Van Harvey

  • “We are Americans first” – Really? The first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting you have one.

    I saw President Trump’s statement on the rioting in Virginia, and it was as good and as to the point, as can be expected. But unfortunately, it rested upon the line

    ‘We are Americans first’

    They say that the first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting that you have one. Well, we have a problem, and the problem is that I fear that phrase is not only no longer true, but is perilously close to having no meaning at all. Why? Because in order to truthfully say that we are Americans first, a person has to first be able to say:

    American

    , with some understanding of the word that’s coming out of their mouth. From what I can see, in looking at what other words are coming out of people’s mouths, I’m seeing very little to indicate that most of us do know the meaning of American, beyond the shallow legalistic sense of having been born within the geographic borders of the United States… and if that’s the extent of your understanding, when you come up against racist organizations advocating for ‘America‘… well… do you see the problem?

    Sure, you’re given a legal status by being born within our borders, but you do not, in any meaningful sense, become an American by such means alone, at least not in a way that is any different from how a person becomes a German or a Russian, i.e. by being born of parents on American soil – aka: by ‘blood and soil’, which, BTW, also happens to be the traditional rallying cry of fascists.

    Now do you see the problem there?

    Being an American that understands the meaning of that word, American, requires understanding that the meaning of that word, is not gained by means of osmosis through your ancestors blood, or through the soil that your mother gave birth to you upon, which were features and events which you yourself had absolutely no hand in, knowledge of, or choice in. If that and your “[insert your favorite color here] Pride!“, are the extent of your claim to being an American, then you are not, in that more meaningful sense, an American.

    To understand what it does mean to be an American, means understanding, and accepting as best you can, the fruit of that particular set of ideas that were expressed in our Declaration of Independence, especially, that:

    “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”

    Those phrases of our Declaration, have deep philosophical meaning, which gives voice to the meaning and purpose of America, and yet, as Jefferson later wrote to a friend, they weren’t meant to be especially impressive, or ‘deep’, or as an exercise in edgy literary or philosophical virtue signaling, but simply as expressions of something much more commonly profound:

    “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c…”

    If those ideas and ‘harmonizing sentiments’ or the ‘elementary books of public right’ are foreign to you, then you necessarily stand mute before them, making you intellectually, and spiritually, foreign to America, no matter what the legal status of your physical ties to its ‘blood and soil‘ are.

    Am I being too harsh in this? If we look about the land today, what evidence do we find for the sentiment that ‘We are Americans first’? If we look to Charlottesville, Virginia, for instance, what did we see on display there last weekend? When I look at the center of these heinous events, I’m seeing prime reasons for the fears that I’m talking about, as racist, socialist, anti-American sentiments were on display in abundance, with very few visible examples of those ‘Harmonizing Sentiments’ which are what made it possible for the contents of our melting pot, to want to see themselves as being “Americans first.”

    For Instance:

    • Looking to ‘The Right’, we see, the Alt-Right, KKK (an organization formed at the end of the Civil War by Democrats, after losing a war against those harmonizing sentiments of the Declaration of Independence), neo-nazi racists, who by their very claims to being superior to others by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), are the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American – they hold explicitly anti-American beliefs – seriously, it doesn’t get much more anti-American than holding a goddamned Nazi fire light parades (which, BTW, they had a lawful permit to do, and which Govt has no power to prevent (see 1st Amdt)), and they were carrying out this abomination on American soil, through a college, while claiming to be ‘standing up’ for something called ‘white culture’. Having read some examples of what they mean by that, I can say that such notions of culture as theirs, have more to do with what’s grown in a untended Petri dish, than with those achievements of Western Culture that they are likely attempting to appropriate, and to take credit for by virtue of their ‘blood & soil’.
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, we see ‘counter-demonstrators’ which include supporters of Black Lives Matter, who include racists who call for days without whites, and demand reparations by virtue of being black… IOW, they make claims of being entitled to privileges which others do not, by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), which is also the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American (a status which can only be had by understanding and choice) who came to Charlottesville from across the country, for the purpose of using force and violence to oppose, disrupt and shut down a lawfully permitted demonstration (which, BTW, is a criminal and fascistic tactic), and to show their opposition to the white racists – not for being racists, as they themselves are racist as well, but for favoring the ‘wrong’ color code in their racist stance – they are a rival team in the same league – while also claiming to ‘stand up’ for either nihil no culture (Antifa or Black Bloc Anarchists), or for something called ‘black culture’… and again, such notions of culture have more to do with what develops in a Petri dish, than with what the likes of a Martin Luther King, George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglas, would’ve recognized as being worthwhile culture (which for them, was Western Culture).
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, and to ‘The Right’, we see among the protesters and ‘counter-demonstrators’ of BLM, Antifa, KKK, Alt-Right, a vociferous opposition to the idea ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights‘, a violent opposition to the right of freedom of Speech and the willingness to use violence to suppress it, and violent opposition to the right to peaceful assembly and association, opposition to banking, free trade and a free market, under our Constitution and an objective Rule of Law. All sides have a fervent support for one variant or another, on the theme of the socialistic centralization of power, in opposition to upholding individual rights and property rights for all, under a constitutional Rule of Law, to promote the interests of a favored few.

