RUTHFULLY YOURS

The US President tapped a body of sentiment that repulses the mainstream political class, and that opportunity also exists here. If you want to shop safe from imported Muslim hell drivers, miss affordable electricity and think little kids should master sums before sodomy, all you lack is the right candidate.

One of my American conservative heroes, William F. Buckley, attempted over the decades to deliver the great right wing project, “fusionism”. This was the building of a right of centre coalition of the willing. Libertarians and conservatives together. His early political project was Barry Goldwater. His later project was Ronald Reagan. Bill was indefatigable, and lieutenants, such as Frank Meyer, set out to herd the cats of the right into something of a competitive political and philosophical force that would stand athwart history and yell “stop”. They would attain power and deliver broad conservative policy outcomes. And they would build this on the back of a philosophical synthesis.

Listening to Mark Steyn speaking recently at the Restoration Weekend organised by the great and courageous David Horowitz – that rare lefty who realised before it was too late he had been an idiot – and hearing the repeated boos at Mark’s every mention of Bill “Never Trump” Kristol, one was shaken to realise that the American right is now hopelessly fractured. The fracture is the result of Trump’s ascendancy and the growing, sullen realisation by his critics that he can actually run a productive, can-do government that is delivering real benefits to great swathes of the American people.

You won’t read that in the Guardian, the mentally enfeebled Fairfax Press or that endless spigot for inner-city received opinion, the ABC, but the fact that such agents of New Establishment orthodoxy all share that view demonstrates its truth. Is there one issue – wind turbines, the benefits of industry-killing electricity costs, the literary worth of all who get invitations to their mates’ writers festivals – on which the Left gets it right? Trump hatred is but more of the same.

The Clinton kleptocracy and its fellow travellers predictably are aghast at what they see in Trump. But this Clintonian regret is driven by self-interest, essentially. The Clintons are toast now; no longer useful, as Hillary will never be president, they have no influence to peddle and must now slouch towards their grim, shared sunset. The left-of-centre political class which they exemplify is being consumed by its own corruption, and, as we have seen recently, its lust.

T’WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND ALL THROUGH THE NATION,
THERE IS HOPE AND OPTIMISM BUT GROWING FRUSTRATION.
I TOSSED AND TURNED WITH INTERRUPTED SLEEP
THINKING ABOUT A PRESIDENT WITH PROMISES TO KEEP.
WHEN OUT ON THE LAWN THERE AROSE SUCH A CLATTER
I SPRANG FROM MY BED TO SEE WHAT WAS THE MATTER.
T’WAS GLORIA ALLRED ON A BROOM WITH MUCH ADO
TOWING A GAGGLE OF DAMSELS WEEPING #ME TOO!
PUSSY HATS STOWED AND WHIPS DEPLOYED TO TRASH REPUTATIONS
NO DUE PROCESS OR BURDEN OF PROOF OR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
SOME MAY DESERVE IT BUT WHERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE?
HAVE WE BECOME A NATION OF SELECTIVE LAWS?
AT THE FBI ALL THE LIGHTS BURNED LATE
AS MUELLER AND COHORTS STOKED PARTISAN HATE.
WHILE THE INTERNET BURNS WITH CLINTON TRANSGRESSIONS
THERE IS NOT A PEEP FROM RECUSED AG SESSIONS.
STATUES WERE TOPPLED IN THE LATEST RAGES
AND IGNORANT TANTRUMS OF THE MILLENIAL AGES.
AND PRONOUNS ARE NOW THE EDUCATIONAL WHIM
NO MORE HE OR SHE, NOW IT IS “HIR”-“ZEY” OR “SHIM.”
THESE ARE CAVILS BUT THERE ARE REASONS FOR ELATION.
EMBASSY MOVE, TAX REFORM, NO GRATUITOUS REGULATION.
A PRESIDENTIAL CALL FOR SECURITY AND GROWTH IN OUR LAND,
IN FOREIGN POLICY A POWERFUL AND PRINCIPLED STAND.
FAKE NEWS, CLIMATE FRAUD AND JUNK SCIENCE TOOK A DIVE
AND THE SPIRIT OF 1776 IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE
SO WITH RENEWED OPTIMISM AND CHEER
I WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR! RSK

Of all the words in the barrage of reporting on Israel or terrorism, “moderate” is a great example of euphemism. Thus, PalArabs who invoke murder and faith driven jihad against Israeli civilians; who praise the memory of Hitler; who reward terrorists financially and honor them by naming streets and schools for them; who indoctrinate their acolytes with blatant anti-Semitism in school books, lectures and sermons; …..in Arabic are called “moderates” because in silky English they speak of a two state (dis)solution of Israel.

