RTCS

Musings on the Week Archive

Views on the News*

 August 19, 2017

 

The original group that was protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue actually had a permit to assemble and did so peacefully, but the leftist/Marxist radicals did not obtain a permit.  If you assemble peacefully and conduct yourself accordingly, whether you are Communist/Marxist radicals or fascist skin head, neo-Nazis, you are fine, but when you cross the line and descend into violence, then the law should descend upon you.  In Durham, NC, when a Civil War soldier’s memorial was pulled down, the crowd had no permission, no permit to even be there, much less the authority to pull down the statue, however offensive they all of the sudden thought it to be.  What is lost is that these statues have been on display for a century or so, and no one said anything, not blacks or whites, left or right.  We’re expected to believe that a mass consciousness awakening has occurred spontaneously.  Meanwhile the cops were somewhere nearby ordered to stand down by leftist local politicians, who are either as radical as the hell-raisers who tore down the statue, but don’t dare reveal themselves or too cowardly to act against them.  The mask has come off virtually everyone else from the ex-hippie turned grandparent, to the ignorant, idealistic student, to the long-tenured University professor.  All have succumbed to allure of the revolution.  Yet the political class still puts on airs to hide their radicalism, or is too cowardly to speak out.  We catch glimpses of Marxism in times of weakness and irrationality.  Just watch most speeches by Maxine Waters.  For the most part, leftist politicians have done a decent job at keeping their most vile views under wraps, but only relative to their constituents.  In years gone by, leftist politicians felt they had to hit the streets, give speeches and go to rallies to whip up a crowd, but not anymore.  The crowd has passed them by. The Marxist ideal of shutting down and destroying everything that offends the movement has developed a life of its own.  The movement is feeding on its own energy. This rudderless ship no longer needs political leadership, except for the ones capable of holding the authorities at bay.  President Trump assessed this correctly, that enough will never be enough for this rabble.  That is the definition of the radicals of the Antifa movement and their idiot followers in the new alt-left.  They don’t want peace; they don’t know what they want; only what they don’t want.

(“Leftist Radicals Just Want to Watch the World Burn” by Brent Smith dated August 18, 2017 published by Right Wing News at http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/leftist-radicals-just-want-watch-world-burn/ )

When the Democrat Party turned hard-left in Obama's second term, you would assume this meant courting the working class.  Democrats have not been the party of the working class for thirty years.  Republicans have been carrying white non-college graduates for 25 to 30 years, since long before Trump came onto the political scene.  Trump's achievement, with his trade and immigration proposals, was to increase the margin with those voters significantly in states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by appealing to those raised in union households who had been sticking with the Democrats.  The left abandoned reliance on workers even earlier in favor of getting money and power from misapplying the civil rights laws and staging shake-downs of corporate board rooms in the name of racial, sex, and homosexual grievances.  Still, Democrats continued to garner the support of organized labor, loyal to the party of FDR.  The Democrat media complex is flummoxed by Trump's success among working people, they believe their own propaganda that Republicans are the party of the rich, which is a big fat lie.  Education levels prove that Republicans are the party of America's middle and working class, while Democrats are the party of the extremes.  People who vote Democrat haven't graduated from high school or else tend to have post-graduate degrees.  The majority of high school graduates, people with some college, and people with a college degree are Republican.  Education largely determines class in this country.  A look at the actual voting statistics broken down by party and income shows this:

·    Party of middle class families earning $30-74,999: 17% more vote Republican;

·    Party of the white working class, those with a high school degree or some college:  22% more vote Republican; and

·    Party of the working poor: most are Republican.

It is the GOP that is largely funded by middle-class voters, with an average contribution of $50.  The very richest people in our country are mostly Democrats, as are the non-working poor.  The same goes for the richest members of Congress with eight out of the top 12 being Democrats.  Every recent Democrat presidential nominee has been a multimillionaire.  Much was made of George Bush's wealth, but how many voters knew that John Kerry was 13 times richer, at $200 million, or that the Ivy League lawyer Obama couple are millionaires?  The core constituents for the Democrats are not in working-class jobs, which explains why Democrats traded away those jobs to China and Mexico.  Yes, minorities and single women in the working class vote Democrat, but they have to compete for attention with the Democrats with money and privilege with trial lawyers; unionized teachers; and the crony capitalists of Wall Street, Hollywood, and Silicon Valley, and 20% of Obama's top bundlers were homosexual activists.  The working class, black and white, wants jobs, not ginned up grievances, and Democrats have not cared about jobs for a long time.

