Nostalgia

camera-514992_1920

Why is it always Hitler?

The left is off on another of their half-cocked bits of insanity comparing Trump to Hitler, because Trump used an eagle on a campaign t-shirt.  The Washington Post, in the article about it, kind of admitted that the eagle was also an American symbol, but they did it reluctantly and hidden, because of course it ruins the comparison.

But seriously, why Hitler?  There have been countless other bad men since the failed painter committed suicide in his bunker. Heck, on body count alone he was kind of a piker.

So, why is the left always and forever obsessed with Hitler.

Yes, yes, the second world war.  Well, there have been other wars since then.

BUT, you’ll say, Hitler is the only one of the state-mass-murderers who didn’t do it in the name of communism.  Waggles hand. Kind of. He did it in the name of socialism, the nationalistic kind, and yet, the left has no trouble ignoring that.

With the help of their captive press corps, in fact, they have spent a considerable amount of time convincing the world that Hitler wasn’t a socialist, not harf.

Hell and damnation, I heard a communist in my field, who passes for an educated man, claiming that Hitler/Stalin was the ultimate confrontation of capitalism and communism.  Because, you know, Hitler is to capitalism as–  I don’t know? Chalk to cheese?

If you assume capitalism is “free trade” (and not a made up word of the left) that was the one thing that Nazis definitely didn’t have or encourage. In fact, like the international socialists of Europe, and like our own left, people were nominally allowed to keep their wealth and business, but the government told them what to do with them, and picked winners and losers.

So, surely the left could have picked someone else: Mao or Pol Pot, or someone and proclaimed them totally not communist and then obsessed about them as the monster to watch out for.  (To give kudos to a random complete idiot leftist (BIRM) she did compare Trump to Mao but that was only a facebook post, in which she showed more creativity than the Washington Post and the New York Times combined (tied together and thrown in the deep blue sea).)

Today I was watching Foyle’s War.  I have been “reading” Agatha Christie books (audio) while working.  And it hit me.

The left obsesses about Hitler because they’re nostalgic for WWII.
It’s the last time the world made sense to them.

No one openly challenged the principle that government, the bigger the better, should do everything and control everything, from news to food distribution (and growing.)  In many things, in fact, there was hardly any difference between the allies and Hitler.  Well, the allies in what would become the other side of the iron curtain were doing … well, just as awful stuff as Hitler was doing.

And even here, in the land of the free, that utter bastard, FDR, was busily putting people in camps, and interfering with private business and doing everything he could possibly do to make people miserable and to bring about the glorious triumph of the state over the individual.

Which brings to WHY the left are so nostalgic.

At the root of it, fundamentally, they have to know their policies, their initiatives, their grand plans are wrong at the level and by the only metric that counts: that of impoverishing society and destroying lives, and making people miserable who would otherwise be fine, really.

But during WWII they had an excuse: everyone was doing it. EVERYONE.  The only difference is that Hitler went in bigger than the other guys for ethnic cleansing. (Which is also why racism is now the left’s only and obsessively confessed sins.) And did it by the numbers and to horrifying levels.

Am I defending the bastard?  Of course not.

Because the world is NOT a dispute between complete light and utter darkness, ever, yeah at the time the allies defeated the worst possible of the alternatives. BUT they did it at the cost of convincing their population that the government had the right to enslave them, to curtail their lives, to make the individual count for nothing. Which goes a long way to explain the mess Europe has become since then.  (Well, again, they should have turned around and gone after Stalin next, but you can’t have everything. where would you put it? Who would dust it?)

So why does the left go back there like a dog to its vomit, from their obsession with comparing every single Republican president to Hitler, to trying to revive WWII rationing and programs, in response to various things that are to be declared the moral equivalent of war: the latest one being the “climate crisis.”

So–

Well, other than the fact that it’s fitting they’re running a demented elder for the presidency, what is the point of that?

The point is that it’s nostalgia.  Nostalgia is the sin of dying philosophies. Of those who know their time has passed.

The left is involved in a ghost dance.  It doesn’t mean they can’t do a lot of damage before they die, but they’ve entered that phase into which their maldaptive image of the world leads them to dig themselves deeper and deeper, every time they hit bottom.  They’re now reduced to Wile E. Coyote and his clever plots, which always backfire, because he fails to account for the other side not simply going along with his imaginings.

They are, in the end, headed to the trash heap of history.

Our job is to make sure they don’t drag us along.

Be not afraid, and keep working.

387 thoughts on “Nostalgia

  1. Well, they were also some of the “first” to see as a Bad Person. Although, that happened after Hitler went after the Soviet Union. 😉

    1. That’s the reason I think the left goes all-in on Hitler hatred: because the USSR fought against him. To the left, the USSR have always been the Good Guys™, and therefore anyone the USSR fought against were the Bad Guys™. As supporting evidence, I submit the leftist I just saw arguing in a comment thread somewhere (cannot remember where, and don’t care) that the USSR, not the Allies deserves the credit for winning WWII because of how many of their soldiers died to defeat Hitler. Leaving entirely aside the question of whether those soldiers’ deaths were avoidable while still winning the war (i.e., were they led by the real-life equivalent of Discworld’s Lord Rust?), the idea that the USSR had more deaths therefore they’re the most moral is one that fits squarely into the left’s world view. They’re the victims, don’chaknow, so they’re the Good Guys™.

      1. Exactly Robin! The left is ALWAYS on the side of the Soviet Union. Therefore Hitler double-plus BAD because he attacked the Soviet Union. You can still hear the echo of Dalton Trumbo’s head spinning from turning to the world’s greatest peacenik to “go to war to defeat the evil Hitler!” on June 22, 1941.

        1. It’s why they warped the meaning of fascist; the left has been very successful in mainstreaming the idea that fascism is a “right wing” ideology because they have turned it into meaning the opposite of socialism/communism so that anyone who opposes Soviet/Chinese style socialism is by definition a fascist.
          Given the identity based core of the current brand of Marxism they are pushing and the eliminationist rhetoric including outright Jew-hatred, Communazi is the perfect term for Democrats, who are of course projecting when they call political opponents “Hitler”. It is the Democrats who want to send people to reeducaiton/concentrationdeath camps and want to eliminate not only anyone who disagrees with them but anyone who belongs to one of the unfavored groups that they have deemed “oppressors”.
          They may ultimately lose but they may very well leave a lot of mass graves and ashes along the way.

          1. Fascism is one short step right of communism. To communists, that makes them right-wing.

            Leftoids speak a different language, in which the words just happen to sound and be spelled the same as English words.

            1. There is no effective difference between a Fascist and a Communist. There are different uniforms, of course, and slight differences in liturgy. But the behaviors are effectively the same, at each point of gathered power. At a certain point, both clog the streets with bands of thugs. At another point both hold large parades of military might. Both spend a great deal of time demonizing scapegoats, and when a certain point is reached they begin liquidating them. Neither one is good at running an economy, although if the economy they batten onto is in bad enough shape to begin with they can make what appear to be improvements. Both run out of other peoples’ money quite quickly, which is when the scapegoats start being slaughtered.

              The Left has worked HARD to create the impression that they are not the same as every concatenation of bloodthirsty totalitarian swine that has gone before. But it is a lie.

                1. Venezuela is (or was) an industrialized nation. I would argue that the authoritarian murderers who take over underdeveloped nations TEND to call themselves Socialist/Communist while those that take over developed nations TEND to get labeled Fascist by the Western Left. To the best of my knowledge the only dictator who actually claimed the title ‘Fascist’ was Mussolini.

              1. The one difference of any note between Communism of the Marxist/Leninist stripe and Fascism and Naziism is that the latter require pretty much a cult of personality to sell. You need a highly charismatic leader to “sell” them to the populace. Marxism/Leninism comes all nicely gift-wrapped.

                The difference is in the wrapping paper. The content is much the same. Indeed, the “national” vs. “international” is largely rhetorical. Nazi “nationalism” was “world domination by Germany.” Soviet “internationalism” was “world domination by Russia.”

                The metaphor I use is that the differences are arguments over the colors of curtains in otherwise identical houses built of a foundation of collectivism with a structure of totalitarianism.

                  1. However, you’re getting marxism/leninism spreading through Europe and the Americas without the need for specific charismatic leaders and surrounding cult of personality. Without one, fascism/Naziism stalls almost immediately rendered into just a few idiots. And by “few” I mean believers that the world is hollow and that’s where UFOs come from outnumber genuine Nazis in the US.

                    It’s not that Marxism/Leninism can’t use a charismatic leader if one is available. It’s that it doesn’t need one to worm its way into a culture.

                    1. I’ll think about it. Since my feel is that the difference between Socialist/Communist and Fascist/Nazi is largely illusory and made up by the Fascist Left because they do not wish to be associated in the minds of voters with images of the Death Camps, I don’t think the argument works…but I will chew on it a while.

                    2. Fascism and Nazism are Marxism with a nationalistic app — the distinction is between nationalistic and international Communism. Each is fundamentally flawed although the nationalistic version probably works more effectively by limiting its focus, avoiding the disparities between workers in agricultural, industrial and post-industrial societies.

                      The racism is a purely Nazi component, although Marxism benefits from having a target to blame for its failure.

                    3. Charismatic leaders often seize upon Marxism, the way certain travelling salespersons used to seize upon snake oil. But it is important to distinguish the hammer from its wielder.

                    4. Racism in fascism is hardly Limited to the Nazis. I’ll admit that, as a rule, the explicit Marxists have scapegoated Classes rather than Ethnicities, at least in their liturgy. But somehow, racial minorities get it in the neck, too.

                    5. That’s because Marxists have got it into their pointy little heads that culture/class = race.

                      Which is why we get insanity like that Smithsonian poster about “White Culture”…

      2. From what I understand the Red Army was led by incompetent officers during WWII – because Stalin, in one of his paranoid moments, had all the competent senior officers killed for plotting against him, shortly before the war began. That presumably increased the death count on the Russian side by quite a lot.

        1. The political officers stood behind the front line soldiers, with orders to shoot any man who retreated or hesitated to attack.

          So yeah, a lot of Soviet soldiers got shot by their own side. And if the zampolit didn’t like you, or wanted you dead for any reason, nobody was going to question him.

        2. Yes, and no. Some of the competent officers were shot. But many of them were “exiled” (figuratively speaking, of course) instead of being killed. And when the Germans attacked, those officers were recalled to duty.

          There were also the political officers. During some of the early stages of the war, they were often under orders to kill those who retreated. But as time went on and the emergency lessened, this particular bit of instruction was removed.

          1. Well, plus it got to the point that a) the political officers did want to live, and it’s hard to live when you keep killing the guys between you and the Germans, and b) some of the political officers did start to bond a bit with the other guys, at least more than with Moscow officials who were far away.

            1. Plus, the Political Officers were out there in the battles, surrounded by armed soldiers with little to lose. Who could prove whether one .30-cal bullet came from a Mauser or a Mosin-Nagant?
              ———————————
              Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss. Firepower is one bullet that hits.

          2. In every battle the USSR fought in WW2, there was a NKVD battalion with artillery and machine guns behind the attacking formations to encourage them forward by shooting at them if the zampolits thought they were not moving forward fast enough.

      3. the USSR, not the Allies deserves the credit for winning WWII because of how many of their soldiers died to defeat Hitler.

        As Patton observed, you don’t win wars by how many of your guys die, you win them by how many of the enemy’s guys die.

        Of course, the Left hates that movie …

        The Soviets would have killed vastly more of their own citizens trying to defeat Hitler had the USA not been providing them desperately needed supplies (for which we’ve never been repaid or, I believe, even thanked.)

        If you count troop deaths as percentage of population I suspect the Soviets do not take the “most sacrificed” prize … although I suspect their war dead are fewer than their own dead from the Holodomor.

        1. We received payment during the ’70s. It was tied to the grain shipments.

          The Russians have generally ignored the US Lend-Lease contributions. Ignoring the British stuff is understandable (it was largely outdated junk, since the British were under heavy pressure at the time). But American trucks were what allowed the Soviets to turn the Summer 1944 offensive (Operation Bagration) into the complete and total destruction of Army Group Center.

        2. Stalin used the wartime death toll to cover up just how many people he wiped out in the Holodomor and the Great Terror.

          OTOH, lying with statistics was SOP in the XUSSR. I still remember when Aleksandr Zinoviev gave a presentation to the UIUC Slavic Department, and said that statistics in the XUSSR were completely worthless because of their systematic fabrication. This would’ve been ’87 or ’88, when I was taking Russian there.

          (And I still love being able to write XUSSR, after growing up assuming that the Cold War would go to the stars. That was the realistic future history I wrote, and the one with the USSR falling was the far-fetched one).

            1. Yup.

              We’re getting chummy with Vietnam these days over shared security concerns regarding the PRC. Though even at the time Gibson wrote the script, cracks in the Great Communist Brotherhood had already appeared, made evident by the aftermath of the Vietnam War in the previous decade. The Vietnamese reunified the country, and then got rid of fellow communist Pol Pot. And then the Chinese attempted their failed invasion of Vietnam.

          1. There’s a book about the Chinese famine in the mid-Twentieth Century called “Tombstone”, by a Chinese reporter named Yang Jisheng. One of the arguments that the book advances, iirc, is that lying about the harvest totals was one of the direct causes of the famine, and the mass starvation that followed.

            1. That book must be wrong; the State never lied about harvest totals. Any discrepancies between official figures and quantities available must have been doe to counter-revolutionary sabotage.

              By LAW, official figures must always be correct.

              1. If you remember Clancy’s Red Storm Rising one if the things that set’s the analyst hairs on end is the news that the Red Army published a story about shooting several colonels for faking their readiness reports.

                Not that it happened, either the gun decking or the executions; but that the Russians felt the need to set examples.

              2. The initial harvest numbers were so grossly inflated that first year that the local officials reporting the numbers actually got called out on them until the numbers were revised down. IIRC, the cause of the number inflation was that Mao had issued a pearl of wisdom /sarc about farming, and the local officials didn’t want to be accused of not following his “advice”.

                1. Plants of the same species are not class enemies and can be planted as closely together as the seeds will fit! This will result in growth so thick that a child can stand on the stalks of rice!

      4. It’s pretty well accepted that Stalin planned to attack Germany eventually, but when Hitler did it first, Stalin went into a complete funk, hiding in his bedroom and refusing to deal with the situation at all. He eventually came out raving about “betrayal” and revenge.

        So that became official Soviet dogma, and the Reich moved from BFFs to evil incarnate.

        1. He planned for the fighting between them to be later and hoped to have more reliable officers in place by then. Who would have attacked who was up in the air (though I think he knew Hitler would be the aggressor first) but he’d hoped to have all his ducks in a row well before the ball dropped.

          1. Yes. For three days the Red Army had to deal with everything without him, and that was part of the problem. A lot of people didn’t dare move, even as the Wehrmacht et al rolled in, because they had not heard orders from Moscow.