    The fact is, that there is nothing in the nature of a measurable separation of views, existing between these supposedly ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ groups, as that which the European scale of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ presumes a wide separation of fundamental beliefs: that is not the case here! It is foolish for us to continue using that yardstick to measure our political climate with. These groups which we so carelessly call ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, share the very same fundamental ideals, they share the same excuses for ‘principles’, they differ only in subjective and arbitrary preferences of skin color, traditions and cultural icons. Neither of these groups are, or see themselves as, ‘Americans first‘, not in any meaningful sense – they cannot, as they both seek to centralize power into the outstretched hands of the federal govt, so as to impose their preference at the expense of all of their fellow Americans’ individual rights and powers. That is Anti-American. Period. They are two wings of the same tyrannical monster, whose wings were flapping so horrifically in Virginia, this weekend.

    But of course we shouldn’t confine our search to Charlottesville alone – how about if we expand our search to those governing our nation? Bad news there too, for we’ve got members of Congress there who’re begging for our attention, as was clearly and forcefully demonstrated earlier in the same week, when a sitting United States Congresswomen, one who has a seat on the ‘Homeland Security’ board, ‘came out’ on Twitter to declare that the NRA, because of the viral ad campaign of its spokesperson Dana Loesch, that they are all ‘quickly becoming a domestic security threat‘!

    I’m just going to say it. #NRA & @DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.

    — Kathleen Rice (@RepKathleenRice) August 11, 2017

    This, for their ads which have denounced the violent actions of the left wing extremists, which mainstream left wing individuals and organizations have lauded, and called for meeting their violence and lies, with… prepare for it: ‘The clenched fist of Truth’… which, in case you missed it, means using: Words.

    Such comments go far beyond simple political partisanship. This Representative, elected into the United States Government, who is directly and indirectly, representative of a sizable portion of our populace, is denouncing large swaths of her fellow members of We The People, for exercising some of those individual rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment, those of speech and association, in order to protect those rights of baring arms in self defense that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, Amendments which were first formulated to embody the ‘harmonizing sentiments of the day’, and which We The People insisted be amended to our Constitution, in order for it to be ratified. IOW, for defending those causal principles of America, and for calling out those who are abusing those rights which the Bill of Rights were placed there to defend, for that, Dana Loesch, and every member of the NRA, are being afrighted by officials of the Govt that was established to uphold and defend those very rights, as being potential domestic security threats.

    Well, you might say, what if we look to that area of private enterprise that’s specifically protected under our Constitution, the Press? Unfortunately, in at least one of those institutions that enjoys the 1st Amendments protections for ‘freedom of the press‘, the New York Times, has also blatantly taken up the attack upon both Dana and the NRA, for their criticizing the shabbiness of their work, by deliberately misconstruing a word in their promise to ‘Fisk the New York Times’ (‘Fisk’ being an Internet term which means to conduct a line-by-line cross examination of a statement), as being their intention to do sexual violence by means of ‘fisting‘ the New York Times (!). And we needn’t look too hard to find reams of similar comments and sentiments, being expressed in the Washington Post, the electronic news media, the entertainment industry, Academia, and so on.

    So, we’ve got members of the Govt that are actively opposing its own citizens the exercising their rights as protected under the 1st Amdt, in defense of those rights protected under the 2nd Amdt, and we have representatives of that institution which the Constitution specifically protects in order to exercise whatever oversight is needed to keep Govt in its place, the Press, who are joining in on the undermining and abusing of those central individual rights that are protected under their patron 1st Amendment.

    If supporters of the NRA are threats, it is not to America, but to those alien ideas that are seeking to displace it, in the open minds of those who no longer see themselves as Americans first.