(“Democrats have not been the party of the working class for thirty years” by Kevin McQuillan dated August 12, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/democrats_working_class_thirty_years.html )

The Democrat party has morphed over time from being a party that was pro-labor; anti-greed; and, via the New Deal, a supporter of demand-side Keynesian economics to being the party that is against "The System" and anti-capitalist.  Instead of upholding national goals and national identity, it has taken the side of tribalism, where identity politics is the end-all and be-all.  The epicenter of this shift from being progressive or liberal to being neo-Marxist, neo-fascist, and subversive of too many established social, political, and economic norms began in the 1960s.  Conceptual and practical shifts, especially in the education philosophy, merged with other developments both in the anti-Vietnam War movement and in the drug culture.  Throwing excessive amounts of money at social and economic problems has become a norm, but it has not worked.  Then throw into the mix the anti-authority and anti-American pounding the left was giving the USA during the Vietnam War.  Their basic fear became rationalized as a righteous antagonism against a wicked, self-serving government. Thus liberals blame our educational institutions for student failure to learn, and blame society for its unwillingness to sufficiently support education, expanded to connect with the human potential movement.  Then those two streams intersected with the intense anti-authority stream of the antiwar movement.  These three streams in turn converged with a fourth that also began in the 1960s, namely, the counter-culture embrace of the expanding drug culture.  As these streams of antisocial and anti-authority ideology converged, they became a raging river, lasting until our very day.  That raging river is called "We Hate The System."  The system is the entire legal and economic structure that can be designated as capitalism combined with the legal and political structures of law roughly called "constitutionalism."  Constitutionalism includes (1) federalism, which balances the respective authority of the states and the federal government; (2) checks and balances among the three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial; and (3) the sociological unity founded on the more vaguely stated, yet nonetheless real, premises of one nation under God; protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and the abiding presence of natural and inalienable rights.  In this conceptual troika, personal liberty and responsibility are forever intertwined, with both the law and the individual receiving total respect, and each complementing the other.  Over the last 50 years, from the mid-sixties to the present, we are facing an attack on our cultural, political, social, legal, and economic identity, which has been embraced not merely by demonstrators or by an immature counter-culture, but rather, it has been embraced substantially by one of our two political parties, the Democrats.

(“The Goal of the Democratic Party: Overthrow of ‘The System’” by E. Jeffrey Ludwig dated August 16, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_goal_of_the_democratic_party_overthrow_of_the_system.html )

Republicans in Congress look pretty pathetic to many Americans, but even more pathetic is the Democrat Party, which is nothing these days but an anti-Trump circus.   This is a direct consequence of victimology run wild, geographic myopia, and the utter sterility of modern leftism.  Consider the "leaders" of the Democrat Party in the last election cycle: Hillary Clinton, who has done nothing of consequence her entire life, won the nomination based on the fact that she was an insider and an old, angry woman.  Moreover, She clearly committed a number of crimes related to her private email server and deleted files.  Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat floor leader in the House of Representatives, routinely makes egregious mistakes like referring to President Trump as President Bush.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz, once head of the DNC, now faces legal problems because she hired foreign nationals who also were criminals to handle her computer security.  Lois Lerner at the IRS was an equally obnoxious and stupid woman who included in her communication with subordinates the sort of nasty and bigoted comments about conservatives that would have led to criminal investigations if Washington were an honest place with objective people.  Loretta Lynch was just as hapless, just as bigoted, and just as silly as Lerner.  Both were examples of Democrats promoting leftist women far beyond their ability and their ethics to posts of power.  If the Democrat obsession with female victimology was not enough, the pathetic Democrats seem unable to look beyond those narrow strips of America of the Beltway and the Los Angeles and San Francisco regions of California.  While there are some areas of America that are genuinely "purple" in the red-blue division, they elected popular Republican governors (Susana Martinez, for example), Republican legislatures (Minnesota, for example), and states that defied leftist expectations and voted for Trump (Michigan and Pennsylvania, for example.)  Democrats seem to have forgotten that aside from Obama, the last four Democrat presidents came from Arkansas, Georgia, Texas, and Missouri, places smack-dab in the middle of Flyover Country, and that these Presidents, despite their many failures in other areas, spoke the language of ordinary hardworking Americans.  It is unthinkable that any of those four Presidents would have ever described one quarter of America as "deplorable" or snipe at a San Francisco party that there are Americans "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion."  Democrats do not know even how to begin to speak to those Americans whose votes control the Electoral College, the Senate, and the House.  Democrats also have virtually nothing substantive to say to America.  No one wants to hear the whining of notionally oppressed groups, and no one, except those already hardcore Democrats, wants to hear incessantly about imagined crimes by Trump.  Everyone also sees that the policies of the last fifty years, which is the legacy of the left even when implemented by Republicans, is a vast failure in every way.  Democrats who wanted to regain power would begin to dissect the cadaver of leftism to find out why it failed so badly.  This would require free and bright minds, and the Democrats have neither.  Can anyone name a single new idea Democrats have produced in the last decade or a single genuine critique of some area of leftism?  The left and the Democrat Party, which is its host in American politics, are utterly sterile.  There is not much reason to give plaudits to the Republican Party, except that it is not the Democrat Party, and it can produce original minds and independent politicians.  Republicans are destined to be the majority party in America for a generation or more, less by merit and more by default.  Democrats give Americans, outside the tiny slivers of land the left wholly infests, any reason to vote for them at all.