          2. More like “Lincoln after Fort Sumter.” Just hid and shirked his responsibility while is subordinates made excuses for him.

      5. I see the argument that the USSR deserves “more credit” for fighting Hitler due to their death count, too.

        Pisses them off really fast when I point out that they were on Hitler’s side up til that point, and that the “throw more starving bodies at them” method of fighting was not one I want to encourage.

        1. Yeah. I can still remember getting in deep trouble back in my grade school days (early 80’s) when I told my class teacher that Hitler and Stalin were allies before they were enemies.

          He ordered me to ‘prove it’. So I went right down to the school library and brought a history book back up that, indeed, proved it. It was not a smart move. Later that year he got even by refusing to let me use the bathroom and then forcing me to sit in a pool of my own urine. I also got to hear him tell my mother after she was called in and breathing fire that, well, if I had only said something. Because usually I just had to argue with him…

          Taught me a lesson. Never openly disagree with anyone who has power over you, unless you want to pay the price.

          1. I don’t remember a teacher pulling that– but then, I was so freaking clueless that I would just assume he’d accidentally missed me holding my hand up, and be super helpful to get his attention.

            No wonder I pissed off so many teachers….
            (there is absolutely zero sarcasm in this, BTW; I was an innocent terror)

            1. Well, this particular teacher made it obvious to us students that he was Too Good to be teaching us working-class brats. He spent at least as much time mocking us to our faces as he did teaching us anything.

              Unfortunately for my school that made him about normal. I still remember the math teacher who told us that even if we learned nothing he’d still get paid. There are times I think the local parents could have put together one heck of a lawsuit for fraud against the local schools. After all, they promised to educate us and made barely any effort at all to do so.

          2. I had a go-round with a teacher in high school. My memory says I missed a midterm because I was in New York on a humanities trip (nice, since I never took humanities). Then he told me it couldn’t wait, I had to take it. I took it on the spot, unstudied, and failed it, which got me my only C in high school. (My second midterm was an A). Oh yes, after I took it and flunked he told me that if I had asked, he would have made up a new test.

            At any rate, he had a dream of buying a small farm and doing all the necessary work in the evenings and weekends. He was going to have cows, as I recall, and chickens. He went on about it in class until one day I asked him if he knew how to kill a chicken. When he, poor naif, said no, I quoted my father, the Depression kid. “You take the chicken and lay him so his neck is on the board, and then you stroke his neck so he stretches it out, and when it’s out far enough – WHACK with the hatchet!. Then you hold on, so it doesn’t run around the yard, and then…”

            We never heard about his farm again. I feel kind of bad about it now. But I also got an A for that quarter.

          3. If any teacher had pulled even part ONE of that in my elementary or junior high days, he would have been fired so fast his shadow wouldn’t have caught up with him for a week. The Roxboro schools served a bedroom community for three or for Universities and a teaching hospital, and the parents had scant respect for the products of Teachers’ Colleges. One principal of the Junior High tried to pull the ‘you are just parents and I’m an education expert’ riff and was gone halfway through a semester.

            The High School served a much larger area and had degenerated badly. The rumor was that they tended to lose three teachers a year; one dead (health, not student assassins), one quit, and one nervous breakdown. Which is about half of why I was sent to a Private High School.

            But up to the mid 1970’s the schools that served smaller areas still were very much under local control, at least in Ohio.

            1. I am not exactly sure about the timing, but I think that was about the time many of the states were working on standardizing instruction/curriculum under control of state school boards. I am positive that Carter’s creating a Cabinet-level department of education was a major contributing factor.

              Anything to ensure that local trouble spots could not obstruct the important work of indoctrinating educating the next generation.

              1. This teacher also really disliked his students. He told us he deserved better than a job at some rural/suburban school.

            2. My parents were good and hard-working sorts, but they were of a generation that took it for granted that almost anything a teacher did to his students was because the student had it coming. As I hear many times growing up, from all the local parents, ‘If the teacher gives you a licking, don’t complain to us — because when we ask him, if he says you did something wrong, we’ll give you another one!’

              Yet in spite of that Mom went to bat for me a couple of times. Tended to make things worse rather than better — she was willing to go as far as she had to, to get results; and she always got results. Which lead to a lot of teachers and school officials having it in for me.

            3. Didn’t go to private school. Joke was when last of us girls graduated from HS, the staff threw a party because they were done with mom. Then her grandchildren hit the same school district … there were some that remembered her still 🙂 Sis wasn’t above making it clear when she’d been at the HS, and what her maiden name was. OTOH sis had some sympathy for teachers, given that she was one too …

              Our son didn’t go the same HS. We are in a different district. Never mind that we only live 1 mile north of mom, & sis is 2 miles north of mom. You’d have to understand the educational politics involved. It’s quite cute.

              1. we got some like that in my old school system (Gladstone, MI), kids next door to each other (semi-rural so a few yards if not an arcre or two are involved) going to different systems. I lived less than a mile from one elementary school (we could see the flashing zone signs from the driveway) and we got bused to one almost 10 miles out in the country. @ different busses went past our house. Middle and High school kids got on one with elementary kids going to the nearest one, then they changed to one buss, but either transfering at the near elemetary to go to the other, or departing for there, and it was a mess. High and Mid kids rode so long, I’d sleep until the buss came by, get up shower and ride my bike to highschool and get there well before the buses got in. iirc the bus ride was 2 and a half times hearing The Cars on 8-track (the only thing it would play. ate everything else) Kids in all 3 of our elementary schools had neighbors going to Escanaba’s schools, actually. Some having to pass those going the other direction. I think they Gerrymandered the lines between Esky and Gladstone

                1. We live in walking distance of two grade schools. Different districts. Pretty sure two HS are same distance from our house, just one has to cross hwy 99 to get to, and can’t get there from here on a city buss (guess which one son went to school at).

                  Way back in the olden days, our house is on what was strawberry, bean, & corn, fields. In fact the Filbert Orchards are just now being torn out and developed. Combination of next generation, the Filbert blight, & urban growth bounder fill in rules. Point was it was a farm. When the outlying areas said “we want to go to the city district schools”, this was an area encompassing Fern Ridge and Airport, pretty much all low appraisal because they were under farm appraisal rules. City district, 4J, said, nah, too much trouble. Thus Bethel district was born. Fast forward, 50/60 years, now a good portion of that farm land is now developed, not into cheap properties, and some of it is actually city, not just county. 4J has for a couple of decades been making conciliatory noises. Bethel district voter’s reponose? “H??? no.” Why? Our property school taxes are less /$1000 than 4J, In fact our property taxes are less than mom’s all because of school districts. Her appraisal value is less but her property taxes are higher.

                  1. former co-worker bought a house in Arlington, Texas, Decent schools, decent taxes, and it was a BIG house (7 bed. 5 kids, and a granny, wife does in home day care)
                    Unfortunately he was one street off where he needed to be, and the kids went to Mansfield Texas schools so his property taxes were $5500 a year instead of about $2000.
                    Ouch
                    Worse, Mansfield has two schools, one considered very good, the other crap. His kids go to the crap one. All because he is on cul de sac off. Turns out the realtor mislead him on that, but as they also shafted him on the loan, not a surprise. At least they got the loan issue fixed (predetory loan rates and he kept refusing the variable rate plans, so they buried the variable portion somewhere else and lied. Lawyers got involved.)

                    1. People tend to forget that the realtor, even if engaged by the buyer, works for the seller. I wo’t say never trust your realtor, but do verify.

                      Around here, about the same time we shifted to home schooling the Daughtorial Unit, the school districts were being re-drawn almost annually. So even if you moved into a “good” district your assurance of remaining there was … not great. SOME districts, of course, got re-drawn less than others.

                      Of course, no matter which district you were in the schools used the same (state mandated) curriculum, the same scope and sequence, the same textbooks … if you were following along at home the poorer schools meant there was less you had to unteach.

                    2. I know he turned down at least one other place because of the school, and said they wanted to stay in Arlington for the schools and the taxes. She was also part of the loan process he rejected at least three loans because once he dug into them they were variables with massive later increases in rates and payments. When the lawyer got involved I know it got close to a foreclosure, but he got it straightened out and they had a decent 25 year at right at the best then current rate. Even got the taxes escrowed in iirc.

                    3. Even got the taxes escrowed in iirc.


                      We refused Tax, Insurance, etc., escrowed as part of the loan. Nope. We take the (3%) discount on taxes by paying them for the year in November. Insurance payments allows us to switch if we deem it necessary. We don’t usually. We were with our last insurance carrier for 20+ years. Recently switched. House insurance went up, but our vehicle insurance dropped like a rock. $750/year, net, house & vehicles. That doesn’t count the amount of our son’s car insurance being split off, another $450. Latter was the problem with the old insurance. They wouldn’t split off son’s insurance because he is at the same address as us. Made sense when he was driving his car which was still in our name. But when we signed it over for the trade, and the new car, and loan, is in his name, he is over 21, working, with good if thin credit, the old insurance still wouldn’t split him off into a separate policy.

                    4. Hmm. I don’t think we’d get a discount on taxes for paying them in a lump, but maybe I should check.

                    5. Hmm. I don’t think we’d get a discount on taxes for paying them in a lump, but maybe I should check.


                      For mom & us, each, the amount saved is slightly more than what we’d pay for 2, steak dinner & drinks, at Texas Roadhouse (without sales tax, because Oregon). For sis & her husband it is quadruple that, they have city taxes too.

                    6. Make sure you check the proper facts. In my community there’s no discount for lump sum payment, as such, but there is a discount for early payment. The tax bills go out July 1, Taxes are due by January 5 (or perhaps it is first business day after New Year’s Day which, what with the First being a Friday and government work being what it is, is Tuesday the fifth). They don’t care how it is paid, all at once or 1/52 of the total every Wednesday, so long as it is all i by the due date.

                      BUT, if I pay the full amount by August 31 (also known as four months early) they will give me a whopping discount of … three-quarters of a percent. Yessiree, boys and girls, in exchange for paying my full property taxes four months before they are due my neighbors will give me a discount of nearly seventy-five cents o the hundred dollars!!!

                      Beloved Spouse & I can spend that on a pizza dinner, hold the beer, or put it in the gas tank or take in a movie or do whatever thrills us.

                      But it is time of payment, not paying it all at once, that gets us that luxury.

                    7. Make sure you check the proper facts. In my community there’s no discount for lump sum payment, as such, but there is a discount for early payment.


                      If your property taxes are high enough, even 0.75% is nothing to sneeze at if you can afford early payment.

                      Locally ours are 3% if paid in full when due, which is 11/15, or as late as 11/17, if 11/15 falls on Saturday. Otherwise you can pay as little as 1/3 in regular installments. 2% discount if pay 2/3 due on 11/15. Nothing if paid in 1/3 installments.

                      RCPete would have to chime in on whether this is state wide in Oregon. I know this true in Lane County. Not sure if state wide.

                      Like I stated previously, for us the amount is a good steak dinner for two (~$60). But for my sister it’s considerably better than that because of their city taxes (~$150+).

                    8. predetory loan rates and he kept refusing the variable rate plans, so they buried the variable portion somewhere else and lied. Lawyers got involved.


                      Ouch.

                      We had trouble with our original loan back in ’88. Predatory, yes. But we were aware. House appraised correctly, but neighborhood didn’t. It was a problem for all homes for sale in the area at the time. Area isn’t known for high turn overs anyway. Plus things had just barely started moving again after 8 year downturn (stupid owl). In fact ours was the first to close. Couldn’t get an east coast or any fixed rate loan to lend. Got stuck with 5 year variable with balloon, at 12% start rate. Would have walked but our rental was sold out from under us (did put in an offer, they declined), we had a German Shepard, 5 cats, and baby on the way. Couple things happened for us. Finally was able to put on market & sell house we had in Longview that we’d had since ’80, moved out of in ’85 (forced transfer), and couldn’t sell (stupid owl). Houses in limbo started closing in the area we bought. We refinanced < 10% 30 year fixed. We're now at 3.2% (ish), 30 year fixed.

                      School district. Bethel is considered the Hick district (was when I was in school too), for all that most of the students aren’t rural anymore. Nor is it the least demographic area of the city/area. It is equivalent to the HS closest for 4J. But no way is the district considered “bad” or poor. Percentage of dropouts is higher, but that is a numbers game as much as anything.

          4. had a teacher who could be like that. He was quite embarrassed several times for his moronic actions.
            One student given the denial of restroom treatment walked out and when he chased he,r she instead went to the principle’s office (it was very close), and walked into his restroom without a word. Much ‘splaining was done.
            This was the same one who called a cuz a “Fat Bitch” in class and my aunt (all 4 and a half feet of her) chewed him out in class (she worked for the school system) and then her brothers met him at his car that afternoon (both wrestling champs) and had a few more words.
            I only dealt with him for a year as I was bussed to a different school for 7th grade. We did not get along, and he liked my dad even less than my aunt, but both scared the carp out of him.

            1. Lords, but I was lucky! I spent a total of ONE year dealing with vermin teachers (Princeton NJ schools,would you believe it? Father was on sabbatical). The feat of my grade school days were pretty good. Had one teacher in High School who stated, pontifically, that Science Fiction was crap. Being a young weisenhimer I asked if he had ever read any. He said no. “ So, you really aren’t entitled to an opinion, are you?”

              He actually admitted that that was a reasonable position.

              He later chanced to attend a speech/lecture by Dr. Asimov, who impressed the hell out of him by talking for an hour without notes. The teacher in question bothered to look me up and apologize.

              Ok, there was ONE idiot in my Junior High who tried to take my copy of THE COMPLETE STALKY & CO from me because I was reading in in study hall (my homework was done). But he backed down when I said if he took it I would call the police and see him arrested for theft.I didn’t have him for any actual classes, though.

      6. The other thing the Soviet apologists refuse to acknowledge is that without the US, most of the Soviet population would have starved during WWII.

        And Zhukov himself credited the U.S. for supplying the steel which made the T-34s he threw at the Wehrmacht.

        1. For a long time, the slang term for a machine lathe in Russian was “Cincinnati” because all the lathes in just about every machine shop in the USSR was from lend lease, made by Cincinnati Millicron, with “Cincinnati” cast in the frame above the headstock.

        2. And don’t forget that almost ALL the electricity for the factories that were moved east to avoid capture by the Germans came from steam turbines supplied by GE and Westinghouse with B&W boilers. A soviet expat (Jew) engineer I knew who worked for Siemens told me the power plant he worked at in the USSR had 4 50 MW GE turbines with 1942 nameplates

    2. > Although, that happened after Hitler went after the Soviet Union.

      This.

      Breaking the Molotov-Ribbentoe pact before Stalin did.

      That is the day (23 June 1941) that Hitler became the enemy and that Fascism because a right wing ideology.