    But wait, there’s more! When President Trump first spoke about the evil events in Charlottseville,

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

    , he was rebuked for not naming every particular organization devoted to hatred, bigotry and violence, and similarly picked over on each subsequent comment. But most of all, he’s being criticized for daring to observe that there was bad behavior on each side. We also have, not only the usual suspects in the MSM, but seemingly every republican politician eager to preen and primp their moral outrage before the voting public, because Trump dared to note the FACT that there was bad behavior on all sides. IOW, feelings trump truth. That too, is incompatible with being ‘Americans first’.

    If these people were a mere minority among a majority of people who do understand that ‘We are all Americans first‘, then we’d expect to see evidence of a majority of people who were educated in those ‘harmonizing sentiments’ of the Declaration of Independence, and familiar with the hard and difficult two centuries of history between then and now, who would be willing and able to call these frauds out for their intellectual equivalence of stolen valor – Right? You’d expect that they would be able to say loudly and proudly, that if you don’t believe in individual rights for all, then you are all wrong. Period.

    But there is hardly a peep. Oh sure, some of them (if easily portrayed as ‘the right’) are denounced, but there are no actual reasons given, only cheap partisan name calling, and there’s a reason for that – one wing, BLM/Antifa, is but the mirror reflection of the other, Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi, on either side of a monstrous and tyrannical core.

    There is no justification for either group, from either wing, or for anyone else who clings to such an ignorant and primitive rage  as racism is, as a cause to rally their lives around, and are unworthy of tainting the blood and soil of this land that has been hallowed by the blood of those who struggled, fought and died for its ideals, not its mud. But having no justification for their views, is not the same thing as having no right to them, or that our Constitution doesn’t protect their right to be unrighteous – they do, and it does, and central to being an American, is understanding that.

    These people, the racists, the neo-Nazis, the Alt-Right, Rep. Rice and the New York Times, and those members of We The People who are aligned with them, do not seem to me to understand what is meant by ‘We are all Americans‘. Who these people are, are the unappetizing leftovers of what naturally remains of humanity, when those higher ideals of justice and liberty that are the culmination of 3,000 years of Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian history, ideals which America was formed in order to exemplify, are absent from the minds of those who are ‘American’ by ‘blood and soil’ alone.

    And leading the effort to actively remove those ideals and all they depend upon, have been the pro-regressive Left in our colleges, the pro-regressive Right in our business leaders, and their respective government functionaries, who’ve all been eager to reap easy political gains through the lucrative process of scholastically de-Americanizing America of Americans.

    On the bright side (brightness being a relative term, when surrounded by darkness), they do look absolutely ridiculous as they attempt to appropriate the appearances of Western decency and manners, as the Left dons pink pussy hats and vagina costumes to protest the crude behavior of the President, as the Alt-Right marches for ‘pride’ while emulating friggin’ Nazis (!), while ‘The Right’ claims to be fighting for what’s right, after having taken Jonathan Gruber’s bargain of ObamaCare for the power to put their own pragmatic stamp upon it, as long as they can be the ones in control over its power, over you.

    No, unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, that wherever I look, to ‘The Left’, or to ‘The Right’, or to entertainment, academia, or to our own government, I don’t find an over abundance of people who think of themselves as ‘Americans first’, but only people who have accustomed us to a new normal of violent anti-Americanism, where this new freedom of sincere violence, over freedom of speech, is to now be found acceptable across the land. These ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ wings being spread in the spirit of Lenin and Hitler, do not rest, and they do not in any way sit separated at either end of a long European scale, but are visibly joined together around a narrow body of a monstrous core belief in centralizing power to ‘do good’ to those who must endure it, whose ‘left’ wing and ‘right’ wing are in ‘principle’ in full agreement, and separated only by narrow particular preferences, such as which color to champion, and which flavor of totalitarianism, to impose – they are, as I said above, but rival teams in the same wannabe totalitarian league.

    We have degraded, discarded and turned our back upon those concepts and ideas which formed the laws that America was formed from. And as God told the Israelites, when they chose to follow a King, rather than The Law he gave them –

    ‘You’re on your own.’

    The disasters that will follow the vanishing Americans, will be unavoidable self fulfilling sophistries, unless we again learn what being an American means, and then be able again to see ourselves as being Americans first, which leaves plenty of room for our many arguments to follow after that. Someone unironically asked “Can’t we all just get along?“, and the answer is ‘No, we can’t‘, which is the reason why we have a government formed from our Constitution, so that, no matter how ridiculous or despicable that I might think that you are, your right to be that isn’t threatened by my disapproval of you. That is central to being an American, and there can be no America, without that understanding being first in our minds.

