans, individually they are fine folks, collectively the midwest had it right.

          1. The parts of America which looked up to Europe tended to be those for whom visiting Europe was an available option, and whose pride was injured by European snobbery (and yes, these were mostly the folks who were themselves snobs back home.)

            But this as a subject of American literature is as undeniable as that Henry James is plodding. For American artists — writers, musicians, actors, composers, painters, sculptors — being “accepted” by Europeans was often like winning a lottery, both psychologically and financially rewarding.

            Similarly with American academics — there tended to be a bit of an inferiority complex skillfully exploited by European contemporaries. American farmers and engineers had no need for European approval, and no cause to feel inferior.

              1. Sadly that seemed to be the element that was hired by Congress critters and Presidents for staff as well as the major executive agencies.

                1. Just more evidence of the fundamental disconnect between the currently-“ruling” oligarchy and the populace.

            2. I was briefly in an ‘Honors Program’ back in college in the 80s. We had to sit through a bunch of ‘Enlightening Lectures’. One lecturer went on and on about what the US needed to do to become as civilized as Europe. The fact that everyone there ate the BS as gospel was a big factor for my dropping the program.
              The kids who were recent high school kids were unquestioning. I had seen 15 years of real life before entering college and the BS alarm going off in my head was deafening.

            3. From Common Sense by Tom Paine

              Though I would carefully avoid giving unnecessary offense, yet I am inclined to believe, that all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions. Interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who CANNOT see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this Continent than all the other three.

    3. My oldest brother spent years watching the Fulda Gap, listening to the Russians. The Europeans aren’t the only ones that need to remember what America has done to preserve the lives of people not our own. That being Big Brother to the world was something they demanded of us, and then reviled us for.

      1. They also turned a handy profit for being so inconvenienced at having us on their soil, compensating them for the inconvenience caused by our jets disturbing their peace.

        When else, in the history of the world, has an occupying force ever paid rent?

    5. So are an alarming number of people in the US. They are firmly convinced that it’s clever to post a picture of a customer and pharmacist across a counter and caption it “Your money or your life.” That a $15 minimum wage will make everything better. How unjust and unreasonable it is to be expected to have a paying job, or for poor people to be expected to pay for anything necessary for life and/or continued income, or for anybody to question why someone who has to worry about their food budget or lacks enough savings to cover an unexpected problem is repeatedly spending money on expensive coffee and toys.

      1. I have considerable faith this country will stop short of Venezuela’s sink of depravity, if only because some states will secede first. I am confident that, should things get near that we would see an Article V convention to rebuke the Feds (although I’ve no confidence of anything short of that provoking such a convention.)

        1. I think that it will come to a full civil war. I am not a burn it all down type, but it seems to be the last stop before we fall off the cliff.

        1. Benny was one of the all-time greats. His first words on national radio were, supposedly: “Ladies and gentlemen, this is Jack Benny talking. There will be a short break while you say, who cares?”

          His timing has to be heard to be fully appreciated.

      3. A growing segment does not realize that the US is a state where other states can leech off their generosity. At cost drugs, medical treatment etc come because the us pays full freight.

  3. One of the major problems with “pacifism” is that the pacifist depends on somebody else doing the fighting to defend them.

    Yes, European pacifism depended on the “evil” US being willing to defend them.

    Of course, it’s also “fun” to listen to Europeans who “hate the militarist US” but every time they “need” to fight they expect Uncle Sam to do the heavy work.

    Even Obama got the US involved in war because Europeans wanted the US involved in their war. 😦

    1. (Nods) Libya still sticks in my craw. The only thing that makes it better is that the Euros are finding out what happens when you don’t occupy the country after taking out the dictator.

    2. It’s interesting since Gibson has that new movie coming out. Yeah, the character is a pacifist but he does his part to support it all. Today it seems more and more that people want benefits without supporting and giving. The military is largely bitter clingers, taxes probably under half households and more and more getting govt money for existing.

    3. Hell, I’m still angry over how we got suckered into the Bosnian war. Cheez’n’crackers, they hardly missed a beat damning us for being warmongers, then damning us for not getting involved in Bosnia, and then didn’t miss a beat in damning us for being warmongers in Bosnia.

      1. This was one I got in a huge argument with dad about. Only political argument of our lives. He couldn’t understand “no, you can’t whistle and have the US come.”

      2. I’m with you on that. If there was ever a war we had absolutely no business being involved in, that was it. We should have told the Euros to pound sand, this is their problem to fix.

    4. Cue Kratman’s lecture on how pacifism, being hostile to the conditions required for it to be successful, is not a legit philosophy.

  5. I’m afraid that Europeans have little idea of what Americans have done for them and bought for them. Without the American Revolution which inspired both the French Revolution and Latin American independence, the successful example of limited constitutional self-government as opposed to the divine right of kings, the American controversy over slavery (which the anti-slavery side finally and decisively won), and the American intervention in the World Wars of the 20th century, and Europe would be arguably be a much harsher, bleaker place and certainly a more authoritarian one than it is now.