  2. Nostalgia. Brilliant! You’re really onto something here, Sarah. And I think it’s worth noting that cognitive dissonance is a big factor in the left’s behavior. At hour of the wolf, alone with their thoughts, when confronted with the startling, inescapable truth that their game plan is nihilistic and doomed to spectacular disaster, they almost always double down on their original beliefs in an effort to relieve that tension.

  3. You can’t have Everything. Where would you put it? Who would dust it?
    > That’s an anthology title, concept, and subjectification. No, Mrs. Hoyt does NOT have to “Do It”, set it up, ask for submissions, and so forth. Some of y’all, however, are capable of all that.

    1. Where would I put everything? Up in the sky, of course. After rolling it up into a gigantic ball. To replace one of the celestial objects that the King of Creation accidentally wrecked during yet another of his all-night benders.

  4. Jonah Goldberg’s book _Liberal Fascism_ is a great look at how the Progressives (1870s-1938) influenced Fascism (1.0) and in turn the ideas of Italian and Spanish Fascism got enhanced by the Progressives and Democrats. I don’t entirely agree with everything Goldberg argues, but it’s an excellent one-volume study. His point about “Progressives always want ‘a war’ ” because it is the one time when Americans are willing to let government dictate things and accept limits, and when everyone pulls together, has stuck with me. Other historians make the same point, but not as concisely and neatly as Goldberg does.

    I really saw that reading the stuff coming out of the Department of Agriculture and Forest Service between the wars. And those same would-be policy-writers in the DoAg became FDR’s advisors, leading to the Resettlement Administration among other follies.

    1. An then, and then, Jonah took himself and National Review off into The Slough Of Never-Trumpism Despair. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumer for him.

      1. Still a good book. If we abandoned every author’s earlier work if he went bonkers later we would restrict ourselves unduly.

    2. Hitler deeply admired FDR and saw the New Deal as America’s version of a Fascist state. A lot of historians chortle at how Hitler could have been so wrong, but that seems to be mostly because they refused to give more than a cursory glance at how things worked during FDR’s administration. 1930s America had some nasty problems, almost all of them resulting from the Raw Deal.

      Surviving documents showing Hitler’s plans for the Greater German Reich show the USA and Britain as “partner states” or allies of the Reich. Now it’s ne kulturny to observe that Edward VIII wasn’t the only British royal who was telling Hitler that while Parliament was blustering, the *real* government was completely on board with modern Fascist political thinking.

  5. “Progressives always want ‘a war’ ” because it is the one time when Americans are willing to let government dictate things and accept limits, and when everyone pulls together,

    Well and succinctly put. Thanks Sarah for pointing out this from Jonah Goldberg.

    1. As Jonah Goldberg demonstrated in Liberal Fascism, the Left purely loves them some “Moral Equivalent of War” vibes, and for just the reason you cite.

      Given the history of their performance in actual wars — it took a Republican, Eisenhowwer, to clean up their Korean mess, a Republican, Nixon, to get us out of Vietnam (although they did manage to change a victory into a debacle) and a Republican, Trump, to end the threat of Obama’s “JV” Terrorists — you would think this a metaphor they would avoid.

      1. Except for the left, war is never meant to end as it serves the purpose of justifying and enhancing accumulation and perpetuation of power until totalitarian power is achieved and maintained. It is no accident that one of the principles of Ingsoc is “War is Peace”.

      2. > although they did manage to change a victory into a debacle

        It was never a victory, and the way we were fighting it, never would have been.

        We never took and *held* ground, we just went in, killed as many “enemy” as we could and then moved on.

        We considered a battle a victory whenever we killed more NVA/Viet Cong than they killed of us (or some ratio, whatever it was). The NVA considered it a victory any time they killed or severely wounded one of our troops. We could kill 1000 of their men in a battle, they literally *did not care* as long as they sent one of us home in a body bag, or missing a limb.

        By any conventional analysis we won almost ever battle, but we were going to have to keep willing every battle for a long long time.

        1. It was never a victory, and the way we were fighting it, never would have been.

          Nonsense.

          There are multiple ways to look at Vietnam. Putting it into a larger context, it’s actually the Cold Wars equivalent of Napoleon’s Peninsular Campaign…only with the Soviet Union in the role of Napoleon. It was costly to us, but it was far more costly to the Soviet Union in terms of what they could pay. The media was all in about how horrible Tet was for us, but a huge convoy of men and material came down from the north and essentially nothing went back. It cost the Soviet’s badly as the Peninsular Campaign did for Napoleon. A few years later the Soviet Union had it’s “Russia campaign” in invading Afghanistan. And then, not long after, in an effort to recover from the hemorrhaging Soviet economy, the introduction of “Glasnost'” and “Perestroika” sounded the death knell of the Soviet Union. Vietnam was a major part of why the West won the Cold War.

          More immediately, in 1973 at the time of the Peace Accordst South Vietnam could defend itself if given US air support. In 1975 the US denied that support and that was all she wrote. We had a victory in accordance with our own goals at the time (keeping South Vietnamese autonomy). We then turned around and threw it away.

          1. I understood there was another page to that Tet businrss. Seems some disagreement between Charlie in the south and the NVR as to who was running the show in the south. Tet settled that as the NVR fed Charlie into the maw of the fighting leaving them decimated at the end of the fight and the NVR remained in charge for the duration

          2. not just air support, munitions and materiel, as specified in the treaty, which the Democrat congress then defunded. so.. the Democrats lost Vietnam, not us.

          3. Stop and refactor what I said. “It was not a victory, and the way we were fighting it, it never would have been”.

            McNamara and Crëw were of the opinion that winning the war was a matter of body counts. That is a rhyme of WWI trench warfare–kill enough of them and they’ll stop fighting. That works as long as the other side gives a s*t about it’s men, and the NVA didn’t. Which really isn’t even true. War by attrition is a HORRIBLE idea as it devalues the lives of everyone involved.

            The South Vietnamese Army *might* have had the skills and willingness to fight, but they had a LOT of corrupt officers, the government was corrupt as, and the the “defend itself if given US air support” means that no, they couldn’t survive–especially not against an enemy that was lined up to fight to the last man.

            Even the US military was leaking information like a sieve–One of the MACV SOG guys was on a podcast a while back, and was talking about how the NVA were on one of their encrypted radio channels READING OUT THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE ON THE OPERATION. These were the Special Forces guys operating “over the fence” in Laos and Cambodia–WAY top secret stuff.

            If our own operations were so thoroughly penetrated, what makes you think South Vietnam’s government and army weren’t *far worse*? And how many airplanes was a war weary US willing to lose because every time we tried to provide air cover the NVA new where they were going to be before they did?

            I will grant that the democrats should have been tarred and feathered for hanging the South Vietnamese out to dry like that, but it was only a matter of time.

            South Vietnam was intending to fight a defensive war–that would have gotten them buried in the end no matter what.

    2. This.
      I’ve read snippits from here and there, suggesting that the reason the leftists dropped supporting the worker class in the US after WWII was that after the Depression and the war, the worker class had quite enough of working for starvation wages if they were lucky enough to have a job in the 30ies and being bossed around ‘for their own good’ by the managerial class lefties in during the war. They wanted to enjoy their fat wage packets, their suburban houses with generous yards, driving where they wanted to and when they wanted to in humongous automobiles … and the commie-class intellectuals couldn’t handle being rejected so thoroughly.
      So, they turned on a dime, regarding the blue-collar working stiff.

      1. So, they turned on a dime, regarding the blue-collar working stiff.

        They’re still looking to pay him back for “betraying” them, him and his little dog, too.

        They’ve been pushing the destruction of the suburbs since before the Obama administrration ad Biden plans to complete the putsch:

        Will Biden’s War on the Suburbs Become a Campaign Issue?
        By Stanley Kurtz
        In remarks Tuesday in the White House Rose Garden, President Trump promised to reverse what is arguably the most radical action of the Obama-Biden administration: promulgation of the rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). Trump went beyond his tweet of a couple of weeks ago, when he said he “may” end the rule. Now he says he will in fact “take out” AFFH. This will need to be by amendment or modification, since the Obama-Biden AFFH is actually a wild over-reading of the phrase “affirmatively further” in current law.

        The president said that coming from New York, he’d been following the Westchester County controversy for years. As I explain in Spreading the Wealth, the Obama administration ran a test of what would someday become his AFFH rule in suburban Westchester County, New York. The Obama administration effectively stripped Westchester County of its zoning power, forced it to spend tens of millions of dollars on high-density low-income housing, then ordered it to “affirmatively advertise” that housing to non-residents. In effect, the federal government took over Westchester and forced it to suspend its own laws and spend its tax money on non-residents. All this occurred without evidence, or even allegation, of housing discrimination. Westchester was actually one of the most diverse counties in New York at the time. Such demographic “imbalances” as existed there were a function of economics, not discrimination.

        After the Obama-Biden administration intervened, Westchester’s local government flipped from Democratic to Republican. …

        1. effectively stripped Westchester County of its zoning power


          Don’t know if it is Federal or State or city is inhaling you-know-what smoke. What local residences have been told is that the city, and by extension throughout the urban growth area, they must comply with the rule that anywhere single housing is allowed, multiple unit housing must be allowed, where before duplexes were only allowed in specific areas, and most neighborhoods only on oversized corner lots. We have newer designed neighborhoods with streets where duplexes are 3 or 4 in a row. But rare in the older neighborhoods. This will allow developers to buy up single homes, tear down the single home & put up duplex or quad housing. Also means where they are infilling (large lots now 2 or more lots) they can put multiplex on those lots; regardless of parking. I mean some newer lots, they might as well, not like there is more than a few feet between houses or even behind them anyway, but still …

          1. They did crud like putting a new high density apartment building for low income housing, right in the middle of the 2nd richest town in our area. And they dumped a bunch of kids who could barely read and write in the 2nd or 3rd most competitive school district, in high school.

            And then amazingly, there was a massive rise in crime: drugs, theft, assault, burglary, sexual assault, armed robbery, a couple of murders….. Oh, yeah, and arson of historic homes, and stupid things like people ripping off donation jars from the donut shop.

            I don’t even like those guys, and I thought Obama totally screwed the town.

            1. … there was a massive rise in crime: drugs, theft, assault, burglary, sexual assault, armed robbery, a couple of murders

              Wasn’t it Seattle’s mayor who spewed some nonsense about a sense of physically security being an element of White Privilege?

              And yet it isn’t as if the police have no presence in minority communities, nor as if they significantly contribute to the violence there. I expect most here would assert that being secure in your person is a basic human right and at the core of the Second Amendment.

              As Jason Riley plead with White Liberals, “Please stop helping us!”

              Gawd! They’re treating minorities as if they’re feral animals and by doing so making it so.

              And they have the nerve to call conservatives evil!

              1. As Jason Riley plead with White Liberals, “Please stop helping us!”

                Wasn’t that the theme of Fredrick Douglas’ 1862 article?

                Your doing with them is their greatest misfortune. They have been undone by your doings, and all they now ask, and really have need of at your hands, is just to let them alone. They suffer by every interference, and succeed best by being let alone. The Negro should have been let alone in Africa—let alone when the pirates and robbers offered him for sale in our Christian slave markets— (more cruel and inhuman than the Mohammedan slave markets)—let alone by courts, judges, politicians, legislators and slavedrivers—let alone altogether, and assured that they were thus to be let alone forever, and that they must now make their own way in the world, just the same as any and every other variety of the human family. As colored men, we only ask to be allowed to do with ourselves, subject only to the same great laws for the welfare of human society which apply to other men, Jews, Gentiles, Barbarian, Sythian.

                https://rbscp.lib.rochester.edu/4386

                  1. I believe it was one of the folks who comments here that made a fitting comic, with a white yuppy type telling a black character to be quiet and the yuppy would explain what he really wanted.

                    1. I think that would be Synova, who hasn’t been very active here of late. I hope that is because people are giving her gobs of money for her time rather than her having to give gobs of her money trying to buy another few days. Those were good cartoons

                    2. unfortunately no. She’s just been busy. We’re friends, more or less IRL (As in we’ve met, but she lives 100s of miles away, so I mostly see her online.)

              2. The complicated thing is that it’s often not the people who got moved into the new apartments. It’s their sisters and their cousins and their ex-boyfriends and their ex-boyfriends’ nephews and their ex-boyfriends’ nephews’ enemies whom he cheated on a drug deal, and so on.

      2. That was a major contributor to the change in the Progressive line. The old Progressives actually believed in progress. They believed that Wise Government Planning could produce a Better and Brighter Future. They had some major flaws, like the way their Big Plans steamrollered the ordinary little plans of the ordinary guy, but they did at least believe in that Better and Brighter Future.

        The Apollo program was their last hurrah.

        The new Progressive line glommed onto things like environmentalism, because animals and trees didn’t argue back. And the new Progressive line became “Learn to live with less, you hate-filled greedy bastards!”

  6. It’s their way of hiding their early support of Hitler, and a furthering of Stalin’s excuses on why he entered a treaty with him. They thought he was great, until he was inconvenient. So they redefine, and claim it isn’t “Real Socialism”(tm) because it is and they are worse at hiding their own antisemitism, lately , or explaining it away.

    1. Was listening to the radio this morning– KFAB out of Omaha– and Voorhees was talking about how colored people and Jews need to be eliminated, and how great it was to slaughter of cops that threw themselves between a black lady who’d just been shot, with her kids, and the shooter.

      Since he’s a horrible racist center-right type, the color was pallor, and he was horrified that folks were calling for this.

      If he were a tolerant, loving and politically correct progressive, he’d be properly supportive of such talk….

        1. Radio host was (with great disapproval because he’s not insane) reading off I think it was Shaun King– you know, the trans-racial guy– on how we need to remove white people and Jews from public life and involvement, and publicly scolding an Omaha activist type who is supposed to be mid-range who was praising that a-hole who sniped the cops who were guarding the Dallas Black Lives Matter march.

          His criticism of the “praise the guy who shot cops” consisted mostly of playing testimony from one of the ladies who had gone to the march, with her kids. The lady who was shot in the leg– and the cop who was shot right in front of her was all about protecting her and the kids, after he’d gotten shot, and he and his co-workers were defending her and the kids with their bodies.

          Criticism of the “get rid of (racial group) and the Jews” consisted mostly of reading it, out loud, so that you had to actually hear how bat-**** crazy and evil this guy sounds.

    1. Often overlooked is the Nazi obsession with what is today the “green” movement, such as creating large natural preserves and quasi-worship of Gaia. The Nazi’s actually had a plan to try to revive the dinosaurs and had planned to turn most of Poland into a “natural preserve” where those dinosaurs would be.

      1. If you ever want to see how crazy Nazis could get, both before, during, and after WW2, check out Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke’s books OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM and BLACK SUN. The latter covers the post-war period. It is mind-boggling to read about people like Savitri Devi and Miguel Serrano, who thought Hitler was a /literal/ god.