    We have to fix that first, or we can fughedaboudit.

    The most tragic part is, that it is ridiculously easy to fix that, to harmonize our sentiments with those ‘elementary books of public right‘, but only if we first admit to having the problem, that we are not now a people who see themselves as being Americans first.

    I just hope that enough of us do still want to be.

  • “We are Americans first” – Really? The first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting you have one.

    I saw President Trump’s statement on the rioting in Virginia, and it was as good and as to the point, as can be expected. But unfortunately, it rested upon the line

    ‘We are Americans first’

    They say that the first step towards resolving a problem, is admitting that you have one. Well, we have a problem, and the problem is that I fear that phrase is not only no longer true, but is perilously close to having no meaning at all. Why? Because in order to truthfully say that we are Americans first, a person has to first be able to say:

    American

    , with some understanding of the word that’s coming out of their mouth. From what I can see, in looking at what other words are coming out of people’s mouths, I’m seeing very little to indicate that most of us do know the meaning of American, beyond the shallow legalistic sense of having been born within the geographic borders of the United States… and if that’s the extent of your understanding, when you come up against racist organizations advocating for ‘America‘… well… do you see the problem?

    Sure, you’re given a legal status by being born within our borders, but you do not, in any meaningful sense, become an American by such means alone, at least not in a way that is any different from how a person becomes a German or a Russian, i.e. by being born of parents on American soil – aka: by ‘blood and soil’, which, BTW, also happens to be the traditional rallying cry of fascists.

    Now do you see the problem there?

    Being an American that understands the meaning of that word, American, requires understanding that the meaning of that word, is not gained by means of osmosis through your ancestors blood, or through the soil that your mother gave birth to you upon, which were features and events which you yourself had absolutely no hand in, knowledge of, or choice in. If that and your “[insert your favorite color here] Pride!“, are the extent of your claim to being an American, then you are not, in that more meaningful sense, an American.

    To understand what it does mean to be an American, means understanding, and accepting as best you can, the fruit of that particular set of ideas that were expressed in our Declaration of Independence, especially, that:

    “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….”

    Those phrases of our Declaration, have deep philosophical meaning, which gives voice to the meaning and purpose of America, and yet, as Jefferson later wrote to a friend, they weren’t meant to be especially impressive, or ‘deep’, or as an exercise in edgy literary or philosophical virtue signaling, but simply as expressions of something much more commonly profound:

    “Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c…”

    If those ideas and ‘harmonizing sentiments’ or the ‘elementary books of public right’ are foreign to you, then you necessarily stand mute before them, making you intellectually, and spiritually, foreign to America, no matter what the legal status of your physical ties to its ‘blood and soil‘ are.

    Am I being too harsh in this? If we look about the land today, what evidence do we find for the sentiment that ‘We are Americans first’? If we look to Charlottesville, Virginia, for instance, what did we see on display there last weekend? When I look at the center of these heinous events, I’m seeing prime reasons for the fears that I’m talking about, as racist, socialist, anti-American sentiments were on display in abundance, with very few visible examples of those ‘Harmonizing Sentiments’ which are what made it possible for the contents of our melting pot, to want to see themselves as being “Americans first.”

    For Instance:

    • Looking to ‘The Right’, we see, the Alt-Right, KKK (an organization formed at the end of the Civil War by Democrats, after losing a war against those harmonizing sentiments of the Declaration of Independence), neo-nazi racists, who by their very claims to being superior to others by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), are the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American – they hold explicitly anti-American beliefs – seriously, it doesn’t get much more anti-American than holding a goddamned Nazi fire light parades (which, BTW, they had a lawful permit to do, and which Govt has no power to prevent (see 1st Amdt)), and they were carrying out this abomination on American soil, through a college, while claiming to be ‘standing up’ for something called ‘white culture’. Having read some examples of what they mean by that, I can say that such notions of culture as theirs, have more to do with what’s grown in a untended Petri dish, than with those achievements of Western Culture that they are likely attempting to appropriate, and to take credit for by virtue of their ‘blood & soil’.
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, we see ‘counter-demonstrators’ which include supporters of Black Lives Matter, who include racists who call for days without whites, and demand reparations by virtue of being black… IOW, they make claims of being entitled to privileges which others do not, by virtue of being born as, and where, they were (‘blood & soil’), which is also the fervent antithesis to what it means to be an American (a status which can only be had by understanding and choice) who came to Charlottesville from across the country, for the purpose of using force and violence to oppose, disrupt and shut down a lawfully permitted demonstration (which, BTW, is a criminal and fascistic tactic), and to show their opposition to the white racists – not for being racists, as they themselves are racist as well, but for favoring the ‘wrong’ color code in their racist stance – they are a rival team in the same league – while also claiming to ‘stand up’ for either nihil no culture (Antifa or Black Bloc Anarchists), or for something called ‘black culture’… and again, such notions of culture have more to do with what develops in a Petri dish, than with what the likes of a Martin Luther King, George Washington Carver or Fredrick Douglas, would’ve recognized as being worthwhile culture (which for them, was Western Culture).
    • Looking to ‘The Left’, and to ‘The Right’, we see among the protesters and ‘counter-demonstrators’ of BLM, Antifa, KKK, Alt-Right, a vociferous opposition to the idea ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights‘, a violent opposition to the right of freedom of Speech and the willingness to use violence to suppress it, and violent opposition to the right to peaceful assembly and association, opposition to banking, free trade and a free market, under our Constitution and an objective Rule of Law. All sides have a fervent support for one variant or another, on the theme of the socialistic centralization of power, in opposition to upholding individual rights and property rights for all, under a constitutional Rule of Law, to promote the interests of a favored few.