(“Pathetic Democrats” by Bruce Walker dated August 15, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/pathetic_democrats.html )

 

There are plenty of problems with the culture of victimhood, but one of them is that when people start identifying themselves and others primarily as members of victim (or oppressor) groups, it doesn't stop there.  What happens next is that the victim groups start being sorted out according to a perceived hierarchy of victimhood, who are the bigger victims?  People who belong to multiple victim groups claim extra victim points (“intersectionality”).  Members of each victim group start splitting that group up into smaller groups, based on the premise that the group is actually composed of several sub-groups, some of which are even more victimized than others.  Once begun, this process has no natural end: the sub-groups split into sub-sub-groups and so on, so that eventually you arrive at the point where you're back to the individual.  Only instead of having an individual identity based on your own distinctive virtues, failings, interests, personality traits, and so on, you've got an identity that's nothing but a checklist of all the groups you belong to, a checklist that determines your precise spot on the grievance ladder in relation to everybody else.  This kind of self-segregation is practiced by college student groups who self-segregate excluding membership to those who understand the same challenges.  Some advocate “light-skinned or white-passing” people of color (LSPOC) being treated differently than black, indigenous and people of color (BIPOC) because the latter are the bigger victims.  If Martin Luther King, Jr., were still around, he'd go berserk at the spectacle of all these free people who, fixated on matters that he told all of us half a century ago to leave behind, have put themselves back in chains.

(“The Mental Self-Oppression of Intersectional Racial Identity” by Bruce Bawer dated August 11, 2017 published by PJ Media at https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/11/the-mental-self-oppression-of-intersectional-racial-identity/ )

 

Identity Politics of all kinds are odious and poisonous to the individual, because if your value is your race or gender, you have branded yourself as someone of extraordinarily low value.  You can't expect a culture to praise all sorts of Identity Politics, flat-out racist groups and gender supremacists, but say that one group doesn't get to play by the same rules.  Either it's all poisonous garbage, or it's all got something of merit to it.  The media, and establishment right political class, cannot continue with this incoherent claim that Identity Politics are permissible for everyone except The One Group Which is Truly Odious and Cursed by God.  No one will accept his subordination without a fight of some kind.  We have a serious problem with leftwing identity politics thugs for years, with an increasing tempo of violence.  The most recent major example was the attempted assassination of a half-dozen Republican congressmen by a Bernie Sanders reporter.  This was described as an "alternate reality" where there is no problem with leftist violence or tribalistic hate politics, because it's perfectly acceptable for them, and we should say nothing about it.  I guess you can play #FakeNews #PretendOpposition as long as a billionaire patron is paying your bills.  After the Scalise shooting, the media, including the #FakeNews #PretendConservatives, only seemed willing to talk about leftwing violence if it equally condemning rightwing violence.  Now we have a situation of rightwing violence (and lots of antifa violence, too), but the #FakeConservatives now insist we can only talk about rightwing violence, and cannot, as they did previousl, discuss right and left violence in context, as two things that reinforce each other.  This is exactly the claim CNN’s Rachel Maddow makes.  I think a lot of these media shills have an Exit Strategy from the GOP planned, and I think it's time to hurry them to the door.