    2. I’m sorry i tried reading that but my brain turned off as soon as i hit the ‘b’ word.

      1. Hrmm… if it come to dolts insisting the name of “Washington, D.C.” be changed because of “Washington” and what “C.” stands for, perhaps Bourgeoisie, USA might work. One, to rub Communutters noses it in, and Two, to remind people what pols really thinks of them.

        1. That sort of name-change demand is an insult to all the former slaves who took the name of “Washington” as their own, after the Civil War.

          As for George Washington himself, he wasn’t a god, a demi-god, or a saint. But he was a Big Man, and he deserves respect for that.

          1. My take is, we don’t put up statues to ‘Great Men’, but to men (and women) who did Great Things. They didn’t have to be perfect, and very few of them were. The statues celebrate their accomplishments, not their failings, and might inspire more people to do Great Things.

            Andrew Jackson was an abrasive, racist asshole, but he saved the United States by preventing the British from capturing New Orleans. Benjamin Franklin was a dirty old man, but he promulgated Great Ideas and got us a lot of help from the French.
            ———————————
            Gentlemen! You can’t fight in here — this is the War Room!

            1. People these days forget the importance of that victory. What we mostly hear is that the battle was fought six months after the peace treaty was agreed to … without considering it had not yet been ratified and thus was subject to change. British control of New Orleans would have essentially given control of the entire Mississippi Basin and certainly prompted changes in the treaty’s terms. Westward expansion of the US would have ended or been at the sufferance of the Brits.

              Moreover, by defeating “crack” British army troops, fresh from defeating Bonaparte (albeit highly deteriorated by the extended sea voyage) the US was announced to the world as a legitimate power.

            2. There’s a statue of Mikhail Timofeyovich Kalashnikov in Moscow. It is a *righteous* statue, with him holding one of his rifles like a rock star on a stage. It was dedicated by various government officials and blessed by priests from the Russian Orthodox Church.

              To my knowledge, there is no statue of John Moses Browning anywhere.

              1. None is needed, the firearms that he designed are STILL considered some of the best in the World. Some of his machine guns are still in use by Militaries after more than 100 years.
                Every design still in use is a statue and a salute to John Moses Browning. His designs will still be in use long after he has been forgotten. But he may be remembered as St. John of firearms.

            3. For the left, saving the USA is considered a negative. It is not only Israel that they think should not exist but should never have existed; they feel the same way about the USA.

          2. Being a saint doesn’t protect the statues, either.

            Those horrible Saint types put God above Progress, they must be destroyed, too.

            1. Progress has long been the god of many Americans … one creed has even taken its name from its focus of worship.

              Of course, some folks’ progress is other folks’ idea of decadence.

            2. Saints dedicate themselves to the Eternal. Adherents of Progress worship the ephemeral. Is there any wonder conflict occurs?

          3. A couple of guys I worked with, long ago, were named “Lincoln Washington” and “Washington Lincoln.” Neither had a middle name as far as I remember. Made it a hassle keeping track of paperwork. Later, I worked at a place where seven out of ten guys on the night shift were named “Dave,” which also brought confusion…

  7. Since the recent crisis, I have realized that my job may just be to keep a little light alive in the darkness right here, right now. I can’t take on the problems of the nation, but I can keep a little space free in this place as seed corn for my grandchildren.

    Also, I am all better, or at least as all better as I can get while still on steroids for two more days. Now I can go re-lurk 🙂

    1. Yeah! That’s great to hear. I agree on the light in darkness. I’ve been driven to write more this summer than I can remember. As I put it, “the Hound of Heaven” has been chasing me.

    2. As Jordan Peterson advises, “make your bed.” Do what you can to preserve and improve where you are and, if enough people do that it improves everything.

      Incremental improvement is the key; great leaps forward usually end with somebody flat on their face.

      1. I just bought that book for eldest for his high school graduation because I feel like Peterson gets is exactly right. Not that he will read it while it will keep him from falling on his nose, but it will be there when he’s ready.

    3. Whenever one feels that one has a tiny little light against an ocean of darkness, remember a useful word:

      Accelerant

      (Grin)

      1. “You inherited some guns? You’re not gonna shoot up the place, are you?”

        “Oh, Heavens NO! That’d be terribly ineffective and suicidal. If I wanted to do real damage, all I have to do is open a gas valve and walk away. There’s always a spark.”

        “Alright, NOW you’re scaring me.”

        *smile*

        1. What is REALLY scary is how easy it is to build a real flame thrower. Good distance, and good volume.
          Parts from your local stores. Test with water first, YOU want to be safe. CHEEP and LEGAL. And best of all DISPOSABLE. It makes worrying about someone with an AR laughable.

          We have people that are throwing Pumpkins over 4000 feet. And that limit is only because the Pumpkins can’t take the pressure. How far do you think they can fire a hollow aluminum sphere packed with all sorts of interesting things.

          Scary, you haven’t seen scary until a bunch of Rednecks try to out do each other for bragging rights.

          1. Hold my moonshine! 😀

            If you want to see things amazing, impressive and disturbing, do a search for ‘redneck invention’.

            I can’t forget the ‘Redneck Chandelier’ — two drop lights duct-taped to a coat hanger.

            Raise a beer (and a bottle of iodine) for all the folks who saw ‘Mythbusters’ as a how-to show.

            1. Rednecks


              Turn scouts loose with felled timber (because rules now say they can’t fall it themselves …) & rope … We gave them water balloons …

            2. Wait mythbusters isn’t a DIY show?

              I know they had their disclaimer about them being professionals, and the FX experience; but I do pyro at a themepark/film studio, so I count as a professional, right?

        2. I’ve noted many zoning committees, mostly in the northeast, have been denying natural gas service to new office buildings and housing developments, and pressing hard to revoke permits for existing installations.

          The usual blither is “safety”, but they can monitor and turn off someone’s electricity in real time, now…

          1. NY Gas Companies are refusing to do new hook-ups because Gov. Cuomo’s forbidding pipelines (as well as fracking in economically depressed Upstate) has resulted ii gas shortages. As if trucking the stuff ii were safer and cheaper!

            OTOH, keeping those buildings burning oil for heat helps advance the Climate Change agenda.

        3. I actually said something similar to a CEO one time. He made some joking comment about me shooting the place up and I said (with a straight face) “No, I wouldn’t do that–it would make gun owners look bad. I’d use explosives”.

  8. It’s always Hitler because …

    a. Those Hugo Boss costumes.

    b. Unlike Stalin, Hitler was not physically imposing.

    c. Unlike Stalin (and Mao and Fidel and …) he was selective about who he exterminated. The Left does’t lie discrimination, they want all inconvenient people i the camps.

    d. Comic books — Adolph was a useful villain in comics well into the Seventies. Their philosophy and arguments are at about that intellectual level.

    e. He claimed to represent a superior race – they view that as copyright infringement and resent the idea anybody might be superior to them.

    I could go on …

    1. Stalin wasn’t physically imposing. It was just bad for your health to be taller than Stalin and in his immediate vicinity. That’s why he loved to work with the one guy who was a dwarf.

    2. Actually … if you look at early portraits of Hitler, when he wasn’t going for that stern and rigidly unsmiling authoritarian look … he strikes me as being not bad looking at all. Very fine aquiline features, almost leading-man-ish. The mustache does not work for me, I think it looks pretty silly, but that may be sixty years of prejudice regarding toothbrush-shaped mustaches.
      He struck a great many people at the time as being quite charming and personable, so there must have been something appealing to him.

      1. Hitler adopted the toothbrush moustache because he thought his nose was too big and his upper lip too long. It worked pretty well, you don’t ordinarily notice the shnoz unless you see a picture of him in profile.

        The goofy white-sidewall hairstyle was very common in 1920s-1930s Germany. I’ve been amused to see that it is now becoming popular in the USA… a Hitler moustache is unthinkable, but a Hitler haircut is trendy.

    3. > Unlike Stalin (and Mao and Fidel and …) he was selective about who he exterminated.

      He wasn’t that selective. Yeah, he killed 6 million Jews, but he killed about 3 million gypsies, mentally handicapped, and other “undesirables”. We just don’t hear about those others all that often.

      1. Compared to the others mentioned, that’s selective. And we hear plenty about the others, especially those wearing Pink Triangles.

        1. Oh, and Stalin…wasn’t fond of Jews either. Pol Pot and Mao didn’t have as much variation to work with.

          Really Hitler and the Nazis weren’t all that more anti-Semitic than most Europeans, they were just inhuman enough to act on it.

      2. The Polish as a race, all representatives of philosophies that resisted him, the physically disabled (starting with freaking WWI veterans), and then you have to figure how much of the slave labor was a form of execution vs dehumanization.

  9. Hitler was a commie, but he was a deniable commie, and he attacked the man that FDR performed ritual onanism for, Unca Joe Stalin.

    Plus it’s worked for three generation as an ‘orange man bad’ label, albeit that people noticed early in the internet age that NPCs always end up comparing the other side of an argument to Hitler and/or the Nazis eventually.

    -Albert

    1. > Hitler … FDR

      What I always found interesting was that AH and FDR’s terms were nearly simultaneous; 1934-1945 for AH, 1933-1945 for FDR.

      And we’ve been stuck in Afghanistan for far longer than the Third Reich *existed*…

  10. On this theme have found it interesting how FDR’s OSS were so effective vs the nazis but when reinvented as the CIA have put together a pretty dismal record vs the soviets. A former 20 yr agent turned novelist once described the CIA as a group of Yale liberals (progressives?).

    1. The thing about the shift from the OSS to the CIA was that it took long enough that all the people who were smart self-starters had time to find other work. So what was left were the drones.

      1. Also, the guys who were Commie sympathizers didn’t exactly work hard for fighting the USSR once the CIA started. Although we didn’t have as big a problem with that as the UK did.

    2. I am not sure that the OSS was particularly effective. It got lots of good press coverage but were its achievements militarily effective? WEB Griffith certainly seemed to think them a coterie of dilettante amateurs getting under the feet of military intelligence professionals.

      I remain undecided as I lack inclination to delve into the matter and, frankly, it doesn’t matter what I think; they’ve already printed the legend.

      For what it is worth, I consider the CIA is a highly over-rated clown cabal. Their history of failure suggests they may be worse than no intelligence at all — at least we’d have known we didn’t know Soviet economic strength.

      1. I’ve suspected for years that the CIA is a CIA front.
        At the core of it, there are a small bumber competent and totally professional operatives, going about their deadly-efficient business behind a screen of bungling incompetents, who could not locate their own posteriors with a compass, a map and detailed directions.

        1. It would explain a lot, but I suspect their opposite numbers would catch on quickly enough… assuming those weren’t also fronts.

          “Our primary mission is to go home safe a night, secure in the knowledge that next year’s funding is in the bag.”

        2. I’ve worked for them (indirectly) in the past, and the people I worked with were generally dedicated and as good at their jobs as any group in any company I’ve worked for (and an order of magnitude better than one large insurance company I worked at).

      2. I think Heinlein had a better understanding of the Soviet economics and demographics than the CIA did.

        One of his essays, I think in Expanded Universe, called BS on Soviet numbers for the population of Moscow long before the fall of the Soviet Union gave us anything like real data. In a nutshell, he said Moscow was incapable of supporting the number of people the USSR said lived there due to the lack of transportation infrastructure to bring in the food that many people would need.

        1. The CIA inserted spies, and intercepted radio signals, and analyzed propaganda, and interviewed defectors, and spent thousands of hours writing reports.

          RAH counted trains.

          1. And yet, somehow, the CIA–and the US government–bought most of the USSR’s lies, including that about their population count.

            RAH was more correct in calling out the Soviet Union’s BS, so clearly he was drawing a good deal more accurate information just from counting trains…

            (Unless that’s what you were getting at, in which case, yep. 🙂 )

            1. If the CIA accepted Heinlein’s assessment (and employed his methods, just think how many fewer jobs they’d have controlled. Always factor in the first duty of a bureaucracy.

            2. Yup, that’s what I meant.

              The CIA did all that bulls busywork. They were wrong.

              RAH counted trains. He was right.

              Here endeth the lesson. 😛 (although they still haven’t learned it)

              1. Gotcha. I thought it might be what you meant on a reread, but it’s so dang hard to tell tone, etc in text-only! 😀

                And yeah, they STILL haven’t figured crap out. But then again…bureaucrats.

                (And I say this as a fedgov bureaucrat. Yes, I am trying to master a skill that will allow me to be self-employed–but I will definitely miss the insurance when that day comes!)

          2. Actually it was an old Navy buddy who was in intelligence who confirmed Heinlein’s calculations after RAH talked to him after his trip to the USSR

          1. I’ve read that the idea was that OSS and Wild Bill Donovan recruited the rich guys because in those days most of them would be world travelers with both local contacts and a grasp of the local languages and cultures, and they had enough money of their own that Uncle Sam didn’t need to bankroll them.

            Like Tom Slick, who seems to have been one of those characters who make fiction look tame. Collected art, hunted for Bigfoot and the Yeti, worked for both OSS and the CIA, made several fortunes, and died in the end when his airplane mysteriously disintegrated in midair.

            1. The reason I brought up the CIA initially was because I believe they still swing far enough to the left as to consider Trump a threat and acted accordingly. If he survives this term he should clean that house with a new broom

    3. “How can you distinguish between an American[1] and a non-American[1]?”

      “The non-American[1] believes the CIA is effective.”

      [1] Citizen of USA in this context.

      1. Honestly, I lump anyone who subscribes to the fantasy that *any* government agency is competent as “non-American” heh.

        I am never more alarmed than when media starts showing clips of people who, when asked if they trust their govenment, answer “Yes!”

            1. It is generally useful to distinguish between the occupation some say they are in and the occupation they actually are in. For example, Journalists say they are in the business of providing vitally important information about our world to news consumers. What they are actually engaged in is promoting approved messaging from government and business to the populace, while monetizing that function by selling the public’s attention to advertisers. They are essentially engaging in conspiracy to defraud the public.

        1. I trust certain departments, within limits. Treasury, for example, does a pretty good job of printing up greenbacks, and the they’ve been doing some interesting things with quarter designs. Whether they’re as efficient as they might be I’ve no idea. Overall the question might center on how one defines “competent” and how one understands an agency’s mission — while many of us view Lois Lerner’s efforts as a bug others undoubtedly consider her a feature.

          I am sure there must be some department other than Treasury which is only slightly embarrassing in their operation.

    4. That is easy, OSS was filled with adrenaline junkies who wanted to Kill NAZIs.
      The CIA was filled with Commie Liberals who wanted to help their brothers in the State Department make nice with the commies.

  11. I think it can be explained further,

    When WWII ended, the Left were SURE that they would be able to bring about The New Dawn! The governments of Britain and America has taken vast powers to themselves, with no man objecting (ok, some did, and were Jailed for it, but the Left likes to deal in sweeping brushstrokes (which is ANOTHER reason their ‘art’ is so awful)), and The Workers were with them! They would build vast tracts of Worker Housing, and The Workers would take Public Transportation to work, and go to lectures or listen to Mahler in the evenings.