    The fact is, that there is nothing in the nature of a measurable separation of views, existing between these supposedly ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ groups, as that which the European scale of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ presumes a wide separation of fundamental beliefs: that is not the case here! It is foolish for us to continue using that yardstick to measure our political climate with. These groups which we so carelessly call ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, share the very same fundamental ideals, they share the same excuses for ‘principles’, they differ only in subjective and arbitrary preferences of skin color, traditions and cultural icons. Neither of these groups are, or see themselves as, ‘Americans first‘, not in any meaningful sense – they cannot, as they both seek to centralize power into the outstretched hands of the federal govt, so as to impose their preference at the expense of all of their fellow Americans’ individual rights and powers. That is Anti-American. Period. They are two wings of the same tyrannical monster, whose wings were flapping so horrifically in Virginia, this weekend.

    But of course we shouldn’t confine our search to Charlottesville alone – how about if we expand our search to those governing our nation? Bad news there too, for we’ve got members of Congress there who’re begging for our attention, as was clearly and forcefully demonstrated earlier in the same week, when a sitting United States Congresswomen, one who has a seat on the ‘Homeland Security’ board, ‘came out’ on Twitter to declare that the NRA, because of the viral ad campaign of its spokesperson Dana Loesch, that they are all ‘quickly becoming a domestic security threat‘!

    I’m just going to say it. #NRA & @DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.

    — Kathleen Rice (@RepKathleenRice) August 11, 2017

    This, for their ads which have denounced the violent actions of the left wing extremists, which mainstream left wing individuals and organizations have lauded, and called for meeting their violence and lies, with… prepare for it: ‘The clenched fist of Truth’… which, in case you missed it, means using: Words.

    Such comments go far beyond simple political partisanship. This Representative, elected into the United States Government, who is directly and indirectly, representative of a sizable portion of our populace, is denouncing large swaths of her fellow members of We The People, for exercising some of those individual rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment, those of speech and association, in order to protect those rights of baring arms in self defense that are protected by the 2nd Amendment, Amendments which were first formulated to embody the ‘harmonizing sentiments of the day’, and which We The People insisted be amended to our Constitution, in order for it to be ratified. IOW, for defending those causal principles of America, and for calling out those who are abusing those rights which the Bill of Rights were placed there to defend, for that, Dana Loesch, and every member of the NRA, are being afrighted by officials of the Govt that was established to uphold and defend those very rights, as being potential domestic security threats.

    Well, you might say, what if we look to that area of private enterprise that’s specifically protected under our Constitution, the Press? Unfortunately, in at least one of those institutions that enjoys the 1st Amendments protections for ‘freedom of the press‘, the New York Times, has also blatantly taken up the attack upon both Dana and the NRA, for their criticizing the shabbiness of their work, by deliberately misconstruing a word in their promise to ‘Fisk the New York Times’ (‘Fisk’ being an Internet term which means to conduct a line-by-line cross examination of a statement), as being their intention to do sexual violence by means of ‘fisting‘ the New York Times (!). And we needn’t look too hard to find reams of similar comments and sentiments, being expressed in the Washington Post, the electronic news media, the entertainment industry, Academia, and so on.