    1. I’m not sure that I’d count the French Revolution as a good thing. It led to The Terror, and then twenty years of warfare across the entire continent that ended at Waterloo. Changes were already underway in France as the government recognized that it was unable to function properly to address the concerns of the citizens. What happened was that the changes ended up spiraling out of control too fast, and the result was The Terror.

      And then, Emperor Napoleon.

      1. The French revolution hinged on a fatal misunderstanding of ours, and it led to communism more or less directly, by making it equality of RESULTS not opportunities.

        2. And far too much emphasis on Reason and “we can make it perfect!” over “assume all men are terribly flawed. With that in mind, how do we get this to work?”

          1. We should be seeking an anti-fragile structure of ensuring liberty, not relying on repeatedly choosing “the right people” and hoping they make no mistakes. I think the Constitution lays out some basics for such a system, but over-centralization of (often unconstitutional) power in the Federal government, particularly the executive, has caused that system to break down.

            1. Part of the problem is the idea of the Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter and interpreter of the Constitution. The founders never anticipated that the court would assume this power which by now amounts to a judicial veto, not only of congressional and presidential acts, but of state and local acts.

      2. And tbh slavery was nominally outlawed in parts of Europe first. However they had no issue buying slave goods. much as the North could act high and mighty but press ganged brand new immigrants and industry treated them as disposable. History throws mud everywhere but people want to only show one way or another.

      3. The French Revolution definitely had mixed consequences, but France spend the next century going back and forth between republics and monarchies, where before it was straight monarchy. Even Napoleon had his uses: Latin American revolution would have gone nowhere if Napoleon hadn’t demonstrated that the Iberian empires of Spain and Portugal were hollow.

        1. As I mentioned above, the French government under Louis XVI had already recognized that changes were necessary because of the problems that the country was having. So something would have happened even without the French Revolution. It’s possible (though by no means certain) that France instead would have started moving toward a constitutional monarchy.

      4. I think the American Revolution focused on ‘Liberty’ and the French on ‘Equality’. Unfortunately, the latter begs to ask equality of opportunity or equality of results.

        1. The Americans had the advantage that they weren’t fighting to overthrow the whole ancien regime of monarchy, aristocracy, and a state church. The distance across the Atlantic meant that Americans had considerable experience with self-government, and no real aristocracy. Americans also already had considerable diversity of religion, so the English state church was quite weak compared to the French.

          1. Yes, but the Dutch had most of those same limitations, and they didn’t make a botch of it, two centuries earlier.

          2. The American Revolution was led by what passed for an American Aristocracy. Washington – richest man in the colonies. Franklin the Rupert Murdoch of his day.

            The framers of the Constitution were (with good reason) terrified of direct democracy.

            Our revolution was no designed to tear down the old order and rebuild from scratch. It was to make men free.

            1. There was quite the discussion of this in another venue a couple of years back. The more informed opinion had it that American “plantocracy” was jealous of the British aristocracy and rather aspired to it, but in British terms it was more gentry than aristocracy.

            2. The richest man in the colonies was actually Charles Carroll. A signer of the Declaration, so merely a point of fact.

          3. The Americans also had the ideas from the Glorious Revolution, and some commenters at the time saw it as a continuation of that. To touch on Paul K’s point, both the Dutch and English valued limits on the power of the central government. The Dutch got to “enjoy” Spanish attempts at micromanagement in the 1500s, leading in part to that wee European mess between 1618-1648.

            1. Indeed, though the Dutch war for independence started much earlier, in 1568, thus we know it as the 80 year war rather than the 30 year war.

              The Dutch have their own Declaration of Independence (“Plakkaat van Verlatinghe”), with content strikingly similar to the US one, though entirely lacking in literary merit. Unlike the US one, I have never heard of its existence, let alone its content, being taught in any Dutch school. As far as can be determined it wasn’t an actual inspiration for the US Declaration, even though the Founders were quite familiar with the Dutch Republic and its structure (and troubles, similar to those under the Articles of Confederation).

              1. One day, just for fun (and because I’m mean) I gave my students a chronology of the 80 Years War. I think their brains hurt. It was part of an overview lesson about the 17th Century ( short version “If you were on Earth, it sucked.”)

  6. I’ve long maintained that a huge mistake Europeans and some Americans make, is that they believe we’re merely Europeans on a different continent. The fact is that our ancestors rejected European culture and thought and formed their own society. We are not Europeans and Europeans are making a grave mistake by assuming we are.

    1. Our ancestors or us. We rejected Europe, and all its false glamour, and all its empty promises. A yup. And none of the bastages there or here will ever forgive me for it.