    (It sounds silly, but if you look they really did seem to be daydreaming this)

    Well, maybe. In Britain. Some. In America it rapidly became clear that the Working Man had had it with being lined up, counted off, and told what to do. He wanted nothing to do with Public Transportation. He wanted a car with fins. He avoided Worker Housing like the plague, opting for a ranch house in Levittown. And as for Mahler and lectures, he wanted the Friday Night Fights on his new TV and to listen to jazz on a high-fi. The Working Man had been willing to put up with Socialism when he needed to get his kids fed, or to beat the Axis, but now he got shut of it with the alacrity of a raw recruit getting rid of a live grenade. So The Left got left at the alter, and they’ve been hurting ever since.

    1. That, and the fact that after World War 2 ended, the real working men came back from fighting the war and went back to work.

      1. And, of course, all those Citizen Soldiers had had a belly full of taking orders.

        “Oh, I LIKES officers! They makes me want to live til the War’s over!”

        Mauldin’s Wille or Joe, they’re hard to tell apart.

    2. I *love* the story how industrially-mass-produced Levittown house ALL wound up so customized that when someone looked for an unmodified one, there was not even a single example. Take THAT, cookie-cutter Worker Housing dreaming Arschlocher!

    3. That is easy, OSS was filled with adrenaline junkies who wanted to Kill NAZIs.
      The CIA was filled with Commie Liberals who wanted to help their brothers in the State Department make nice with the commies.

    4. The Progressives also forgot that there were 100s of thousands of men who KNEW war and how to do it. Who could go back to doing it if they were pissed off and after facing the NAZIs or the Japanese had absolutely NO FEAR of the Commie Progressives. The Progressives realized they would have to wait decades and undermine peoples will, to be able to pull off their dreams.

  12. Hitler was an easy enemy for the left to use as their boogeyman. Unlike Mussolini, he was small and histrionic and extremely easy to both parody and play straight. Unlike Stalin, he hadn’t lost the war he started and the records of what Hitler and his cohorts had done were emblazoned upon history as the personification of evil. Unlike Mao, Hitler’s acts would have the white-hot blaze of spotlights and records and perfectly visual images that made it difficult to impossible to deny what had happened. Unlike Pol Pot, he was a creepy white man and not an oppressed Person Of Color fighting colonialists in lands that didn’t belong to the White Man.

    And, most importantly, he lost. We fought a war and we beat him-so all we have to do is declare war on something and we can beat it, easy peasy.

    In short, if Hitler didn’t exist as the perfect bogeyman-a way to shovel under the inconvenience of his Nationalistic Socialism under a “he was actually a man of the Right!”-the Left would have to invent him somehow.

    1. Hitler’s camps were liberated, and photographed. Stalin’s were allowed to continue out of sight, out of mind.

      1. I have to admit that I wonder sometimes about the camps that the Soviets “liberated”.
        That’s an awful lot of opportunity to get rid of people you don’t want to deal with, and blame it on the guys who set up the camps in the first place.

        1. According to Anne Applebaum’s book IRON CURTAIN, the Soviets and their puppet governments kept the camps up and running for their ‘undesirables’ for almost a decade after the war officially ended.

        2. After WWII ended any of the Soviet soldiers who were repatriated to the USSR were put sent to the gulags because they’d been contaminated by contact with Western Europe.

  13. yeah at the time the allies defeated the worst possible of the alternatives.

    I’m…not so sure that that’s true. Yes, Hitler was a monster. Yes, the Nazis (the actual ideological Nazis and not the “joined the party because that’s what they needed to do to get along” followers) were irredeemably evil. No question. But everything I’ve seen indicates that Stalin was worse The holodomor killed more in a single year than were killed in the Holocaust from start to finish..

    And Japan? Again, the Japanese militarists were horribly evil. But can one take an honest look at the “Cultural Revolution” and the “Great Leap Forward” and say that Mao’s China was better? As horrible as the Rape of Nanking was, Mao presided over the slaughter of more than three orders of magnitude more of his people than that atrocity.

    1. The Fascist Left has put sooooo much energy into denying that Mao and Stalin were monsters that they just can’t make the switch. Hell, they’ve been playing cheerleaders for so many mass murdering rat bastards that had a nude line in Marxist shuck-and-jive that they can’t very well admit it NOW.

      For one thing, if they accepted their own part in the Mass Deaths caused by their Holy Doctrine it would break their tiny little minds.

      1. Democrats cheerlead for the current murdering monsters like Maduro and the Mullahs of Iran. mourn the deaths of mass-murdering monsters like Fidel Castro and feting ones like Che Guevara on tee-shirts…but its their political opponents who are mass-murdering totalitarians.

        This, again, is called projection.

    2. I think it’s quite debatable from a moral point of view. From a practical point, Hitler was the more immediate threat to western Europe and thus needed to be dealt with before anyone had the bandwidth to worry about either the Holocaust or the holodomor. If it had been otherwise, however, I’m not certain if it would have been more of a moral stain to ally with Hitler against Stalin than it was the way it happened.

      1. Keep in mind, there was a dedicated propaganda effort to make Stalin look good. From the USSR (of course) AND from the Fascist Left. Churchill knew Stalin was a monster, but he had to think about Britain, and the Germans were the immediate threat. Far too many other people in the West were fooling themselves with the old saw about omelettes and eggs (without inquiring too closely as to whether any omelettes were getting made). Stalin’s barbarity came out in dribs and drabs, and the embarrassing truth could be ducked (mostly). Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Left was telling itself that (for example) Alger Hiss was innocent … in spit of his Soviet controller’s records being available.

        1. Winston Churchill: “If Hitler invaded hell… I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”

          I gather that the Devil is now quite welcome in the House of Commons, at least on the minority benches. Although I believe they prefer him take a seat toward the rear.

    3. Reich then Soviets.

      Business before pleasure.

      On a more serous note, squashing the Reich first was paramount, as was squashing Imperial Japan. Both were -shockingly- competent at war, conquest, and exterminating opponents. The Soviets were crude bumblers by comparison. The Reds simply had more time to roll up their bodycount.

      The “Soviet Juggernaut” was supplied by American trucks with all sorts of American supplies. Absent that logistical support, the Soviets were -toast- .

      So yes, business before pleasure.

      1. I think that the Soviets would have won, even without American supplies (with the exception being whether they would have lost Moscow in 1941 without the American assistance that had just started to arrive; that might have irrecoverably crippled the Soviets). But it would have taken them longer, and they would have lost a lot more people.

            1. As was said by others:

              our food wsa keeping them from starving

              one of their own generals credited us with supplying the steel to build the T-34s they needed

              (not mentioned below) we were also making sure they could still get oil.

              1. Let’s be specific, those were the words of Marshall Zhukov, the guy who stopped the Nazis at Kursk.

                1. Zhukov, who rolled into Berlin with a convoy of Ford trucks made in Michigan.

                  Like Reagan said, we won the war because we *outproduced* our opponents. And our allies too.

                  A shiny-new B-24 bomber taxied out of Ford’s Willow Run plant every 63 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. By the end of the war *single* raids of over Germany had more aircraft than the entire Luftwaffe could put into the air… and Germany was only one of many theaters we were fighting in.

                  1. By the spring of 1945, we were turning out a fair-sized Army, Navy and Air Force every month.

                  2. Hell, we outproduced our enemies AND allies combined. By June 1944 we had hit our stride and the government was starting to cut back on war production. Trent Telenko has a great series on this over and Chicago Boys.

        1. I disagree, without the US they wouldn’t have been able to feed their population. They may have been able to mount some sort of counterattack, but by the summer of ’44, maybe the winter of ’45, the house of cards would have collapsed like Hitler believed it would have after Barbarossa started.

            1. I won’t discount the efforts of the common Russian soldier; they overcame the Nazis, and a high command that didn’t give a shit about them, and commissars.

              1. They did the same thing to the Nazis that they did to Napolean.

                They fell back *just* enough to keep their enemies almost to barely engaged, and waited for winter to set in.

    4. > As horrible as the Rape of Nanking was,

      And Unit 731. And Unit 100. And Unit 9420…

      Mao was a monster don’t get me wrong, but I think it’s completely possible to draw a line and say “any group that crosses this, KILL IT WITH FIRE”. 1930s Japan, Hitler &company, Stalin and his stooges, Pol Pot, all of them.

      1. And Unit 731. And Unit 100. And Unit 9420…

        And all of them small potatoes compared to the “Cultural Revolution” and the “Great Leap Forward.”

        In order to fight some monsters we ended up siding with worse ones.

        1. The only reason Mao was able to kill so many was he *had so many*, both to do his bidding, and as targets.

          The Japanese were freaken MONSTERS and regarded any non-Japanese as less than human–but they only had the industrial capacity and population of one (relatively) small country.

          In this book https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00371V8ZU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 Alistair Urquhart details POW treatment at the hands of the Japanese.

          Mao’s political ideology may have been worse–there’s not a lot of difference there, but in terms of the sort of atrocities and respect for human life? He couldn’t have been worse.

          1. He couldn’t have been worse.

            Except, he was. He was just as monstrous in his outlook. The atrocities the Japanese committed? What makes you think the Chinese communists’ behavior was any better?

            Mao was more effective and systematic about it. As for the relative number available to kill? The Japanese had nearly as many potential targets. That whole “invasion” thing. They didn’t occupy all of China, but they did occupy the most densely populated parts and thus the majority of the population. That Mao was able to convince large numbers of his own countrymen to do the persecution/killing of others of his countrymen is part of what made him worse. As is that people make excuses or outright extol him to. this. day.

    1. What, he finally finished it? I admit, I gave up a goodly while ago (after being annoyed that it took freaking SIX MORE BOOKS to get Drizzt and Cattie-Brie together finally, and then he went and killed her off, ugh).

      But if it’s got an ending, and it isn’t depressing (it’s a tossup, especially if Terry is involved, lol) I might give the ones I skipped a go…

      1. Somebody pointed out that Michael Moorcock did the same thing with Elric’s romantic interests. So if you like Elric, like the authors of Drizzt and the Witcher obviously do….

        To be fair, Marvel and DC traditionally did similar things.

      2. Apparently there has been a lot of political… junk… going on.

        If you saw the “D&D is racist” stuff that was either on Red’s or Mad Genius, that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

        1. I’ve seen at least some of the lunacy. Mostly I’m ignoring it–I haven’t read much of anything in Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms since high school, and while I love the Eberron setting, the novels have been very hit-or-miss, heh.

          (And since my D&D campaigns tend to occur in the Ravenloft setting, and I refuse to use anything past 3.5/Pathfinder…)

  14. The left obsesses about Hitler because they’re nostalgic for WWII.

    Back in the days when he was popularly* read, Kurt Vonnegut made the same argument. WWII was “The Last Good War” because we knew the Nazis were Bad guys and we were Good Guys. It was easy, as well, to hate the Japanese for their “sneak attack” but they evoked a racist strain in our character that made folks morally queasy, so let’s stick to Adolph and ignore Tojo. There was little nuance needed and fighting them, sacrificing to defeat them felt virtuous. in a world in which the underpinnings of virtue were already receding.

    For Boomers it was easy to ignore the moral complexities that afflicted those who’d experienced that war because, frankly, we were as shallow and callous as all other generations at that age. As we got older and started having to deal with our parents’ passage from this world we were thankfully given the “Greatest Generation** horse manure, saving us from the difficulties of awkward moral complexity.

    *Seriously! Incredible as it now sounds, Kurt Vonnegut was The. Big. Read. for pretentious college sophomores and tenure-track English profs. His main novels were deniably SF (I suppose they were deemed Magical Realism or some such drivel) yet offered the same imagination stretching thrill, while containing a social critique of the emptiness of our lives that appealed to folks bound up in university.

    **They were the last great American generation, those who did their duty and served their nation, but they weren’t “the greatest.” It is childish to attempt to rank things, but one cannot read of the Founders’ generation, nor of those who solidified the Founding i the first half of the 19th Century, or of the Pioneers who broke open the Northwest Territories and crossed the Mississippi to settle the Plains, or of the ones who made America an industrial powerhouse without understanding that the Depression Generation was not the Greatest but merely one of a succession of great generations while the generations subsequent are self-indulgent brats. Calling them greatest merely excuses our failure to rise to their standard or even just be better citizens than we are.

    1. Actually, I don’t think “racism” is as much a factor as… well, Americans had a long honeymoon with the Japanese, back at the turn of the 19th/20th century. There were cheap, good Japanese eateries in most US cities, and people loved Japanese decor and clothing and art. Madame Butterfly was commissioned by an American impresario with a story from an American novelist, to sell a story about an American bad guy to American opera-goers. Southerners widely considered the Japanese to be white, when they didn’t think that about Jews, Italians, or the Irish. Even in the 1930’s, Mr. Moto was a hero trying to hold back the excesses of other governments and his own. The cherry trees still grew as a symbol of friendship, and nobody chopped them down during WWII. Even FDR wasn’t that crazed.

      I think the younger generation didn’t get as much of this, but the middle-aged and older Americans were really distressed that Japan wasn’t our ally this time, like in WWI. (And frankly, we let some stuff go before WWI that we shouldn’t have, like what happened to Korea, because we already liked Japan and wanted them on their feet, as well as because it was a long way to go and complicated.) I’m not sure that even Italy got as much slack cut, and they were our ally in WWI in a much bigger way.

      So yeah, there’s a reason why we spared a lot of stuff in Japan that we didn’t spare in Europe, and why we were so freaking eager to set up a fair government. Fighting the Japanese was weird and incomprehensible, like a nightmare. Nazis were evil, but more understandable (and exploitable) in their behaviors toward Americans.

      It’s the hidden power of aesthetic fannishness.

      1. Yes. A lot of people don’t know this at all but prior to the late ’30s, Americans were enamored with all things “oriental,” including Japan. Even today people have a hard time associating modern Japanese with the Imperial Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor, carried out kamikaze attacks, and raped their way from Nanking to Manila.

      2. There was an undeniable element of racism in the depiction of Japanese soldiers in WWII — perhaps in order to counteract the general affection we’d had for them during the decades since Perry’s visit.

        It is notable that a number of Asian dramatic characters (such as the Green hornet’s Kato) suddenly switched ethnicity after Pearl harbor.

    2. Calling them “greatest” also ignores the rather awkward problem of their decedents inferiority.

      Them accepting the title while having produced the reviled generations calls into question not only their ability to raise their children, but their overall wisdom.

    3. Cat’s Cradle was required reading for Freshman Rhetoric in 1970. I read Welcome to the Monkey House and Slaughterhouse Five for fun about that time, too.

  15. You make some good points about the Second World War, and a truly excellent point about the left-wing state socialists that almost everyone usually misses: that they have shifted from grand visions of building a new world and a radically liberatory future to defending and preserving in amber the stultifying bureaucratic welfare state that already existed generations in the past, peddling the politics of nostalgia, a trend present pretty much everywhere but perhaps most obvious today in the United States where the Democratic Party, which formerly at least aspired to represent the future, has a presumptive nominee whose appeal is almost entirely rooted in yearning for the past.