(“The Rise of Identity Politics Gives Birth, Get This, to a White Identity Politics as Well” by Ace dated August 14, 2017 published by Ace of Spades HQ at http://ace.mu.nu/archives/371122.php )

 

The phrase, “Women can do anything men can do,” seems at first to be a rather harmless sentiment, but as with all such, it has its uses, if not taken too far.  If men can be surgeons, then so can women.  If men can run a hardware store, then so can women.  Unfortunately, for leftist ideologues, there are no moderate positions on anything, because for them, you either agree with them in every detail, or else you are evil.  By now, you have surely read about the firing of James Damore, a software engineer at Google, who was fired for writing a thoughtful memo that questioned the wisdom of Google’s diversity policy.  The point of this commentary, is to remark on the insanity of it all.  According to leftist ideology, there are no legitimate reasons, legal or social, to distinguish between men and women.  We can set quotas that favor women, but that’s only because women are treated so unfairly.  Otherwise, we must pretend, as the late Betty Friedan claimed, that aside from external appearances (she called it, “packaging”), men and women are exactly the same in every relevant category.  Jumping from medieval concepts of chivalry, to a sexless society, cannot be done in the one fell swoop of an Equal Rights Amendment, if ever.  To deny that is to deny reality, both biological and social.  To hear the Left tell it, history is the chronicle of a massive and unfair conspiracy by men against women.  From time immemorial, with few exceptions, men have enslaved women, abused them, raped them, and prevented them from achieving their full potential as human beings.  Men have always overpowered less powerful men, as well.  Men are, on average, physically stronger than women, and thus are readily able to overpower them.  The fact that this truth may seem unfair does not overrule reality.  The differences between the sexes go much, much farther than that.  The most obvious and pervasive fact of sex differences is that women give birth, and men can’t.  The value of childbirth to a society cannot be overstated. Indeed, Western society’s forgetfulness on this matter is in large part responsible for the Muslim overrun of Europe.  The birth rate among ethnic European women in the West is dropping precipitously.  If childbirth rates decrease, then immigration is one way to compensate, but unwise immigration policy is disastrous.  Families and communities have an enormous stake in their daughters, a stake which resulted in their being regarded as chattel.  Daughters were valued for their ability to give birth, and giving birth to as many children as possible (to compensate for child deaths) was considered their duty, to both family and society.  Viewing this through the eyes of twenty-first-century feminist ideologues, the situation seems outrageous and unjust.  Male strength is far less relevant today than it was when Joan of Arc led men (but not women) into battle.  That fact can and should be taken into account when deciding whether to hire women to operate heavy machinery.  The morphing of roles has been far more extreme than that.  From same-sex so-called marriage, to so-called sex-change operations (which change no one’s sex), to the leftist redefinition of gender into fifty-seven varieties (which allow one person to continually change his/her/its sex-identity from minute to minute), the inmates are now running the asylum.  Many societies have risen and fallen throughout recorded history.  Many factors played a part, but this is something new.  It is difficult to imagine that any society can long survive after it loses its capacity to apply common sense to immutable reality.  Men and women are different, and that’s a good thing for both.

(“Women Can(‘t) Do Anything Men Can Do” by Robert Arvay dated August 12, 2017 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/women_cant_do_anything_men_can_do.html )

 