      1. John Dickinson: Fortunately, the people maintain a higher regard for their mother country.

        Dr. Benjamin Franklin: Higher, certainly, than she feels for them. Never was such a valuable possession so stupidly and recklessly managed, than this entire continent by the British crown. Our industry discouraged, our resources pillaged… worst of all our very character stifled. We’ve spawned a new race here, Mr. Dickinson. Rougher, simpler; more violent, more enterprising; less refined. We’re a new nationality. We require a new nation.

      2. Yup. “We’re not European: we stand up for ourselves and our fellows, and we hardly whine at all!”

      3. Well, true in some cases. But also, in a lot of cases, Europe rejected our ancestors. A significant portion of my ancestors were SENT here, whether they wanted to come or not.

      4. Come on now Portagee. Some of us bastages here still love you, even if you do say Moose and Squirrel kind of funny.
        You haven’t done all that badly for a white Mormon dude with a nice rack, no matter what Vile 666 says.

      5. Our ancestors or us. We rejected Europe, and all its false glamour, and all its empty promises. A yup. And none of the bastages there or here will ever forgive me for it.

        So, does Europe = Satan? Or have you merely been to baptism lately?

    2. Indeed. As an immigrant and naturalized citizen from Europe, I am very much NOT a “European on a different continent”. For one very important thing, I am armed, which I would not be allowed to be in my country of birth.

  7. As another former European I say “Bravo!”
    Uncle Lar asks “are the Europeans really so clueless?” I think the answer is “for the most part, yes”. The people know of NATO but don’t know what it is all about. Politicians do tend to understand, which is why they go non-linear when anyone suggests that NATO should be more than the US defending Europe at US taxpayer expense. “Puny military forces”? That’s an understatement. A number of NATO members have no military forces at all. Zero. You can see how much they value their freedom from that fact. And a number of countries that do have some people whose job description is “soldier” don’t have a serious military establishment. England and Switzerland and perhaps France might be an exception, but — for example — I would expect the Dutch army to be less effective now than they were in 1940, when it took all of 5 days for the Nazi forces to defeat them. They couldn’t even keep a gaggle of terrorists out of Srebenica back when they were pretending to do “peace keeping” there.
    It’s worth keeping in mind that in most European countries (all of them as far as I am aware with the possible exception of Switzerland) the conceptual model of government is as “master” and citizen [sic] as “subject”. That makes sense, if you remember that they all started out as absolute dictatorships (monarchies) that have been diluted slightly in recent years — for some of them only the last few decades, for others like Holland perhaps the past 150 years or so. From this you get to notions like “giving people some of the Treasury” rather than “reducing the amount of money the government takes by force from the productive citizens” — money “belongs” to the government, but it will grudgingly let you have some. You also get countries that have no constitution (such as England) or ones that have a “constitution” that allows the government to do anything it wants (such as Holland). While admittedly the US Constitution hasn’t been very effective (not even when the ink was still wet), at least in theory it imposes limits. Not so across the pond.
    One particularly important point is that there is no freedom of speech in Europe. You’re free to say only approved things. Attempt to say anything else, and you may end up fined or imprisoned as well as muzzled. This is true even in places that pretend to be free countries, like those of western Europe. How Geert Wilders has kept his freedom I really don’t know. I do know that Ayaan Hirsi Ali was driven out of Holland for having the nerve to say un-PC things about Islam. And she was, at the time, a Member of Parliament! She now lives in the Land of the Free. Good move, Ayaan (though picking D.C. as your place of residence seems like a questionable choice).

    1. As far as NATO, the whole idea of wanting to make certain that all parties are meeting goals that Trump keeps harping is honestly less punitivesomething my Democrat mother has been wanting since W. Namely mercenary force. I also remember the hue and cry when Bush wanted to pull some bases in Germany because it would devastate economy.

      1. And Poland making the offer of “If Germany[1] doesn’t want you, WE DO!” And that for both the economic and military reasons.

        [1] The protesters anyway.

        1. But how does one protect Poland from Russia without protecting Germany and France as well?

          1. The Germans were not concerned about being protected from Russia, their fear was a loss of income.

              1. Sure, but the free rider problem is unavoidable – the “putting our money into the pockets of the people who act against our interests while we’re protecting them” is something we can control, and I’d be happier at this point enriching the Poles instead of Frau Merkel and the Deutsche Bank.

      2. LOL over the response to Trump’s suggestion that treaty obligations go both ways, that NATO’s European members are required to spend a certain percentage of GDP on their militaries and that failure to do so means that they, not we, are in breach of the Treaty.

        Europe is in the position of a dining partner who, having agreed to split the tip, is aghast when called to actually pony up.

        1. Ya. Especially since NATO seems more expeditionary than defensive now. I can understand sending men against invasion (although Europe is doing that to itself atm) but not supporting other nations adventures. Especially after the cluster leading up to Iraq.

        2. I recall a running joke from many years ago that the quickest way for an American to get a French diplomat to go away was to bring up the debt France owed America from both world wars.

            1. Years ago, in High School, a good friend was fluent in French and German (as well as in English) and his family (both teachers in the Detroit school system back when there actually was such a thing) went to Europe every summer.