    Their ideology has nowhere left to go, is the increasingly unchallenged status quo in bureaucratic institutions, and has increasingly been deserted by the working class and common people, facts that were already pointed out by the New Left movement. This, together with the fall of Communism and the near-extinction of both working-class labor unions and the upper class (or aristocracy) as independent social forces actually explains much of the last half century of politics, including the increasingly high-credential and to a lesser extent high-income base of the welfare-state left, the erection of the paternalistic “nanny state”, and the increasingly unimaginative, closed-minded, and censorious attitudes of the movement.

  16. One other factor in Progressive nostalgia for WWII – that was the only time their policies ever worked. FDR pulled the economy out of The Depression and built the mightiest military evah!

    Except, as Amity Schlaes, Burt Folsom, Arthur Brooks and other historians have shown, FDR didn’t. His policies exacerbated the Depression while expanding government, and the primary credit due him for the WWII build-up is that he had the damned sense to NOT let Washington dictate to industrialists how to build machines. Instead of centralizing industrial policy under the New Dealers, FDR gave control over the policy to William Knudsen, president of General Motors. Workig with industrial leaders (i much the same way Trump has mobilized America industry to combat COVID19) Knudsen kept a light hand on such leaders as Henry Kaiser and Andrew Higgens, freeing them to solve problems that DC’s hidebound ways couldn’t even recognize existed.

    But it was all hidden behind the glory of FDR’s charisma and the Progressives have made sure that History teaches the “correct” lesson regardless of the facts.

  17. I dislike FDR intensely, but there’s a fair amount of evidence, dating to before the Fascist Left totally screwed history, that the internment of the Japanese was rooted in a reasonable worry that, unless they were removed from sight, a lot of people – especially on the West Coast – would waste a lot of time and energy persecuting them. It wasn’t exactly taking them into protective custody, more removing what FDR considered a dangerous distraction.

    Mind you, he’s STILL a rat bastard.

    1. I admit I’m skeptical, automatically, of any argument that uses “but otherwise they might be persecuted!!” as it’s justification. I can’t help but feel that steps taken to ensure that anyone who assaulted, etc any person of Japanese ancestry was prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (and likewise prosecuting any person of Japanese ancestry operating as a spy for Japan–I gather there were several in Hawaii at the very least–also to the fullest extent of the law) would have sent a far better message of “you are ALL Americans, you are ALL equal in the eyes of the law, so none of those shenanigans.” Granted, that’s not likely to have worked very well, either, given that humans are gonna human, and that inevitably means screwing s**t up in new and interesting ways (especially when it comes to criminal prosecution, sigh). But…yeah. Packing people off to camps because they *might* be discriminated against smacks strongly of greater-good collective garbage to me. :/

      And I don’t buy FDR was doing it for those reasons. Sure, he might have SAID those were his reasons to people who looked at what he was doing and going “Hang on a minute here…” and it’s a reasonable enough argument that it probably shut them up. But given the eugenics crap going on with his support (and his supporters’ support) vis-a-vis the mentally handicapped, black people, and those that the state had decided were so poor they should be sterilized…no. The ONLY reason he didn’t start actually exterminating people, I am 99% sure, is because he knew that would cause Americans to start shooting. At him, specifically.

      (I think it’s also really telling that he is still to date the only president to ever break the unspoken-rule set by George Washington: that a president only serves two terms. I’m pretty darned sure that he’d have just kept right on going had he not had that aneurysm–and I’m not entirely unconvinced that wasn’t a form of divine intervention on a man who would have gone full-tyrant if he could figure out how to get away with it.)

      1. Have read FDR’s sec. of state Cordell Hull was a xenophobic southerner who treated Japanese negotiators with barely hidden contempt and since he was the main negotiator with them in the pre-war talks, I doubt FDR held them in very high esteem either.

    2. And the fear that Japanese who had living relatives in Japan would turn on the US was not some pie in the sky thing, it actually happened with one of the guy who crashed after he’d bombed Pearl Harbor.

      Still can’t believe the level of crazy that would lead you to try to out-muscle a native Hawaiian.

      1. Yeah, anyone who decides trying to take on a pissed off Islander–be they Hawaiian, Maori, Tongan, or Samoan–is completely bananas…

      2. It was not – all over the Far East, Japanese long-settled all over the place suddenly were revealed as collaborators, spies, or intelligence operatives, once the war began. It was only logical to assume the same of the Japanese along the US west coast.

  18. Well, again, they should have turned around and gone after Stalin next

    No, they shouldn’t have. That would have lead to ultimate socialist victory. No, I do not believe the USSR would have won. In fact, even without nukes, a war against the USSR would have been won based on one simple thing: it was US logistical support to kept the Red Army in the field as an offensive force at a much higher level than the USSR alone could support. No, they didn’t use Shermans or Aircobras (although they got both, the latter racking up the highest kill totals of any US built fighter flying for the Soviets), but because nearly all their motorized transport was US trucks by the end of the war. As such, they would have been fighting as they had against the Third Reich not only without their principle logistical support source but against it.

    No, defeating the USSR in the decade and a half after WW2 by military force would have meant continuing the centralization of the economy begun in 1933 and taking to its highest level, with a patriotic gloss, during the war. Add another five years of such a centralized economy, instead of a return to something resembling a free market normal, with a patriotic gloss and it would have been harder to dislodge than it has been. At the same time, the biggest example of the failure and price of socialize, the USSR, would not be there. Propagandists wouldn’t have had to explain away the USSR and probably not the PRC as well.

    By having an “ideal” socialist government as a foil, it was easier to blunt the propaganda of socialists. Actually, I think their success post-Cold War relative to during the Cold War may be a product of them not having to explain away the Soviets anymore.

    1. Re: not having the Soviets around anymore — Yup, I think that’s a lot of it. Although our folks seem able to ignore the misery of China, even with literal concentration camps. Or Venezuela. Or any of the others.

    2. Who needs to invade Russia?

      Just cut off all aid in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Berlin, and they do a lot of starving.

    3. Also, continuing the war was a political impossibility. Even without all the Noble Russians and affable Uncle Joe Stalin drivel, it would have come under the heading of “Don’t give an order you know will be disobeyed.”

      1. I maintain that once the outcome was inevitable, all material support to the USSR should have been immediately halted.

        1. Wellllllll … we were trying to stay in good graces, hoping to use Soviet bodies to soak up some of the Japanese defense of the homeland … until suddenly that became unnecessary, ummmm … seventy-five years ago, to the day.

          1. Given that the Japanese could have been starved into submission without the use of the Bomb (their caloric intake by the end of the war was starvation level), it would have been doable, just way dirtier.

            And no USSR.

          2. I have literally heard leftists claim it was not the bomb but the Soviet declaration of war that induced Japan to surrender.

            1. I suspect it is to nobody’s benefit to initiate a list of things Lefties claim that are just not true.

  19. Check out Diana West’s American Betrayal. That book will turn your perception of WWII upside down. Basically, the allies defeated the Nazis/fascists/Imperial Japanese but the Soviet Union walked away the big winner. This was largely thanks to the Commies and Soviet spies embedded in the U.S. government as well as their fellow travelers who covered for them or looked the other way.

    The left is nostalgic for that era–well at least not the icky parts dealing with Japanese-Americans dumped into internment camps or the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima–because it is convinced still of its righteousness but also because of how Americans were willing to cast aside their economic and personal liberties for a bigger cause, in this case for several years. They wish it could be like that all of the time.

    Also the left has a curious regard for wartime violence. They’re pacifists until they’re fighting people who are fighting leftists/Communists. Sedentary types like Orwell and Hemingway went off to Spain in a romantic crusade against Franco’s forces. The American left was all for staying out of war in Europe until Hitler broke the Non-Aggression Pact with Stalin, then it was on like Donkey Kong.

  20. Per The Washington Post
    July 15, 2020

    A New Standard For Community Justice

    Today, a coalition of community and social justice organizations, including Black Lives Matter and the national Defund the Police movement, released a plan to replace the systemic racism which has plagued the American justice system.

    “We realize that many people are confused and troubled in these times, looking for a definitive idea of what to expect when the current revolution in social interactions is complete.

    We therefore are pleased to present what we feel is a proper, reasonable replacement for the ugly, repressive and oppressive methods currently being experienced by minorities and marginalized peoples across the nation.

    The Neutral Adjudication Through Standardized Intersectionality (NATSI) Protocols can be easily understood and implemented throughout all communities.

    While the NATSI ideals are more broad than can be detailed here, the core elements are fairly simple.

    Rather than a random ‘law’ that can be abused by special interests, conflicts settled by NATSI officials will be a true sense of justice, stopping harm against a person’s identity and emotional state. Not simply an investigation of ‘facts’, but a settlement of issues, past as well as present will be taken into consideration. And rather than worry about weeks or years of court room issues dragging out, the decision of a NATSI official will be final.

    To calm those who claim this will lead to an arbitrary destruction of personal rights, we assure you that the fundamental rights and freedoms enjoyed today will endure.

    For instance, freedom of religion will not only remain, but be protected even further. The ugly act of denouncing or attacking a religion will no longer be tolerated. There are some statements, of course, that are not attacks on religions, but broader social issues.
    – Many statements considered ‘anti-semitic’ are, in fact anti-Zionist. Opposition to the reprehensible actions of Israel is not religious bigotry.
    – Many statements considered ‘anti-Catholic’ are in fact simply calling out the historical sexual assaults and social repressions enacted by that church and thus cannot be considered religious bigotry.
    – Many statements against Protestant organizations are trying to address long term sexism and exclusionary practices and thus cannot be considered religious bigotry.
    These exceptions aside, bias against a person’s religion, or painting an entire religion due to the actions of a few will not be tolerated. The decision of a NATSI official will be final.

    Sexism will be immediately pushed back against, allowing women power that has been historically denied them. This will be even broader than traditionally hoped for, as the NATSI Protocols recognize women by far more reasonable standards than simple ‘biology’ or ‘genetics’. While this may create some conflict, they will be easily settled once brought to the appropriate attention. As always, the determination of a NATSI official will be final and binding.

    While there is much more to be explained and experienced in these evolving times and rules, coming together against oppression and marginalization will ultimately make this a better world.”

    We can only offer our applause and support for this bold initiative and gladly offer ourselves as an outlet to explain any elements and changes, as well as to call out those who need to be brought into this new way of thinking.

    [Poe notification:

    You know what?

    No.

    Just no.

    I may have gotten the serial number wrong, and the pin striping and tail fins may not be factory original, but THIS?

    This is what they want.

    Keep your eyes open and your powder dry.

    –CC]

      1. Ummm, … Bill? The Captain is a Comic.

        As if the Washington Post would ever publish something so honest about the intentions of those entities!

  21. Been puzzling how to explain Joe Biden to my more middle of the road friends. (Not that many of those exist here in Deep Blue.) And the answer lurks in the nostalgia they cherish for what Joe represents. He’s that kindly old candidate with friends in high places who can bring us back to good old nostalgic normalcy. It’s the emotion of the thing. Let’s bring back the world when our biggest problems were verbal gaffes and the occasional grope. Right …

  22. “No one openly challenged the principle that government, the bigger the better, should do everything and control everything, from news to food distribution (and growing.) ”

    Awhile back I read a book entitled “The War Comes to Plum Street.” It’s a biography of the author’s parents, extended family, and town during WW II in Indiana. The author gives details several times about the different schemes for rationing … everything from gasoline to shoes to meat to butter to winter coats to ….etc. etc. etc. The reason so many people took up gardening was not “patriotism;” it was survival, pure and simple.

    Now, I grew up admiring the rationing stamps and booklets that my aunt had saved from her childhood, but it never really came home to me until I read that book. The utter monstrosity of the government deciding how often you were ALLOWED to BUY A PAIR OF SHOES … and all the other things. I don’t know a sufficiently potent word that is bigger than “appalling,” but that is the word I mean. What i can’t get my mind around is how THEY convinced the good decent people to accept it as their patriotic duty. They best i can do is assume that when there is a REAL Hitler, the decent people are willing to suffer to neutralize the threat. But I’m still shaking my head, not fully understanding …

    1. I grew up admiring the rationing stamps and booklets that my aunt had saved from her childhood, but it never really came home to me until I read that book. The utter monstrosity of the government deciding how often you were ALLOWED to BUY A PAIR OF SHOES … and all the other things.


      I have the 4 books maternal grandmother kept, for them and their two girls (uncle wasn’t born until ’46). I also have grandpa’s special thin wallet with grandma’s & the girls pictures. I’ll keep them & pass them on to our son as a reminder and proof of what CAN happen. Grandma did talk about not being able to get shoes for either mom or her sister during the phase where children don’t wear out shoes before they out grow them.

      1. I recall a radio story about a book, I think, “Sugar for Shoes” where a gal who a… fondness… for shoes would trade sugar ration stamps/cards/points with neighbors for their shoes ration stamps/cards. It was a matter of what was more important to who(m). A weird bit of free market thwarting rationing, but as in all real free market transactions, both traders believed themselves to have gotten the better deal.

        1. And because economic value is subjective, both traders did get the better deal.
          A modern variation is the National Odd Shoe Exchange. But because people don’t like to admit that they’re rooting around in vulgar dismal economics, they claim to have goals that are higher-toned and more respectable than simple mutual benefit.

    2. I suspect the convincing was easy enough: the government said “We need those things for “our boys”!” And since “Our boys” was likely to also be your husband/brother/son/nephew/etc, well…many people are more than willing to make virtually any sacrifice in personal comfort–even personal freedom–to keep a loved one safe in a war, especially if that discomfort/loss of freedom is something they know will be temporary. (And, in fairness, it was, especially here in the U.S.)

      Now, what I’ve never been fully convinced of is…would there truly have been shortages to the army, etc had rationing not occurred? Given how vast our country’s landmass capable of producing food and whatnot is, I’m not sure they would have. But we’ll never know, because the left-leaning governments at the time decided that rationing HAD to be done, and so it was.

      I do note that no such thing has been aired in wars since. One might argue “but they weren’t as BIG” but…I dunno. They’ve certainly ground on for a good deal longer, which might amount to the same thing…but never a whiff of “rationing”–because I think it was neither needed and also they knew it wasn’t gonna fly.

      1. The rationing was more pervasive than merely food. In the 1930s, a major improvement in farming occurred with the use of rubber tires on tractors, and many steel wheels were modified to take rubber. That ended with the onset of the war, and farmers had to go back to steel wheels (considerably less efficient) as the rubber ones wore out. Combine that with fuel rationing, and agriculture was in a bit of a retrograde pattern. I *assume* the rubber and fuel rationing made sense, with the expected consequence that food production would not be as good as beforehand. (Waggles hand a bit; the depression screwed a lot of things up, too.)