The brutal events in Charlottesville not only reveal a national tragedy but also a national hypocrisy.  We do not have to agree with what the Nazis and white nationalists stand for to defend their constitutional right to assemble and speak, because the courts have long ruled that even hate speech is protected speech.  Had there been no counter demonstration and media spotlight, a few hundred racists would have gathered in Charlottesville and had no impact on the national conversation.  Instead, they were met by the ongoing violence of the Antifa and the hate group Black Lives Matter and a police force that stood down, just as the campus police did when the Antifa attacked people at the University of California, Berkeley.  When James Alex Fields, a twenty-year-old from Ohio, used his car to maul people, he was immediately labeled a white nationalist and the mainstream media quickly indicted all white nationalists for the vehicular assault.  Yet, when Muslims, who created the vehicular intifada, run down people, the same media immediately cautions us not to indict all Muslims.  Should we indict all white nationalists for the actions of James Fields?  As it is with every major news story, it soon became a story about President Trump, just as his tough words about North Korea overshadowed the actual threat from its dictator, Kim Jong Un, who appears to be a modern version of the psychopathic Joseph Stalin.  President Trump was excoriated because he initially condemned all violence in Charlottesville and did not focus on the right.  MoveOn.org launched a petition calling on the president to condemn the far right, but not Black Lives Matter or the Antifa.  Apparently, violence from the right is bad, but violence from the left is acceptable.  It did not take long for President Trump to be blamed for the violence in Charlottesville.  No one in their right mind will blame the victims of Charlottesville for what happened to them.  No responsible commentator will say that the manifestations of white hatred, as in the indoctrination of “white privilege,” so evident on our campuses and in our media, are the causes of death and injury at Charlottesville.  To do so gives legitimacy, if not license, to violence.  Charlottesville is a university town, and the University of Virginia, like most universities, is constantly looking for justifications for banning speech from the right.  Invariably, the investigation will focus on these events to ban the alt-right, but as we know all too well, the definition of alt-right will become more and more fluid and will be used to censor anyone that the campus left finds at variance with its ideology.

(“Hypocrisy at Charlotteville” by Abraham H. Miller dated August 15, 2017 published by The American Spectator at https://spectator.org/hypocrisy-at-charlottesville/ )

From warnings of “fire and fury” to declarations of “locked and loaded,” President Trump is dealing with the North Korean crisis his way.  Nearly seven months into Trump’s term, it’s not just the irredeemable haters who can’t accept the outcome of the election.  Even otherwise sensible people refuse to come to grips with the meaning of Trump’s victory.  Voters wanted change, but Washington doesn’t, and that clash of wants defines the endless war over the Trump presidency.  How that clash revolves around the potential for an actual war, a nuclear one at that.  Because the results would be catastrophic, it is worth recalling how we got to this moment of brinksmanship.  Perhaps the Democrats missed Kim’s threats and their significance now that he has nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland.  After successfully testing an ICBM last July, Kim said it was a “gift” to the “American bastards” and promised many more gifts.  Other provocations include a state video showing North Korean nuclear missiles blowing up Washington, DC, and threats against South Korea and Japan.  The latest was a vow to attack Guam.  Given Kim’s warnings and his arsenal, the really odd thing isn’t that Trump is asserting American military supremacy and the willingness to use it if necessary; it’s that his predecessors didn’t.  The three previous presidents over a combined 24 years, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, all followed near-identical paths, and all failed to stop the North Korean nuclear program.  All three used diplomacy as a euphemism for kicking the can down the road.  Yet instead of recognizing those decades of failure for what they are and conceding that the situation has changed because the current Kim has weapons of mass destruction and the ability to strike American cities, the establishment is horrified that Trump would dare take a different approach.  Lost in the manufactured outrage over his comments is that Trump offered to meet Kim, and pushed China to rein in its client state.  Aides continue to conduct back-channel negotiations and talk of wanting to avoid war.  To concede those facts would muddy their jihad against the president.  Yet there is actually something worse than the assaults on Trump: Susan Rice, Obama’s national security advisor, suggested that we must tolerate nuclear weapons in North Korea, as the next generation of liberal appeasement.  Publicly, it opposed those programs, but privately, it obviously prepared to accept them.  Now North Korea has achieved its nuclear and missile breakout, and Iran will, too, thanks to the running room it got under the cover of Obama’s flawed pact.  A popular definition of insanity comes to mind, “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”  All the sophistry in the world can’t obscure the result: To wit, the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize left the globe a far more dangerous place because of his leading-from-behind fecklessness.  The entire episode is another example of the crisis of our democracy that led to Trump’s victory.  Is our sprawling government capable of reforming itself and confronting the urgent problems of national security and the economy?  Our country is so hopelessly hidebound and our politics so polarized that we can do nothing except tear ourselves apart, even as our adversaries vow to smash America into the dustbin of history.

(“DC hasn’t come to grips with Trump’s presidency” by Michael Goodwin dated August 12, 2017 published by New York Post at http://nypost.com/2017/08/12/dc-hasnt-come-to-grips-with-trumps-presidency/ )

 

There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news.  I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning.  Updates have been made this week to the following sections:

·  Elections at http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/dp/elections.php

 

David Coughlin

Hawthorne, NY

http://www.returntocommonsensesite.com/

 

RTCS