              He observed that in any French establishment, speaking French would get you ignored, English would get you insulted and German would get you excellent service.

        3. US membership in NATO fails the “what’s in it for me?” test.

          The EU is all grown up now, let them handle their own internal squbbles and group defense.

          1. I am willing to stipulate it is in the US interest to not have Russia or Islamists take over Europe. Just how much in our interest it might be I am not willing to say, but the amount is steadily diminishing.

    2. In fairness to the boys at Srebrenica, they were a light infantry force with almost no heavy weapons and air support that would have taken hours to arrive against an opponent that had them outnumbered at least 12 to 1 in troops and 20 to 1 in firepower.
      Blame the Dutch government for that, not the Dutch army.

      1. Afghanistan was a NATO affair as well, and I’ve heard that some of the assignments regarding which army went where were made with an understanding that military units from certain nations would be… less effective… if a combat situation were to arise, and that those units should therefore be assigned to parts of the country that weren’t likely to see much combat.

      2. You have a point, but by “army” I meant the entire tree structure from grunts to Commander in Chief. In the Dutch case — as in most if not all such cases — the grunts did the best they could, but the top of the tree failed. Or I suppose you could say the root of the tree, which indeed is the part that usually rots and makes the whole thing fall over.

        1. Oooh, I’m going to start having to use the “tree” instead of the “pyramid” metaphor– for the military, especially, it works better. It doesn’t matter how awesome your basic guys are if the top brass is dumb/stupid.

          It also points to a much healthier dynamic, with the trunk being obligated to support the branches to get anything from them, and dying without the leaves. Of course, the leaves are a lot easier to replace, too….

    3. “Uncle Lar asks ‘are the Europeans really so clueless?’ I think the answer is ‘for the most part, yes’.”

      All they know is what they read in the press, and the press is not free.

    4. Rhetorical question on my part. It’s obvious from their actions that they really are that clueless.
      But then here in our country you can see factions actively seeking to have all law enforcement removed from minority communities because then all those poor people would be so much safer.

      1. I’d be ok with that, if the local citizenry was encouraged to and aided in practicing armed self defense.

        I’d say the crime rate would plummet after the first week or so.

        1. Despite thier boasts of a Thin Blue line protecting the community from anarchy. The fact is in most places it protects criminals and outcasts from vigilante justice. Some Odds would have to tread cautiously, but it would be the opposite of anarchy.

          1. That’s part of the same coin. The entire point is supposed to be equal protection under the Law. That means the accused and convicted criminals are protected under the law just as those who’ve never violated the law at all.

            This is very important because equal protection under the law is the entire basis of the Rule of Law. Once the law shows partiality, we no longer have Rule of Law but Rule of Men. This includes letting a mob tear someone apart because they think – right or wrong – that they are responsible for a crime.

          2. That’s just sooooo not true! It was the local sheriff and his deputies who protected the town of Northfield, Minnesota, when the James-Younger Gang attempted that bank robbery.

            1. The gang were the victims of poor planning and a lack of local custom. Without being aware of it they staged their raid for the opening week of hunting season. Every adult in town had their hunting rifle close at hand so they could hit the woods after work.
              In the local vernacular of the time, most of the gang were shot to doll rags.

              1. And I’m sure that the local sheriff was involved and deputized the local men to “make it all legal like”. 😉

      2. As is often the case, “would be so much safer” represents an incomplete sentence. The full sentence should be: all those poor people would be so much safer for us to rob, exploit and abuse.

        Without any police presence in those communities, how will rules regulating working conditions, equal pay, etc. etc. be enforced? (Oh, that’s right: there won’t be any jobs, so those regulations won’t matter. Hostages will continue to receive their Welfare and pay a portion to their local overlords as insurance.)

        1. The feasibility of police circles around them being the public’s gang. Once that is broken trust wise it is pure strength.

      3. And their press is not giving them the straight scoop because their government has told the police to lie unless asked specific questions about specific cases. According to the Gatestone Institute, only 10% of rapes are being reported officially because the world has come down from above that nothing can be said that would prejudice people against “immigrants” and “refugees.” Apparently it is becoming unsafe to be a woman alone in the streets or to go to outdoor festivals.

        1. Not to mention the documented instances of victims of sexual assault refusing to identify their assailants lest they stir up hostility toward the poor uneducated migrants. Uneducarted they may be, but they know prey when they meet it.

          I s’pose we should just be happy she didn’t decide to name beneficiaries of “White Privilege” as being the true cause of her sodomizing.

          2. I believe that the case you refer involved a MALE Norwegian who invited a recent immigrant into his home. After being raped, he felt sorry that he (the victim) would be the cause of the rapist going to jail or being deported back to his country of origin.
            *face palm*

            1. I would only wish:

              Selin Gören, the national spokeswoman of the left-wing youth movement Solid, was attacked by three men in January in the city of Mannheim where she works as a refugee activist.