    So, we’ve got members of the Govt that are actively opposing its own citizens the exercising their rights as protected under the 1st Amdt, in defense of those rights protected under the 2nd Amdt, and we have representatives of that institution which the Constitution specifically protects in order to exercise whatever oversight is needed to keep Govt in its place, the Press, who are joining in on the undermining and abusing of those central individual rights that are protected under their patron 1st Amendment.

    If supporters of the NRA are threats, it is not to America, but to those alien ideas that are seeking to displace it, in the open minds of those who no longer see themselves as Americans first.

    But wait, there’s more! When President Trump first spoke about the evil events in Charlottseville,

    “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides.”

    , he was rebuked for not naming every particular organization devoted to hatred, bigotry and violence, and similarly picked over on each subsequent comment. But most of all, he’s being criticized for daring to observe that there was bad behavior on each side. We also have, not only the usual suspects in the MSM, but seemingly every republican politician eager to preen and primp their moral outrage before the voting public, because Trump dared to note the FACT that there was bad behavior on all sides. IOW, feelings trump truth. That too, is incompatible with being ‘Americans first’.

    If these people were a mere minority among a majority of people who do understand that ‘We are all Americans first‘, then we’d expect to see evidence of a majority of people who were educated in those ‘harmonizing sentiments’ of the Declaration of Independence, and familiar with the hard and difficult two centuries of history between then and now, who would be willing and able to call these frauds out for their intellectual equivalence of stolen valor – Right? You’d expect that they would be able to say loudly and proudly, that if you don’t believe in individual rights for all, then you are all wrong. Period.

    But there is hardly a peep. Oh sure, some of them (if easily portrayed as ‘the right’) are denounced, but there are no actual reasons given, only cheap partisan name calling, and there’s a reason for that – one wing, BLM/Antifa, is but the mirror reflection of the other, Alt-Right/Neo-Nazi, on either side of a monstrous and tyrannical core.

    There is no justification for either group, from either wing, or for anyone else who clings to such an ignorant and primitive rage  as racism is, as a cause to rally their lives around, and are unworthy of tainting the blood and soil of this land that has been hallowed by the blood of those who struggled, fought and died for its ideals, not its mud. But having no justification for their views, is not the same thing as having no right to them, or that our Constitution doesn’t protect their right to be unrighteous – they do, and it does, and central to being an American, is understanding that.

    These people, the racists, the neo-Nazis, the Alt-Right, Rep. Rice and the New York Times, and those members of We The People who are aligned with them, do not seem to me to understand what is meant by ‘We are all Americans‘. Who these people are, are the unappetizing leftovers of what naturally remains of humanity, when those higher ideals of justice and liberty that are the culmination of 3,000 years of Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian history, ideals which America was formed in order to exemplify, are absent from the minds of those who are ‘American’ by ‘blood and soil’ alone.

    And leading the effort to actively remove those ideals and all they depend upon, have been the pro-regressive Left in our colleges, the pro-regressive Right in our business leaders, and their respective government functionaries, who’ve all been eager to reap easy political gains through the lucrative process of scholastically de-Americanizing America of Americans.

    On the bright side (brightness being a relative term, when surrounded by darkness), they do look absolutely ridiculous as they attempt to appropriate the appearances of Western decency and manners, as the Left dons pink pussy hats and vagina costumes to protest the crude behavior of the President, as the Alt-Right marches for ‘pride’ while emulating friggin’ Nazis (!), while ‘The Right’ claims to be fighting for what’s right, after having taken Jonathan Gruber’s bargain of ObamaCare for the power to put their own pragmatic stamp upon it, as long as they can be the ones in control over its power, over you.

    No, unfortunately, I’m sorry to say, that wherever I look, to ‘The Left’, or to ‘The Right’, or to entertainment, academia, or to our own government, I don’t find an over abundance of people who think of themselves as ‘Americans first’, but only people who have accustomed us to a new normal of violent anti-Americanism, where this new freedom of sincere violence, over freedom of speech, is to now be found acceptable across the land. These ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ wings being spread in the spirit of Lenin and Hitler, do not rest, and they do not in any way sit separated at either end of a long European scale, but are visibly joined together around a narrow body of a monstrous core belief in centralizing power to ‘do good’ to those who must endure it, whose ‘left’ wing and ‘right’ wing are in ‘principle’ in full agreement, and separated only by narrow particular preferences, such as which color to champion, and which flavor of totalitarianism, to impose – they are, as I said above, but rival teams in the same wannabe totalitarian league.

    We have degraded, discarded and turned our back upon those concepts and ideas which formed the laws that America was formed from. And as God told the Israelites, when they chose to follow a King, rather than The Law he gave them –

    ‘You’re on your own.’