George Orwell phrased it well and he is quoted by By Howard Husock in an article:

Orwell Is Alive at HHS On politics and euphemism https://www.city-journal.org/html/orwell-alive-hhs-15615.html

It all comes down to the importance of euphemism as a way to minimize opposition. Orwell saw it clearly in 1946:

“Political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.”

On November 10, 1975, While the late Senator Daniel Moynihan was ambassador to that vile organization, the U.N. passed Resolution 3379 which declared that Zionism is a form of Racism. Moynihan rose after the resolution passed and proclaimed:

EXCERPTS : FOR FULL TEXT GOT TO https://www.unwatch.org/moynihans-moment-the-historic-1975-u-n-speech-in-response-to-zionism-is-racism/

“The United States…does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act…… There will be time enough to contemplate the harm this act will have done the United Nations. Historians will do that for us, and it is sufficient for the moment only to note the foreboding fact. A great evil has been loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-semitism — as this year’s Nobel Peace Laureate Andrei Sakharov observed in Moscow just a few days ago — the abomination of anti-semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction. The General Assembly today grants symbolic amnesty — and more — to the murderers of the six million European Jews. Evil enough in itself, but more ominous by far is the realization that now presses upon us — the realization that if there were no General Assembly, this could never have happened.As this day will live in infamy, it behooves those who sought to avert it to declare their thoughts so that historians will know that we fought here, that we were not small in number — not this time — and that while we lost, we fought with full knowledge of what indeed would be lost…… The lie is that Zionism is a form of racism. The overwhelmingly clear truth is that it is not.”

This year as in decades past, I will spend Christmas holidays the way many Jews do. There will be movies, some at home on Netflix and Chinese food. The Chinese food is far removed from the choices from columns 1 and 2 which always followed a double feature at a movie on Southern Boulevard that my brother and I frequented every Christmas after we came to America.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan famously said at her confirmation hearings “Like all Jews I was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas…..” Senator Chuck Schumer added :“If I might, no other restaurants are open.”

There is actually a documentary about the Jewish/Chinese food axis “The Search for General Tso” (http://www.thesearchforgeneraltso.com/).

Latkes, chicken soup, kreplach, and gefilte fish became compatible with chow mein-pronounced “show mein” by the Bronx epicures.

Happy holidays!

In a tense exchange earlier this month between Dustin Hoffman and John Oliver, the HBO talk-show host said something remarkable. Responding to Oliver’s set of questions about claims of harassment against the actor, Hoffman pointed out that Oliver seemed not to be keeping “an open mind” but instead appeared to believe whatever he read in the press. To which Oliver replied about one claimant in particular, “I believe what she wrote, yes. Because there’s no point in her lying.” It was a fascinating exchange which unwittingly illustrated a problem that is roiling through every aspect of our societies, with no signs of abatement.

Any reasonable person not engaged in mob justice should be able to imagine a number of reasons that someone might falsely make an accusation against someone else. These range from the accidental (false or mistaken identification) to the deliberate (avarice, revenge). It is no more the case that everybody who makes an allegation against somebody else must be telling the truth than it is that they must be lying. A small but important case from the United Kingdom seems capable of shedding some caution on the furor occurring everywhere.

It relates to the former Bishop of Chichester, George Bell, a much-admired clergyman who died in 1958. Two years ago — in 2015 — an allegation of child abuse by the bishop was made public. The accuser (who remains anonymous) alleged that Bell repeatedly abused her more than six decades ago. No other similar charges have been made.

What was remarkable was not just the allegation, but the way in which it was reported. In Britain, the story was splashed across many of the national and local newspapers and prominently relayed on the BBC. It was given fuel by the Sussex Police, who (ever-keen on pursuing people who died decades ago) issued a statement stating the charges and editorializing that “the information obtained from our enquiries would have justified, had he still been alive, Bishop Bell’s arrest and interview under caution, on suspicion of sexual offences.”