              Google her name, but don’t look for that story in the NY Sulzberger or Washington Bezos.

        2. Apparently it is becoming unsafe to be a woman alone in the streets or to go to outdoor festivals.

          Only way to fix that would be to have police all over the place.

          …which the US has managed, sort of; at least in those areas where you’re allowed to be armed.

        3. And when this becomes a common understanding in those countries (and it will, since even heroic lying gets broken by reality eventually), and they lose confidence in law enforcement, information delivery, and politicians, it’s going to be flame and blood.

  8. *looks at previous post*
    *looks at this one*
    Did Derpfish “help” with the Windows 10 install? Does he have a little Microsoft badge hidden in his castle? THE UPDATE IS COMING FROM INSIDE THE HOUSE AAAAAHHHH!
    I will never forget the bozo Frenchman who informed me, mere days after 9/11, while the rubble still smoked and they were still pulling bodies out, that the US should be careful in its response for fear of “destabilization”. I deserve massive karma points for not punching him in the face. (Instead, with a stone-cold expression, I informed him “we will do what needs to be done” and let him decide if he needed to retreat to a bomb shelter or not….) Why wasn’t he yelling at the idiot terrorist that attacked us? Wasn’t that causing “destabilization”? Oh, but it was SAFE to chastise ME. Idiot.

      1. I really wish there were a way to make such idiots understand the disconnect that is required to yell at [Insert safe demographic here] instead of the ones who will physically attack them for doing such. It’s looking like the only way to get any respect from these chuckleheads is to start beating them with tire irons when they say such things.

      2. They hate being dependent on us, but do nothing about it…but complain. They won’t fix their problem, and we can’t fix it for them. I see some “tough love” coming their way. I’m hoping for “soon”, and not “eventually”.

        1. Anybody who understands and appreciates the working of compound interest knows that the sooner the better for addressing such shortfalls. Eventually the piper must be paid and Guido Knuckledragger won’t accept a smile and a shrug.

      1. I blame my mother for teaching me it is rude for guests to start wars 😀 And I was visiting friends at the time. Best to look at him like he was something I tracked in on my shoe… Alas I did not know the French for “Do you *always* kick corpses, or just American ones?”

    3. It could be argued that punching him might have actually earned you points.

  9. these infants actually believe you can stop wars by throwing a switch and that the enemy doesn’t get a vote

    But you can. I believe the term is “unconditional surrender.”

  10. On freedom of speech. I keep hearing fellow citizens say that other nations have more of it then we do. And I have to carefully explain to them that the United States is the only nation in the world that has no OFFICIAL censor or censorsip agency, and the Constitution doesn’t allow for one. But yet, many sem to want to screw with our system becaue of such evils as mony in politics. What was it I read, $50 million spent per delegate for Jeb Bush in the Republican convention? Money is less effective then people think. Especially now, in internet days.

    Under any reasonable interpretation of any and every “campaign finance reform” bill ever proposed, this blog would have to register with the FEC, and Sarah would have to spend her life filling out paperwoork to justify the political opinions expressed in it. And possibly be required to provide equal number of words for opponents of her views. Because fairness.

    I’m not a big fan of PC-speak, And now, in addition to the Gadsen flag flying in front of my house, I’m going to have to purchase some Gadsen Flag T-shirts to wear. Simply because some government agency has decided the Gadsen flag is racist.

    Hey, let’s start a movement. June 14th is Flag Day. Next year, let’s all wear t-shirts with historical flags . The Gadssen Flag, the very similar original Navy Jack, the Gonzalez Flag, the Troutman Flag, the Crusader Flag (Not US history- but…). There are all kinds of historic flags out there that would grate the PC Crusaders.

    2. I’ve noticed several folks in town have switched from Gadsden to Goliad (“Come and Take It”) this year. And more pirate flags. Make of it what you will (and I may get a Goliad license plate next time around. Maybe.)

        1. That’s the flag that my daughter favors, although I am rather fond of the “Come and Take It.”

          We did a Tea Party event in 2009 – and Da Gov, Rick Perry turned up at it. (He was – as it later turned out – being protective-daddy to one of our speakers.) and he was wearing a pair of black leather custom boots with the ‘Come and Take It’ motto worked into them. We were all rather impressed. He showed them off to us – but the pic that I took at the time is sadly blurry.

            1. When I was in AIT in the Army, I had a roleplaying game box in my personal drawer. In one room inspection, we got off lightly because the Platoon Sergeant liked the box cover.

              The game was “Price of Freedom”, which I used to call “Red Dawn the Roleplaying Game”, and the box cover had a guy with a “Better Dead Than Red” t-shirt.

            2. Nice. It even has the bar sinister. Now all you need is to find a friendly screen-printer.

    3. But the networks would be free to slant. It’s more controlling who speaks than speech itself.

      1. It is a matter of benefit of assumption — the networks determine a priori</I. who is a "legitimate" voice of the people and who is T.E.A. Party.