    The disasters that will follow the vanishing Americans, will be unavoidable self fulfilling sophistries, unless we again learn what being an American means, and then be able again to see ourselves as being Americans first, which leaves plenty of room for our many arguments to follow after that. Someone unironically asked “Can’t we all just get along?“, and the answer is ‘No, we can’t‘, which is the reason why we have a government formed from our Constitution, so that, no matter how ridiculous or despicable that I might think that you are, your right to be that isn’t threatened by my disapproval of you. That is central to being an American, and there can be no America, without that understanding being first in our minds.

    We have to fix that first, or we can fughedaboudit.

    The most tragic part is, that it is ridiculously easy to fix that, to harmonize our sentiments with those ‘elementary books of public right‘, but only if we first admit to having the problem, that we are not now a people who see themselves as being Americans first.

    I just hope that enough of us do still want to be.

  • GOP to America: If you like your Repeal, you can keep your Repeal

    GOP to America: If you like your Repeal, you can keep your Repeal.


    Conservatives to GOP in 2018: If you like your Elected Office, you can keep your Elected Office.

    Occupants of geographic America: If you like your Liberty, you can keep your Liberty.

    The Catch-22 Republic:

    “…And for this reason, I said, money and honour have no attraction for them; good men do not wish to be openly demanding payment for governing and so to get the name of hirelings, nor by secretly helping themselves out of the public revenues to get the name of thieves. And not being ambitious they do not care about honour. Wherefore necessity must be laid upon them, and they must be induced to serve from the fear of punishment. And this, as I imagine, is the reason why the forwardness to take office, instead of waiting to be compelled, has been deemed dishonourable. Now the worst part of the punishment is that he who refuses to rule is liable to be ruled by one who is worse than himself. And the fear of this, as I conceive, induces the good to take office, not because they would, but because they cannot help –not under the idea that they are going to have any benefit or enjoyment themselves, but as a necessity, and because they are not able to commit the task of ruling to any one who is better than themselves, or indeed as good. For there is reason to think that if a city were composed entirely of good men, then to avoid office would be as much an object of contention as to obtain office is at present; then we should have plain proof that the true ruler is not meant by nature to regard his own interest, but that of his subjects; and every one who knew this would choose rather to receive a benefit from another than to have the trouble of conferring one. So far am I from agreeing with Thrasymachus that justice is the interest of the stronger. This latter question need not be further discussed at present; but when Thrasymachus says that the life of the unjust is more advantageous than that of the just, his new statement appears to me to be of a far more serious character. Which of us has spoken truly? And which sort of life, Glaucon, do you prefer?…”

    Which do you prefer?

    What chance do you think there is that you’ll get it?

    Carry on.

  • When the Truth burns, turn up the heat!

    For some reason, the Pro-Regressive Left, and the feminists in particular, have been targeting Dana Loesch lately, which… is a 50/50 proposition. If they wanted to get publicity, well, ok, sure. But if they were hoping to look like something other than idiots in doing so… it’s hasn’t proven to be such a good idea.

    More puzzling, is that they are claiming to be a movement that’s ‘pro-women’ and ‘anti-violence’, while going after Dana, in the company of people who are the most abusive to women (those who are eager to bag, beat, mutilate, deprive them of their rights and otherwise abuse women) for political and religious reasons, and those who’d like nothing more than to see women, and their children, disarmed, even if at the cost of their own lives – to score political points.

    But maybe most amazing, is that they accuse Dana of ‘violent rhetoric’, when, in the case of the NRA video that started it all, she’s speaking in front videos of the Pro-Regressive Left’s violent, nationwide demonstrations and rioting, as she’s calling for meeting their lies and vitriol, not with the violence that they prefer, but with Truth, and yeah, necessarily, the ‘clenched fist of truth‘, and the only way to claim that being hit with the truth is violence, is if it burns them physically (not just mentally).

    These groups are led by the likes of Linda Sarsour, who have endorsed jihad, participated in terrorism, and who are especially enthusiastic about using their freedom of speech, to denounce your freedom of speech, with their own vile, racist, mysoginistic and misandrist language (maybe that’s what they mean by ‘sexual equality’?), in political action groups of hyper-partisan self-segregating women (they refuse to associate with women who disagree with them politically), in order to promote the suffocation of liberty, through your political or religious submission.