Even more surprising was that the institution to which Bishop Bell had dedicated his life — the Church of England — also appeared to accept that the bishop had been guilty of the terrible crime of which he had been anonymously, posthumously accused. Despite a number of Bell’s living associates protesting that the claims could not be true, and a number of inconsistencies in the accuser’s own account, the Church said that it had “found no reason to doubt” the claims and made a financial offer to the accuser. No defense of the accused was heard. None of the evidence contradicting her testimony appears to have been sought out. While the accuser remained anonymous, the reputation of the man she had accused looked like it would be posthumously destroyed for all time.

Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats swing together. Eighteen years ago, Senate Dems stood lockstep in support of keeping Bill Clinton in office. Yesterday they stood lockstep in support of forcing Al Franken from office – even though Franken’s sins (unwanted tongues and touching) are of a considerably lower order than Clinton’s (assault and rape). A shift is underway in the Democrat Party, even if – as Caitlin Flanagan notes in The Atlantic – it’s not quite there yet:

Let’s not fool ourselves. “I believe Juanita” doesn’t just mean that you’re generally in favor of believing women when they report sex crimes. It means you believe that for eight years our country was in the hands of a violent rapist.

It was – which was why some of us said we believed Juanita at the time.

Democrats are heavily invested in identity politics. Unfortunately, almost by definition, most of the available identities are minorities (blacks, gays) and some of them are barely statistically detectable (trans). The obvious exception is women. In 2016, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. In that sense, Hillary not only failed to shatter the soi-disant glass ceiling, but, remarkably, managed to lower it. That’s what sticking with the Clintons did for the Dems.

So they’ve belatedly realized that their over-investment in the violent rapist and his enabler proved near-fatal last year. To win in 2020, the party has to get back some of those white females. Hence the decision to go full-scale war-on-women. Which means Franken and John Conyers are expendable. The Democrats are preparing to weaponize sex as they’ve weaponized race since the civil-rights era.

With hindsight, they were on their way to doing this a quarter-century back, before they got detoured into licensing Bill Clinton’s pathologies. Here’s what I wrote almost twenty years ago in the Speccie – April 1998 – when Gloria Steinem was arguing in The New York Times that dropping your pants and inviting a woman to “kiss it” was “not harassment” but an example of “the commonsense guideline to sexual behavior that came out of the women’s movement” – and only uptight GOP squares felt otherwise. Tell it to Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Charlie Rose, John Conyers and all the other Clinton karaoke acts of the last month.

Had I been born with the gullible gene found so often on the Left, life would be gloriously simple. I would believe, for example, that climate can be regulated by decree and punishing productive people promotes growth. Alas, a blissful immunity to history’s lessons is not my happy lot.

Saw a mad chap on Fox News who heads a group of people who want no national borders and one world government elected by, well, everyone. There will be fewer have-nots apparently. Without catching breath, he blamed the California bushfires on climate change.

There are, and have always been, I guess, eccentric people around with eccentric (unconventional and sightly strange) views. They usually do no harm and are best put up with. But what happens when large mobs take possession of eccentric views or, more correctly, when eccentric views take possession of large mobs. Nothing good is the answer. Effectively the inmates take over the asylum.

This is where we are now. Hordes of people in every land believe that we can control the climate. Hordes, particularly among those under thirty-five, believe that we can share the fruits of production much more equally. There is a large overlap.

I find it unnerving to be sane amid so many inmates. How do I know that I am sane? It’s simple really. I don’t have fanciful ideas about what mankind can control. It used to be called having one’s feet on the ground. So back to the asylum and, first, to economic equality

We know what happens when governments try to impose economic equality. People die in large numbers. Yet old ‘gurus’ devoid of sense — Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn, for instance — are heroes among many young people for proposing at best immiseration and at worst gulags. Of course, it is dressed up as fairer shares but we know where it leads.

December 8, 2016 A federal judge on Wednesday halted Michigan’s recount of its 4.8 million presidential ballots, effectively ending a longshot attempt to challenge President-elect Donald Trump’s victory. U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith, who had ordered the state to start the recount to meet a federal deadline, said he had no reason to go against a state court ruling that Green Party candidate Jill Stein had no standing to demand the recount because she had no chance of winning and therefore was not an “aggrieved” candidate. Stein requested recounts in Michigan, where Trump won by just 10,000 votes, as well as Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. All three states would have had to flip to Democrat Hillary Clinton to change the election result.

Dec 24, 2016 – The United States on Friday allowed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement construction to be adopted, defying … vote, which represented perhaps the final bitter chapter in the years of antagonism between President Barack Obama’s administration and Netanyahu’s government.

The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.

Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.

In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.

Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.

The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.