        Just as they question Trump's fitness for the presidency but not ever Hillary's.

  13. The cultural framework makes it difficult if not impossible for many people (not just Europeans) to understand Americans.

    One simple thing that stunned me when I first ran across it: if the USA is not the only place in the world where all land within its borders not otherwise accounted for is NOT owned by the Government (as proxy for the King), it’s one of the very few.

    It’s also one of the very few places where mineral rights are owned by the land owner whose land the deposits are on, NOT the Government – the way the Beverley Hillbillies get rich is incomprehensible elsewhere because the Government owns mineral rights and will lease them to interested parties. Compensation may be provided to a landowner for the damage to their land, but otherwise, they get nothing.

    There are many, many more examples, and they are so low level and woven into American life that even the most brainwashed, uber-SJW Americans would have trouble adjusting to any European nation, much less the socialist “paradises” they admire so much.

    1. ….That’s fascinating and disturbing and I had no idea, but I guess I can see where it comes from historically, I just never *thought* of it…..

      1. Well, yes. The King owned all the land in the Kingdom, and that kind of devolved to the Government – which is something of a given everywhere I know about except the USA.

        Adverse possession is something else that is incomprehensible to others: the idea that by living on land and improving it that you can claim ownership? Not going to happen.

        1. My first (and so far only) jury duty was served on a case of adverse possession. Dear Ghu, the mind-numbing details…It took over a week.

        2. Kate, I don’t know that you’re right on this. A big grievance in western states is that the Federal government claims to own large portions of those states. It seems to be by virtue of “we owned all of it when it was a territory, and anything not sold to individuals we own still”. This is of course entirely unconstitutional, given that the Constitution clearly says that the Federal government can own only little bits for specific purposes (military bases and post offices, pretty much) and then only by permission of the state in question. But then again, that’s just one more place where the Constitution is disregarded.

          1. The disregard for the Constitution is an issue all on its own that could spawn a monster discussion – but *in principle* the USA model of land ownership is not one of “We own it all and graciously allow you to use some of it at our discretion” but one of “It’s yours. Pay your taxes and have fun.”

            The warping of principle is into n-th generation issues by now and showing no sign of stopping breeding like tribbles.

            1. It has been over thirty years since my Accounting Law courses covered the different manner of titles one could hold to land, but the idea that land could be held “in perpetuity” by principle or heirs is alien to American thinking. Here we either own land or we do not, but our English (jurisprudential) ancestors had all sorts of complicated ways of granting title to land without granting ownership.

              Keep in mind that a key plot element of Pride & Prejudice turns upon the Bennetts holding an entailed estate, with Mr. Bennett’s family having right of use only so long as he survived.

              Americans may joke about renting their homes homes from the State so long as taxes are kept paid, but in most of the world that is the fact in the rest of the world. Probably one reason Marxism found more fertile ground in those areas.

          2. What happens to territory owned by the Federal government at the time a territory becomes a state is not so crystal clear as all that. The part of the constitution (Article I, Section 8) dealing with purchase/acquisition of lands from the states for certain purposes is pretty clear, but I don’t think lands already held by the Federal government really falls under that. I think the Constitution did a poor job of handling land acquisition and disposal. Congress and the states did a decent job handling it after the fact, with the Northwest Ordinance and Federal land policy up through the 1870’s.

            Separate from that is that land, owned privately or by the government, may be sold with or without some rights, such as water rights or mineral rights. Those may be retained by the seller, or may have been previously sold or leased.

      2. I once had fun explaining to a Chemist freshly moved here from Red China that if he bought a house, the he owned not just the house, but the land it was on (as long as he paid the taxes of course). Then I pointed out that even if his Visa application failed, and he had to go back for a time, he could still own that house. I pointed out that my land lady was (at that time) Scottish, and living in Scotland, but owned the whole horse ranch I was on. He learned quick. Not long after he found that, yes, he could legally own a handgun, or any firearm. Had several and was teaching his girlfriend and her friend how to shoot (both girls lived with him and were going for citizenship, and his source worry about going back to China and them not having a house).

        2. My sister-in-law was knocked over by the idea that Americans could own property outright instead of leasing it. When my brother closed on their first house, I’m pretty sure she slept with the deed under her pillow for a few weeks…

    2. The Germans during WWI thought it incomprehensible that people who were not professional soldiers would even consider forming any kind of resistance movement.

    3. That is certainly true back east. But I live in Nevada where 84.5% of the land is federally owned and controlled. Many multi-generational ranchers who only lease their ranches.
      That whole thing in southern Oregon last year was due to greedy feds driving out ranchers, who actually owned their land, to increase the size of nature preserves.

      1. That leasehold for multiple generations things is the norm everywhere else. Australia works off a system of 99 year leases for rural property.