        1. Maybe–I admit to knowing sod-all about rubber manufacturing…and were they still having to actually harvest it from rubber trees by the 1930s/40s? If they were, rationing that does make sense. If synthetic rubber was a thing by then, less so–because the industrial powerhouse in theory should have had no trouble? I don’t know. (I only know about the rubber tree thing because it was a major point in the surveys done in the 1910s & 20s in South America per the memoirs of a surveyor that I read. That stuck with me, for some reason.)

          1. According to Wiki, synthetic rubber wasn’t in wide use at the beginning of the war, but was by the end (about 50% of the allied rubber was synthetic, if I got it right). OTOH, the repurposing of US industry to produce military goods was extraordinary, and I suspect any rubber tractor tires got used for aircraft-movers.

            (Wiki said synthetic rubber was used in WW I, with a reversion to natural after the war. As WW II was ramping up, yet another secret project developed better synthetics and got them in wide use. The Germans were doing it to, at least until various Allied air forces had a say in the matter.)

            1. That is very interesting to know! 😀

              (And now I am beating off plot bunnies with regards to industrial espionage in wartime involving the development of synthetic rubber. I am sure there was at least SOME going on!)

              1. Farmers also had to mostly do without weather reports during WWII. Some general information was allowed, but detailed predictions, or even descriptions of current conditions, were forbidden by the censors.

                1. One of the things that let the Allies break the Enigma machine cipher had to do with the way the Luftwaffe reported weather using the machine. The details escape my brain, but they were doing *something* the same way each day, and once that was realized, the exploit could be made.

                  1. It wasn’t just the weather, but you have the basic idea. The Germans had standardized report forms, and the headers and footers were encrypted along with the message text. But since we already knew what the headers and footers said, they were windows into the parts we were interested in. And the general staff wanted daily reports in detail…

                    The Abwehr had realized the German encryption methodology was leaking information by late 1943, and reported that severally and individually to Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and Speer. But the sweet siren song of bureaucracy overrode the need for security, and the Reich really didn’t have the resources to change the entire system over to something else. So they went back to couriers for really important stuff, when manpower was available, and kept on using the compromised system.

                    There’s a fairly massive tome called “The Codebreakers” by David Kahn, which has details on a lot of that stuff. There are two versions of the book; I recommend the abridged one unless you’re really interested in the mathematical trivia of how the wossnames are ossenfarbled. Yardley’s “America’s Black Chamber” might be more readable, and more of it is about WWII.

              2. There would have been considerable espionage both ways — gathering information of what others are doing, determining how far along others are (this was especially the case with the atomic bomb, when a US agent was dispatched to attend a lecture by Heisenberg (I think) with instructions to assassinate the lecturer if he was “too far along”), and the dissemination of mis-information — information intended to route enemies into cul-de-sacs, wasting their time and resources.

                1. As I recall, Patton’s first “command” in England was the bogus army–equipment was made of decoys, and the main staff were the radio operators who kept up a steady stream of BS for the German listeners.

                  From the Richard Rhodes book and the Los Alamos primer, the Germans were dealing with a bit of a rabbit hole. They might have been able to come up with reactors good for propulsion, but they were nowhere near the path towards a bomb. OTOH, the Soviets had good information, courtesy their spy ring. What they didn’t have was the industrial capability of using that information until after the war.

      2. I strongly recommend Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II by Arthur Herman, which covers America’s industrial mobilization to produce the war materiel needed. It is an informative and entertaining book, available (in excellent reading) from Audible.

        Full mobilization of industry entailed many challenges, not least the conversion from civilian to war production and back again. Frankly, we had no idea how productive our industry could be, ships, tanks and planes having previously largely been produced by the equivalent of hand-sewn goods.

        Things are different now, industrial production having been fully digested by society to the extent we’re prone to tantrums when needed goods are NOT readily available — as witness the mask production kerfuffles. (BTW – I noticed the local Wally’s offering a five-pack of 3-ply masks from Hanes for $7.50; I think we’ve cleared that production problem.)

        OTOH, remember that when George W Bush (’43) sent troops into Iraq there were complaints from the Left and even the Center(-ish) Right abut his refusal to impose rationing, push war bonds and otherwise call for “sacrifice” to fund the war (I don’t recall LBJ imposing rationing during ‘Nam, nor any complaints* about it, but I was young enough then that I might merely have missed it.) Some of those complaints were undoubtedly politically motivated, hoping that imposing domestic pain would hurt Bush in the polls but many simply reflected an unawareness of how easily the USA could field such an operation. We’ve twice the population now that we did during WWII and vastly more industrial capacity.

        *There were criticisms of LBJ’s “Guns & Butter” policy, but those were of a different sort.

        1. I was in school during those years; in 1965 or so, I had a junior high math project entailing tracking a handful of stocks over several months. I picked electronics firms that were known for producing color TVs. As it turns out, they also produced a bunch of mil-spec electronics. If it had been real money, I’d have been a rich kid at the end of the project.

          There were no rationing efforts noticeable to the general population at the time. Dad wasn’t a shooter, so I don’t know if there were any issues related to ammunition or firearms. Definitely no problems with the steel industry or construction products.

          1. No ammunition rationing was necessary. We didn’t finish shooting up all the ammo we overproduced for World War 2 until half-way through Desert Storm. We’ve STILL got a shitload of 16-inch shells and powder charges for our mothballed battleship fleet.

            1. and the government finally sold off the last of the excess .30 M1 and .30 Carbine…. in the 90s

  23. So what you’re saying, Sarah, is we need to appear behind the left, yell “MEE”P MEEP”, stick our tongues out and run?

    #defundacme

    1. I will acknowledge that as Biden’s appeal to me. Unfortunately for the former vice-president, I have other criteria beyond that, such as not being a horse’s patoot. Biden fails that one.

  24. I am seeing a lot of articles lately about renaming the Washington Red[acted]s and am wondering that it hasn’t reared its [head] in here. Given the fertile field for speculation, I am curious as to whether Huns have any preferred aliases for the team?

    For example, given the city in which they play, a apt name might be the Washington Bureaucrats. Perhaps the Washington DCs (Damned Communists) appeals? It might be appropriate to honor the party which seems to dominate the city by naming the team the Washingto Democrats or the Washington Tackling Dummies?

    1. Washington Pathogens (or shortened to Plague) came to mind. Small, potentially deadly, and a curse upon humanity that eventually will be defeated?

    2. I say the Washington Maurauders is both evocative of the denizens therein , and wouldn’t require a huge change to the logos.

      1. And, of course, the white Wokey McWokefaces are covering their ears and shouting “LALALALALA” when the NATIVE AMERICAN family of the guy who designed the logo are going “Um…guys? This is fine, the name is fine, it’s not racist, please don’t erase our father/grandfather’s legacy…”

        And doing the same for the descendants of Aunt Jemima, etc.

  25. The Right has its own government fetish. It likes prohibitions. It is in love with drug prohibition. It was among the last to give up alcohol prohibition. And it takes an idealistic view of abortion prohibition. If it gets its abortion wish, it will be sorry.

    1. So do you object to all prosecution of murder?

      Or are you only okay with keeping it in the family, and with just 876,000 fetal pre-citizens last year?

      I mean, why pick the ones who can’t defend themselves as permissible victims?

      1. Usually the reason is that they figure they’ll never be vulnerable to the exceptions, and it’s easy. No need to worry or work at all.

      2. The Abortion Rights movement is the old racist Eugenics movement in disguise. I didn’t feel the force of this until the Kermit Gosnell case came out and the Pro Choice apparatus in Pennsylvania defended their action in shielding the ghoul by saying it was important to make sure that poor minority women had access to ‘abortion services’. And I thought, “So the important thing is to make sure as many brown babies as possible are aborted, and if the abortionist kills some of the mothers that’s acceptable…and maybe even a good thing.”

        I think abortion should be legal. But a lot of the Pro-Choice crowd creep me out, and I think that their extremism is going to cause them to lose in the long run. I strongly suspect that there are a bunch of Gosnell-like abattoirs operating across the country with tacit approval of the Pro-Choice movement. I waited after Gosnell’s exposure for them to do the smart thing, clean house aggressively, take the political hit, and move,forward. They didn’t. Maybe – MAYBE – there aren’t any more. But didn’t they just find an abortion doctor with a collection of preserved fetal remains? I think the Pro-Choice movement think they can hide the problems, whereas I suspect that the damage the problem clinics will cause them will be worse if exposed one at a time rather than all at once in a grand clean-up.

        1. Bets M Simon thinks conservatives should be upset that legal abortion has only killed an estimated 18 million blacks, compared to 40 million currently alive in the US?

          1. I always love how that lot are simultaneously screaming about how racist all conservatives are, but totally ignoring the fact that the pro-life crowd (many of whom are conservatives) are NOT qualifying their arguments with “we’re only worried about the white babies getting murdered.”

            Also sadly telling how vehemently they shout down those “racist” conservatives when they try to point out that the abortion industry is behaving as full-on genocide towards black people…

    2. You need to provide some support for those claims. It was the Wilson Administration that enacted Alcohol Prohibition, and I’ve see no evidence of “The Right” fighting its repeal.

      I also dispute your claim of The Right being “in love with drug prohibition” — National Review has called for ending it, and certainly you’re not going to try claiming they are a magazine of the Left. Most of those on the Right who support suppression of the drug trade do so regretfully, torn between the social damage done by drug use and the harm done by policing that use. Are you claiming that we ought allow fully unrestrained drug use and let the bodies fall where they may? Or do you know of some miraculous therapy program which releases addicts from their cravings?

      BTW – The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, imposing some of the harshest penalties on drug trafficking was largely written by a Democrat you may have heard f, a senator name of Biden. Per https://www.factcheck.org/2019/07/biden-on-the-1994-crime-bill/, the bill

      contained a host of policing and crime prevention provisions — including “three-strikes” mandatory life sentences for repeat violent offenders, funding for community policing and prisons, an assault weapons ban and the Violence Against Women Act. It authorized $30.2 billion, according to a Congressional Research Service report on federal crime measures. It increased federal crimes subject to the death penalty and enabled juveniles to be tried as adults for violent and firearm-involved federal crimes.

      So theose Dems sure loved them some gun prohibition.

      I’ve no idea what you mean by an “idealistic” view of banning abortion. Are you saying that we’ve no cause to think of the aborted as human, and therefore no cause to defend them? Geeze, it seems like only 150 years ago the Democrats were saying that about Black people and even tried to sunder the nation when Republicans said they were wrong.

      Wild assertions are easy, M Simon, but supporting them requires evidence and you’ve shown nothing.

      1. My guess would be that the support for Prohibition is related to any restrictions at all– bar hours, public intoxication.
        There are a lot of silly right-wingers who don’t realize that having rowdy people in a public area causing disruption is magically negated if they’re there for a bar. It’s like the progressives as the magic word “protest.”

      2. Never thought I’d find something to defend Wilson on, but the Volstead Act was passed over his veto.

      3. >> “National Review has called for ending it, and certainly you’re not going to try claiming they are a magazine of the Left.”

        Ace (of the Ace of Spades blog) talks a lot about fake right-wingers who only ever defend the left and their causes while constantly criticizing what is supposedly their own side. And he calls out people at National Review for this a lot.

        I don’t read NR myself so I couldn’t say, but are you sure they’re not just a donkey in elephant’s clothing?

        1. Not sure what they’re doing recently, but that complaint has been around for a long time– usually it was one of four things:
          not being a big-L libertarian or liberaltarian,
          objecting when someone on the right did something object to on the left
          disagreeing with the accuser (generally when the accuser didn’t have a better answer to the reasons for disagreement)
          failing to expel social conservatives from the party, although they might graciously accept the votes if those backwards idiots would simply shut up.

          Even when I thought the person being accused was wrong, it was usually a lame claim. There was either something that was much more effective to point at for what is wrong, or they were doing that obnoxious “both sides have problems” where the things were not apples to apples. More like marbles to bowling balls…..

        2. I don’t read NR myself so I couldn’t say, but are you sure they’re not just a donkey in elephant’s clothing?

          Pretty sure. Reagan was a fan of theirs, so that’s a kid of endorsement.

          NR is a big tent, with a variety of views, most of which have a conservative spin — depending on how one defines conservative. Because there are many strains of conservatism there are many voices in their chorus. Because they do not stifle dissent to the extent perpetrated on the Left, those voices sometimes seem inharmonious.

          As with anything political, you gathers information and you makes of it what you will. As with Siskel & Ebert, it is important to know each source’s biases and triangulate the info.

          1. National Review. Um. Well. They haven’t been great at hiring people, and they have fired a lot of their best, and a lot of the others have died. It is officially Never Trump, although they print a few pro-Trump articles.

            1. Officially Never Trump?

              My impression that the reason several there, such as Jonah Goldberg, left is because they were not Never Trump — they were Never Trump during the 2016 primaries, but once he won they bit the bullet, albeit with a bit of a face-saving “balls & strikes” verbiage.

              Editor Rich Lowry certainly seems accommodated to the Trump presidency, and Victor Davis Hanson is positively enthusiastic about The Donald. Conrad Black gets a weekly column of Trump praise and Andy McCarthy tends to be a staunch defender, Kevin “I Play A Libertarian” Williamson rather less so. Mostly they seem to focus on issues rather than o Trump.

              But, you know, there’s plenty of political coverage to read online and you picks what pleases you.

        3. I read NR for years, but gradually moved over to Reason (which seems to have shifted. *sigh*). They are reliably old school Conservative. They are also deeply worried by Trump for reasons I have some grasp of; he’s a wild card, and they wou,d be more comfortable in the ‘Loyal Opposition’ seat.

          *grimace*

          They aren’t as bad as a lot of the Never Trumpers, but it’s bothersome.

          But when they published a whole issue dedicated to essays about legalizing drugs, it was the mid 1990’s and they had serious Conservative arguments in favor. Most of which boiled down to “drug prohibition hasn’t noticeably worked, and is eroding our civil rights badly”

            1. I abandoned Reason over their reaction to the 9/11 attacks. I understood their arguments but thought they went too far.

              It is one thing to insist lighter-than-air craft are fundamentally safe, but not while standing on the bridge of the Hindenburg.

    3. Gosh, not killing people who are in the way is an ideal, and people will violate it. Stop the presses! Also, people will take stuff that isn’t theirs, and water is wet.

    4. > It is in love with drug prohibition.

      No, it isn’t.

      Drug prohibition cuts across the progressive/conservative boundaries, otherwise Pot would have been legal at the federal level *decades* ago.

      Pot was legalized in many states because of a political cross section of small government conservatives, libertarians and dope smokers–the latter of which are most often part of the Free Shit Army that regularly votes for progressives, not out of some ideological sympathy, but because Free Shit.

  26. Apropos of nothing, there’s a 1950’s radio version of T.H. White’s mystery novel/Austen fanfic, Darkness over Pemberley, available on YouTube right now. It’s got Marius Goring in it. Pretty fun.

