RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/guilt_by_inadvertent_association.html
“Should we never cite a wise word from someone who also said things we disagree with – even if it’s sympathizing with a loathsome political movement?”

The propensity to condemn others, usually writers, for what we might call guilt by inadvertent association is a method of abuse or disparagement often used by those who are incapable of intelligent rebuttal. It is a technique favored by the left and its legion of trolls, who like to point out that an author quoted in a conservative argument has dubious affiliations or, analogously, that the founder of a political organization is responsible for some of the suspicious characters who gravitate around his banner.

In my own case, for example, I have been excoriated for citing passages from Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger, who are certainly contestable philosophers, Heidegger in particular. Yet Hannah Arendt, a much beloved political writer among the left and Jewish to boot, was Heidegger’s student and lover and never disavowed him despite his Nazi sympathies. I detest Heidegger and have no truck with his indigestible philosophical tomes, but many of his occasional essays are valuable contributions to modern thought. They should not be readily junked.

More recently, I have been gleefully informed that authors whose insights I have referred to, such as Kerry Bolton and Vilifredo Pareto, among others, were conscripted by fascists. This may be true, but it does not negate the substance of their arguments. Tommy Robinson is another case in point. He is routinely condemned for the outlying circle of mental asteroids – hooligans, Nazi sympathizers – attracted for reasons of their own to his laudable mission protesting the violence and social disruption perpetrated by the U.K.’s growing Muslim community.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/as-trump-builds-the-resistance-shouts-destroy/

“To every thing,” observed the sage of Ecclesiastes, “there is a season…. A time to be born, and a time to die; … A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up,” et cetera. What this estimable observer of human life omitted from his bracing catalogue of oppositions is the fact that one side of these partnerships tends to be much easier to accomplish than the other.

To the eye of experience, this is obvious. How much time, labor, and inherited expertise go into building an automobile, a house, a city, a civilization. How quickly they can be destroyed by disaster or neglect.

Our house on Long Island Sound was built in 1924 as a summer cottage. Over the years, various owners added this and that, until it was a modest suburban home. Over the course of a few hours in October 2012, it was all but destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. It took more than a year, much labor and a lot of money, to put everything back together.

Look at Venezuela. With the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the South American country emerged from military rule in 1959 and became a bastion of prosperity in the Southern hemisphere. Then came the socialist Hugo Chavez in 1999. His policies pushed the country into decline, slowly at first, and then rapidly. Today, under the rule of Chavez’s hand-picked successor Nicolás Maduro, the country is on the verge of collapse. Inflation is running at 40,000 percent, there are widespread shortages of food, medicine, and other basic necessities, looting and corruption are rampant, people and capital are fleeing the country.

It did not take long to destroy Venezuela. It will take many years, much heartache and suffering, and enormous resources to put it back together.

There is a lesson here for the loud and unseemly American Leftists and their unlikely brethren, the soi-disant “conservative” Never Trumpers, who are trampling on civility, rejecting the processes of democratic governance, and encouraging violence. “There’s a deal of ruin in a nation,” Adam Smith observed to a disconsolate Brit during the American Revolution, especially a nation as prosperous and stable as the United States.

But even here there is a ne plus ultra, a threshold of destructiveness beyond which “things fall apart,” as Yeats put in it in The Second Coming, and “the centre cannot hold”: CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/07/04/trump_the_founders_and_independence_day_137428.html

Independence Day is, or should be, a time to reflect on the great gifts bequeathed to us by the American founders, and to judge ourselves by their standards. How well are we maintaining the country they built for us, and the principles which helped to make it great?

The answer is at once not so well—we have drifted far from the founders’ vision, mostly to our detriment—but also better than we have done in many years. That’s because Donald Trump’s political philosophy is closer to the founders’ than was that of any president since at least Reagan.

This assertion will no doubt occasion some sniggering. But Trump’s approach to politics addresses many of the American founders’ central concerns, in ways they would likely recognize and approve.

For the founders, government has one fundamental purpose: to protect person and property from conquest, violence, theft and other dangers foreign and domestic. The secure enjoyment of life, liberty and property enables the “pursuit of happiness.” Government cannot make us happy, but it can give us the safety we need as the condition for happiness. It does so by securing our rights, which nature grants but leaves to us to enforce, through the establishment of just government, limited in its powers and focused on its core responsibility.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/07/04/democrats-2018-the-reds-the-

Since Democrats are still in a mood about losing to Donald Trump nearly two years ago, we shouldn’t expect to see them waving Old Glory today. The Women’s March, the March for Science, the Dreamers March, the Travel Ban March, and the Families Belong Together March undoubtedly have these serial protestors worn out; they’ll probably skip the neighborhood Fourth of July parade, too.

With four months until the pivotal midterm elections, Democrats are angrier and more chaotic than they were in the days following the 2016 presidential election. Each Trump tweet or policy announcement sparks a spasm of collective outrage; the Left is so unmoored from rational thought that some folks are actually mad at an octogenarian for deciding to retire from the Supreme Court. Kicking the president’s press secretary and her family out of a restaurant is cheered as a Rosa Parks moment in reverse. Children are used as props to bully lawmakers about gun control, climate change, and immigration.

And everyone has the sads.

The flag is not flying high for Democrats in 2018. Its colors don’t symbolize strength or unity; instead, they represent the party’s calamitous palette of socialism, identity politics, and petulant outbursts:

The Reds: Socialism has long been the recessive gene in the modern Democratic Party’s DNA. The Obama presidency featured plenty of socialist tendencies, from collectivizing health care to expanding federal regulatory powers to spying on political foes. This is why, under Obama’s reign, Democrats lost control of nearly 1,000 seats nationwide.

But rather than reversing its leftward lurch, Democrats are accelerating it. Trump is exposing the anti-capitalist core of the modern-day Democratic Party and even converting one-time defenders of democracy and capitalism on the Right into mini-Che Guevaras, guerilla tactics and all. (Who will ever forget the tender moment when neoconservative Bill Kristol admitted that he just “found his inner socialist”?)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270616/america-america-bruce-bawer

I missed Darkest Hour when it played Norway, and The 15:17 to Paris never made it to my town, so I pre-ordered the DVDs of both films and watched them back-to-back the day they arrived. Both proved to be masterpieces. And thematically they made for a perfect double feature: Joe Wright’s movie about the early days of Winston Churchill’s prime ministership and Clint Eastwood’s picture about the three young Americans who took down a would-be terrorist on a French train in August 2015 are both about the existential threat posed to Western civilization, then and now, by two different varieties of totalitarianism – and about the massive difference that one man (Churchill), or three men (Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler, and Alek Skarlatos), can make in that struggle.

They’re also about something else, which is relevant to this 242nd anniversary of America’s founding. At the end of Darkest Hour, Churchill addresses the House of Commons on June 4, 1940. Faced with a considerable number of colleagues who – after a period of weeks during which the Nazis have conquered Denmark and almost completed the occupations of France, Norway, and the Low Countries – think that Britain doesn’t stand a chance and should work out a deal with Hitler, Churchill delivers his classic “We shall fight on the beaches” speech, the most celebrated passage of which reads as follows:

We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender….

Only slightly less famous are the words that immediately follow these, and that form the speech’s conclusion:

…and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.