        One damn good reason to cut the amount of Federal land ownership in the USA is to *sell* it to citizens, thereby reducing expenses and using the revenue raised to reduce the Federal debt. It can be done because it’s *been* done. It won’t be done by any foreseeable US government because it reduces their power.

          1. Can I hope for Trump to win and keel over after the electoral college vote, leading to a Mike Pence presidency? Sure, Pence ain’t perfect – but I’d gladly take him over the rest of the “clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right” that are presently holding down nominations.

              1. Not much on the right this go around, true. I guess the Constitution Party counts, but their cause is even more hopeless than the Libertarians. This year the Libertarians they’re running well left of norm trying to pick up Bernie supporters, to the point their platform scares me almost as much as what Trump and Clinton are supposedly running on.

                1. Even though I am libertarianalistically (totally a word) inclined, if by some strange happenstance the big-L Libertarian Party ticket were to win, we would see such a total and complete lockstep non-cooperation from both houses of Congress that all the revious compaints of “gridlock” would seem like small beer indeed.

                  And if the new big-L administration tried to do the Obama “I have a pen and a phone” rule-by-executive-order thing, you would see lawsuits flying from both parties so fast, any olderish circuit court judges and certainly the older of The Supremes would all keel over from exhaustion.

                  Anyone who things that victorious big-L ticket would be able to get anything done in the face of monolithic self preservation by the D and R folks is folling themselves.

                  1. I am sure that the Congress would support Johnson on at least some</I initiatives, such as his promised demolition of any remnant of religious liberty in the Constitution.

                    1. Johnson has been doing some campaigning in Utah and having more success than one might expect, because there is a certain libertarian tendency among conservative Mormons and much disgust with and distrust of Trump. Then he said something about how people might need to be protected from violence perpetrated by Mormons. That didn’t play well, so he tried to reverse himself without actually changing direction. That didn’t play so well, either.

                    2. oookaaayy…….

                      I’d love to read those remarks. Mormons en masse as the violence initiators? Really?

                    3. Johnson sounds really good until he opens his mouth. If Romney was a squish Republican, the Johnson is a squish Democrat. I don’t care what the ballot says.

                    5. Prospective Senate Insanity Leader Schmuck Chumer has explicitly said such would be his first act.
                      Schumer Promises Immigration Reform First as Senate Majority Leader
                      Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said if he becomes majority leader of the Senate and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins the election that providing a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants would be the first order of business.

                      Schumer stressed the importance of Latinos voting for Clinton because she would appoint a liberal justice to the Supreme Court for a 5-4 majority.

                      “If I become majority leader, God willing, my colleagues have been very, very kind to me, at the top of our agenda, and Senator Clinton feels the same way, is immigration reform — a final pathway to citizenship for the 11 million who live in the shadows, and we will get that done,” Schumer said at the Senate Democrats’ Latino Summit last month on Capitol Hill. “I hope you will spread the word in your communities.”
                      — — —
                      Applying the interpretive standards employed with anything Trump says, doesn’t that amount to subornation of voter fraud?

                    6. No prosecutor would take that case. Now if you proles or Trump said it there would be repercussions

                    1. Some of Frank Herbert’s stories were set in a future where government had become so efficient an act could be proposed, voted in, enforced, and repealed on the same day, putting the government into so much churn it became largely ineffective.

                      In response, the Bureau of Sabotage was created for the purpose of slowing down the government, so there was time for people to realize that some oof its proposed actions were crazy. “The Tactful Saboteur” and “Whipping Star” are among the BuSab stories.

                      “Jorj X. McKie, we need you!”

          2. My possibly incorrect understanding was that most Western federal lands were technically state lands held in trust. Whether the states like it ir not.

            1. I think that’s true of the tribal lands, but not for the lands administered by BLM (the better-armed one), NPS, FS, or FWS.

          3. Trump seems to like Fed land ownership, Hillary seems to like Fed land ownership. That issue is a wash and need not be a consideration in the election.

            Except to the extent that either candidate or the Justice(s) appointed, will lock that into the Constitution precedent.

        2. Mainlanders have to be careful when house shopping in Hawaii as property listings there come in two flavors: Fee Simple, where you own the dirt, and Leasehold (often 99 yr) where you don’t.

      4. A lot of that land was given to the Feds, or bought, or otherwise had to be bargained for– it didn’t just belong to them as a matter of course.

        There’s a major mental difference involved.

        1. Hmm… Louisiana Purchase. Southwest stolen fair and square by Polk from Mexico by war. Lewis and Clark claimed Oregon, Idaho, & Washington. Oh yeah and Seward’s folly. US government got first dibs on it all.
          Texas, on the other hand, is the king of private property.

                2. It would certainly be interesting if Nevada and other western states sued the federal government for ownership of all BLM and forest service lands. Feds would have a case for military bases.

                  2. I believe several states are already making noises about this.

                    *wolfish grin*

                    I’d honestly settle for them managing the lands to get cash, though.