    1. Oooh. I was unaware of this one. I’m familiar with Death Comes to Pemberly by PD James (although I haven’t read the novel, only seen the miniseries).

      I am somewhat amused at how many authors out there feel that Darcy and Elizabeth’s true calling in life is as amateur detectives…

      1. This one is set in the then-modern day, and the detective is an OC police detective. But he is a friend of Darcy and Elizabeth’s current descendants, Sir Charles Darcy and his sister Elizabeth. For various reasons related to pigheadedness, an outsider murderer starts stalking around Pemberley.

        It is one of those inside-out mysteries where the suspense is in how the murderer tries to kill, whether he will widen his field to innocents, and how the characters can possibly prove their case. I didn’t finish it yet, so I don’t know if it winds up more of a thriller or horror piece than a mystery. But it also seems to be a case of Golden Age reader criticizes Golden Age conventions.

        I may have to buy the ebook, as I have never even seen a copy of the book. (A lot of TH White is like that.)

      2. It’s a Golden Age mystery/thriller, but the detective knows the current generation of Darcys, and gets invited to stay at Pemberley. Creepy murderer stalkerism ensues.

          1. Well. Um. The BBC adaptation leaves out quite a lot of backstory, unless the backstory comes back later on.

            But the idea of the Darcys being dedicated wargamers is pretty amazing!

  27. Nostalgia is the sin of dying philosophies. Of those who know their time has passed.

    BUT, when you’ve banked on being on The Right Side of History, it’s hard to admit it, especially to yourself. Also, one hundred years ago, you could argue that neither Fascism nor Communism would work, but you couldn’t prove it; that had to be learned by bitter experience. Also also, while Fascism and Communism could be shown to be oppressive, the argument was that the omelet was worth the broken eggs. This was the dilemma portrayed in Brave New World. Mustafa Mond could argue that the BNW kept its end of the faustian bargain. Now we know better.

    1. Finally read it (the image was not there the first time) but my response is “if that’s White Supremacy then White Supremacy is Great”. 😆

      Of course, it is only the assholes who think non-whites can’t do those things. 😉

      1. Try walking into a college class (taught by a professor of color) halfway through and explaining it by saying, “I understand that punctuality is an element of White Culture, therefore in my effort to better understand other cultures I am eschewing it.” Or turn in assignments three days late.

        For that matter, try explaining your failure to file taxes yesterday in terms of punctuality being White and you identify as Samoan. That last will probably come in very handy when you are introduced to your cell mate as “Fresh Meat.”

        1. Like the faculty are any better at turning things in on time.

          Oh, sure, if their student don’t turn things in it’s all “Well, you should know better, here have a grade reduction” but when the faculty have purchase card receipts to turn in? “Oh, yeah, I know I should have turned those in earlier, but things came up. Anyway, these need to go on fiscal year 20’s ledger.” It’s the middle of July, and the deadline was June 23rd. No, these aren’t going on FY 20.

      2. Didn’t Thomas Sowell pretty definitively prove that what they’re hailing as “Authentic African-American” culture is, in origin, White-Trash culture?

        Talk about appropriating inappropriate culture!

    2. So….those are all the “white” attributes that must be abandoned? While I may not agree with some of them, (mostly the especially cliched or outright racist parts), the rest are important to a healthy functioning society.
      Not that commies were ever concerned with a healthy society.

      1. If you do them while the wrong color, you are “inauthentic” and must be shamed/shunned/forced to stop; if you do them while “white,” then you’re just evil.

        As for “outright racist parts”– not sure what part of that isn’t racist…..

        1. “Blacks are innately felons, and can just be killed directly, instead of worrying about trials first” would be an outright racist statement.

          “White supremacists think felons are bad” is also perhaps an outright racist statement, but “felons are bad” is only a racist statement to someone who thinks felons particularly correlate with race.

          He is probably trying to distinguish between claims of the first sort, and claims of the latter sorts.

          Claims of the first sort are problem necessary to include in a massive list of claims of the second sort, that is used to delegitimize several claims of the third sort. Otherwise, people would all simply respond by staying, “then I am white supremacist, deal with it”.

          1. Problem being, by it being framed as specifically “white culture,” and thus opposed to black or any other “melanistically enhanced” (not my term, that one is from the BLM twits) the entire thing is racist.

            It’s defining stuff by race. I’m sure there area lot of scientists who are shocked that they don’t exist or are not really black because they are rational.

            1. That is precisely what I intended the second claim to be a demonstration of.

              And the first time I tried to write ‘precisely’ this comment, it came out ‘probably’.

              1. *points at linked image* Which is why I asked PB what part of an image that is explicitly declaring a racial culture isn’t racist.

                1. I got that.

                  I figured he was thinking first type versus third type.

                  I’m probably tedious today, and not up to thinking clearly about the things I need to be clear on. Apologies.

                  1. I know I’m a bit grumpier than usual, since Walmart decided to appoint themselves as medical authorities so I have to re-juggle my shopping trips. Again.

                    1. My Governor decided to go full retard and mandate mandatory masks yesterday, fines up to $500.

                      He seemed reasonably sane, for values of “politician”, before that.

                      This is going to make a lot of things, like paying for gas, a major hassle.

                    2. It is freaking ridiculous that my governor’s behavior is something to brag about.
                      Not only is she not going with the mask mandate, she just publicly announced that not only does state law require in-person education for enrolled students unless she waives it, but she is NOT waiving it, they CANNOT shut down the school for all but one day a week, and they are NOT required to wear masks.

                    3. I await an announcement to the effect:

                      “In view of the COVID caused recession and resulting revenue shortfalls, AND the fact that teachers decline to return to schools until a vaccine is available, I am hereby rescinding all funds allocated for operation of public schools. Families of students are eligible for individual educational state grants to be funded by the rescinded school expenditures.

                      “Teachers, Principals, Administrators, and other school personnel will have medical insurance maintained at current levels but will forego this year’s pension contributions as well as service time and other benefits. They may apply for unemployment.”

              2. It is nearly impossible to satirize this, but we ought be able to Alinsky* the Hell out of it.

                *Rules for Radicals, RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

          2. I confess that I am seeing people I consider otherwise rational falling into the “Blacks are inherently criminal” camp. It bothers me. There was a time in the US when the same argument was made against Irish Catholics, and other groups of very poor immigrants have been so stigmatized as well.

            I think it more accurate to say that the urban poor, surrounded by wealth and close to the edge, are less impressed by The Law than they perhaps should be. And the policies of the Fascist Left have kept a large number of a Blacks in the urban poor category for a long time. The traditional ladders out (education, entrepreneurship) have had the rungs sawed through by Left policy.

            I have suspected for some time that the opprobrium aimed at AMOS N ANDY has less to do with any ‘racist’ qualities of the show than with the fact that the two main characters are running a successful business.

            1. Most urban poor aren’t criminals, though.

              They are likely less than impressed by the law, because “merciful” (racist as **** authorities who don’t have to live near them) keep turning criminals of an appropriate color or sob-story loose with a slap on the wrist, sometimes a suspended slap on the wrist, for one out of the 95 crimes they have evidence for.

              It’s the same way that as a rule of thumb, you do not want to hang out on Martin Luther King Jr. boulevard. It isn’t 100%, but most of the time it’s a high crime area.

              My theory is it has to do with a choice:
              become the Designated Villain who Unjustly Arrested the Sweet, Innocent, Hard Working guy who was SOCMOB is irresistible to too many, which meant that the folks trying to do their job can spend four times as much time and effort to MAYBE deal with a bad guy on MLKjBlv,
              or
              deal with four bad guys over there and have a decent chance of it working.

              Media is the most obvious route for this, but if you look at the examples of “defendant’s lawyer goes to the media when it didn’t work on the court system” it has clearly been working for decades, now.

              1. > Most urban poor aren’t criminals, though.

                Depends on what you mean by criminal, but yeah, they are.

                Most people are. Smoke a little dope? (VERY common among the Urban Poor, and Urban Not Poor, and Not Urban Poor etc.) you are (depending on state) a criminal. Have a drink underage, yeah, criminal.

                Have a gun in Chicago? Yeah, I was a criminal (and poor).

                Carry a gun in California? Yeah, I was a criminal (but not so poor).

                Urban Poor culture is also a *lot* more violent (so is rural poor culture) than most folks are comfortable with, and assault *is* a crime.

                1. 1) You are engaging in equivocation. This is really not a good time to be doing so, folks tolerance is even lower than usual.

                  2) The “everybody does it” claim has been tested, and failed every time. Most people do not “smoke a little dope.” Even when it is legal. There is a noted tendency to claim to have tried it or allow people to believe they have because it gets the obnoxious to leave them alone.

            2. Thing is, we really have very little direct knowledge of the world. A lot of ‘world knowledge’ comes from trusted sources who may or more may not be trustworthy.

              I’ve never actually seen China myself. I have seen people who say they are Chinese, but perhaps it is all a grand conspiracy.

              At best, most Americans really know much about the workings of a few states. The whole of the United States is estimated either extrapolating from a personally known state, or from trusted sources.

              Right now, in house arrest, the range of natural information collection is drastically narrowed, and we are relying on a different mix of information sources.

              The claims of Black Lives Matter are basically a conspiracy theory.

              I don’t know enough about the United States directly to rule out BLM’s claims as false. But if I do not exclude BLM’s claims, I am left treating official data on criminal statistics as suspect.

              If the official criminal data is not entirely fraud, we’ve seen an increase in deadly felonies since the defunding of various police organizations. We are provided with two explanations. 1. BLM has judged society precisely opposite of correctly in a couple ways, and we should do the opposite of their policy recommendations. 2. This is purely the result of increased gun sales from panic buying caused by ‘white fragility’, or however they want to describe it. But a third explanation, in line with some of their claims, is that the official crime statistics are significantly fraud, and the deaths were caused by a police conspiracy.

              But what happens when you doubt those things?

              If BLM in specific, and the Critical Race Theory of African-American studies speaks for all American blacks, why would American blacks back talking points that are plainly correct? The answer that leads to sanity is that American blacks are not fairly represented by those crazy academics. The answer that leads to madness is that those voices are representative, and that the police are a criminal conspiracy that conceals black criminality.

              The diversity and inclusion struggle sessions, combined with the lockdown isolating people, is precisely the environment for CRT theory to backfire and produce a vocal minority of whites who have been persuaded of black innate criminality. Perhaps even a critical mass. The Critical Race Theorists have been so isolated from serious critical feedback that they are not aware that their arguments could have a different effect than they are accustomed to.

  28. Happy 75th anniversary of the first time we unleashed a near unimaginable power that might still annihilate all of human civilization.

    So…yay, us?

    1. Eh. That’s just the most spectacular way we’ve found to annihilate human civ.

      We have plenty of other, slower, less flashy ways of accomplishing the same thing.

    2. Every time a woman gives birth, she’s unleashing unimaginable power that might still annihilate all of humanity.

      It’s a tool, like any other. Sure, guns are scary. So is huddling in a cave with a sharp stick, hoping you can kill the other guy before he kills you. Nukes are just the same thing, in the opposite direction.

      Still think a lot of the freak-out is because nuke power is really, really, REALLY effective. (See: environmental movement, what happens every time a “clean” energy is advanced to where it doesn’t require people to stop doing what they were doing before.)

      1. Love nuke plants. I was USN for 6 years, although I didn’t work reactors. Pretty much proves that they can be cleanly and safely operated.

        And, all things being equal, the big one was needed. Projected half-million dead US, mid to high seven figures for the Japanese before an invasion would’ve been any kind of settled.

        Just remembering my nostalgic high school days of the early ’80s at the second peak of the cold war.

        Before we found out exactly how Potemkin a Village the Sovs had shown the world.

        1. Oh, yeah. I used to flabbergast people who would challenge my preference for nuclear power by asking if I would live next to a nuclear plant. Hell, yes, I would! I’d MUCH rather live next to a nuclear plant than a wind farm!

          1. Oh, yeah. I used to flabbergast people who would challenge my preference for nuclear power by asking if I would live next to a nuclear plant. Hell, yes, I would! I’d MUCH rather live next to a nuclear plant than a wind farm!


            We did. We were maybe 5 air miles from Trojan when we lived in Longview. About 10 miles by road across the river. Might have been more, but not much more than that. Trojan was on Columbia River just east of the town Rainer on Hwy 30. We were across the bridge, in Longview, up on the hill. In fact, when we finally turned the house over to a rental management company, in ’86, they rented in 6 month stints to decommissioning Trojan engineers.

    3. The physics of 1945 “wasn’t even wrong” by modern standards, but it got the job done.

      Every shot was a thing of beauty. One of the eyewitnesses at Trinity wrote:

      “It was like being at the bottom of an ocean of light. We were bathed in it from all directions. The light withdrew into the bomb as if the bomb sucked it up. Then it turned purple and blue and went up and up and up. We were still talking in whispers when the cloud reached the level where it was struck by the rising sunlight so it cleared out the natural clouds. We saw a cloud that was dark and red at the bottom and daylight at the top. Then suddenly the sound reached us. It was very sharp and rumbled and all the mountains were rumbling with it.”

    4. I think the ‘might annihilate all of human civilization’ riff is largely fear mongering ginned up by the Left to scare people into accommodating the USSR. the cold facts are that Hiroshima was up and running as a city again in less than a decade, and there’s not a lot of evidence that radiation was a lingering problem. Basic physics; radiation is EITHER strong OR long lasting.

      Also, given some reports I’ve read about Russian missile maintenance, there may have been a serious Russian propaganda effort to convince people that if there was a nuclear war, the Russian birds would actually launch.

      1. Environmentalism has a better chance of annihilating all civilization than nukes; we can establish relatively well the limits of nuclear effect propagation, but the theoretical limits of belief in environmentalism are much less soundly established.

      2. I now wonder whether the tale of the Soviet soldier who disobeyed standing launch orders when an “incoming missiles” alarm went off (due, as it turned out, to a glitch) ad “saved the world” is less about brave moral action and more about “our missiles won’t launch so we better pretend we exercised restraint.”

        Oh, also this:

    5. The “accidental” release of the Wuhan Virus has already killed more people than all the atomic bombings in history.

      1. I will accept that the release was negligent. Not ‘accidental’ but the unintentional result of incompetence.

        Suppressing all reports of the outbreak, and sending plane-loads of disease carriers to dozens of other countries, they done THAT on purpose. China has committed the largest act of biological warfare in history, AGAINST THE ENTIRE WORLD.

        And nobody is calling them on it. Why not? Who do they own?
        ———————————
        John Sheridan: “If more of our so-called leaders would walk the same streets as the people who voted them in, live in the same buildings, eat the same food instead of hiding behind glass and steel and bodyguards, maybe we’d get better leadership and a little more concern for the future.”

        1. yeah, maybe, but their job of weaponizing it was shoddy and it only worked best against people living in their conditions.

Comments are closed.