                  3. Why sue? That’s a bit like asking permission. I would say “use eminent domain”.

                    2. I’m not sure about that — it legitimizes State Sovereignty but not necessarily Federal Sovereignty of land ownership. It would be an interesting court case if there were five Justices with anything resembling integrity.

                      What would happen if, for example, Nevada Utah asserted eminent domain to take unused federal land not otherwise ceded to a national park?

                    3. That’s what I meant. Though I wouldn’t necessarily limit it; the Constitution does not mention “national parks” as an authorized reason for the Federal government to own land.

  14. I get so tired of people saying the U.S. is a childish upstart. The only thing Europe has older than the U.S. has is its cities. Our culture, our art, everything has the same ancient roots; just because it was brought across by ship doesn’t mean it isn’t as ancient. The U.S. is nearly a quarter millenium old now; we are older than Germany, which has only been a nation since 1871, and our government has (so far [and it pains me to have to add the qualification]) lasted longer than most of the other governments in the world, many of which postdate WWII. We have nothing to apologize for, we have nothing to be embarrassed about, and we are NOT inferior to the Old World

    1. And much of the cities are only old in name and placement. So many have been re-re-rebuilt because they keep destroying the place with wars or the “glories” of the soviets..

    2. “The only thing Europe has older than the U.S. has is its cities.”

      Sorry, I cannot agree. Their corruption and degradation of the common man are both of longer standing there than here.

  15. Re the evils of “Nationalism” – I was trying to avoid the overwhelming load of commencials being fobbed off as the Olympic coverage by NBC-Universal last night when I ran across a WWII documentary on one of ethe cable channels. Then I got gobsmacked and had to check the timestream-ID app on my phone to make sure I had not accidentally jumped timelines again – they were doing the leadup to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (all the stuff before the maps with big arrows happen), and their story was basically as follows:

    “In the 1920s, all was well, with the world full of happy flowers and joyous workers, but then, the Great Depression hit, and this made all workers sad. As a response, to distract the workers, all over the world NATIONALISM broke out – in Italy, Mussolini!! In Germany, Adolph!! And in Japan, Tojo!! All of them imposed big bad NATIONALISM!! All that NATIONALISM was why the second world war happened! And why the attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise!”

    The fact that the Japanese had Japanese Army troops in Manchuria since the end of the Russo-Japanese war in 1898, had taken over and annexed Manchuria as “Manchukuo” in 1931, had attacked the rest of China in 1937, and invaded French Indochina in 1940, the net of which finally pushed the US to declare an oil embargo, which can be directly traced to the Pearl Harbor attack – all of which happened a long darn time before Tojo was named Prime Minister in October 1941, and arguably had nothing at all whatsoever to do .

    Don’t even get me started on the chronological disconnect between that and Mussolini (Italian Prime Minister since 1922) and the National Socialists rise (which coincidentally actually did happen in the 1930s).

    Just totally unimaginable historical ignorance, with an overlay of “bad bad NATIONALISM!” And I’m certain the current generation would not be able to spot any errors or bias at all.

    1. It’s hard to have an intelligent historical conversation anymore. State progressive propaganda passing as education is working to destroy the American culture.

    2. Ouch. It’s truly sad that our (USA) WWII propaganda films are now more educational than our education is. There’s one guy at work I’d love to have sit through the Private Snafu cartoon The Goldbrick until he comprehends – alas, I suspect the heat death of the Universe might arrive before that. Then perhaps I wouldn’t have to keep such an eye on the fellow. (Of course there is also the matter that when I told my boss someone was goldbricking, the response was “I don’t know what that means.”)

  17. You remind me of a column by Peter Dobereiner about the origin of the concept Europe. ‘Some lads were knocking stones about in a field near Edinburgh. They looked at the lad who hadn’t played and said “You’re up.” Thus the name Europe, ,,, And Europeans, referred by most Americans as You’re peons.’

    Still miss his monthly bits in the golf magazines,,,

    Most people were not really aware of it, kind of like most people here aren’t aware of how far Marx’s crazy cakes ideas have penetrated academia, the press and entertainment.

    Michael Walsh brilliantly documents this takeover by the “Frankfurt School” and their Critical Theory in the book The Devil’s Pleasure Palace. I love the Walsh uses Milton, Goethe, Wagner and others to explain how insidious this is. This link to Amazon is not to sell the book, but the precis is well done. https://www.amazon.com/Devils-Pleasure-Palace-Critical-Subversion/dp/159403768X
    I found reading on Kindle essential to get definitions to the many words and names that are rarely taught.

  18. Glad to hear your fish is still with you. You’ve got a lot invested in that little fella. Maybe there’s a story in there about assumed responsibility and human nature? But you knew that already.

  19. Pingback: Centrists | According To Hoyt

  20. ” Those people are still arguing about what our Mary said to their Brenda 2000 years ago at the potluck celebrating the fall of the Roman empire.”

    And I didn’t even say anything! Brenda made it all up!

Comments are closed.