    Fortunately, Dana is proficient in exercising all of her rights, and has an effective one-two combination of those rights protected under the 1st and 2nd Amendment, that doesn’t mince any words:

    “To Women’s March organizers Tamika Mallory, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez: You don’t get to call me a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe or xenophobe when a man you look up to and call honorable and hold hands with and take selfies with represents the exact type of bigot you pretend to march against. If you want to stop hate, start with your mentor, Daddy Farrakhan. If you feel you’re “not safe,” go tell Daddy Farrakhan to tone down his divisive, racial rhetoric. Ladies, you have the power to end Daddy Farrakhan’s hate-filled propaganda. Plan a march. I’ll be there. Watch my full commentary on Farrakhan’s Anarchist Angels on NRATV.”

    Yeah… they’re not the smartest bunch of nuts.

    Nationwide Protest

    If you’d like to watch the fun as their own unreasoning vitriol explodes in their faces, tune in to Data’s radio show tomorrow, or catch it in a live simulcast on Facebook.

    #NRA2DOJ

  • Trumping Alinsky pt 1 – Ward Cleaver meets Al Bundy

    Have you wondered how it is, that the pro-regressive’s best tried and true tactics, tactics that have proven so highly effective at hamstringing their targets over the course of the past 50+ years, have suddenly begun to fail them so publicly? And although, so far, they’ve been unable to lay a solid glove, or even a lasting tweet, on Donald Trump (and no, second hand rumors of Russians do neither), he’s hardly the only example, just the most persistent day to day one. Think Brexit, Trump, the body slamming Montana maniac, Rep. Gianforte, or James Comey being fired, or James Comey leaking his own memos, or James Comey attempting to sabotage Trump, and fingering former Attorney General Lynch, instead, which even Chris ‘thrill running up my leg!‘ Matthews had to admit, has made their entire Russian angle, go bust.

    What’s up with that?

    If you wonder on that long enough to ask some questions, and long enough to move on from those initial questions, to still other questions (and I do mean questions, mind you, not merely doubts), you might find that they will bring you face to face with some interesting clues and questions, which, if you’re willing to follow them, will lead you into taking a closer look at who it is that we, and you, are. True, they might not provide the full answer, and what they do provide, might be a little unsettling, but the clues are at least easy enough to find, and to follow, and, as the examined life is not worth spinning, you might as well.

    Right?

    For instance, to give you a clue just how easy it is to find these clues, just turn on the News. Take a look at the media spokespeople who’re telling you what’s going on – man, woman, Maddow, local, network, web or cable – it doesn’t matter, just take a look, and then ask yourself this question:

    ‘Does the way that these news sources communicate to you – not what they communicate, but how they present themselves and the way they present their information – seem to you to be normal for this day and age?’

    With one or two rare exceptions, which prove the rule, the answer to that will be: No. And I’ll betcha that if you ask yourself what group, place, or time period, that they do remind you of, I’ll bet that the ‘when‘ in time that they remind you most of, is some sort of throwback to the 1950’s, maybe early 1960’s.

    Don’t they?

    And the answer to why that is, is a big clue to why Trump is winning. And yes, he, at least, is still winning. Even now. And you don’t need to be a Trump supporter – I’m certainly not (and by that I only mean that he has no history of displaying the manner and commitment to ideas, that I can support) – in order to see this; it’s just right out there in the open, if you open your eyes and look.

    Those that we are in the habit of looking to, for information about our world, look like they do, because the media, Left, Right and center, have consciously formed themselves from a template derived from a 1950’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!’ world of Ward Cleavers – as have the more popular means of manipulating (or attacking) the world we perceive around us.

    Just look at what is deemed to be ‘edgy‘ today – think Vagina costumes and pink pussy hats. They’re only conceived of as being ‘edgy‘, in relation to those things that would shock that old ‘Leave it to Beaver’ world view – do such fashion choices shock the generations raised in a world of ‘South Park’ or ‘The Simpson’s’? I’m gonna say, nope – in fact, they’re far more likely to laugh at and mock it (another big clue).

    Nope, the stuffed shirt shock and outrage of the estab…but no, ‘establishment’ doesn’t quite cut it.
    What I’m referring to here is more, and less, than that… let’s call them here, our Cultural Showmen’, in that they are more than simply ‘the establishment’; these are those that have a stake in promoting the status quo, from all the places you’d typically think of, but also in areas that you’d tend to think of being less than ‘the establishment’. This would include those in and around your private life as well – school, work, church, sports, whose expectations of what they expect to see, and expect you to cheer, were formed in relation to the worldview of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ – either fondly, or in reaction to it. These are the ones you look around for, if you’re going to make a ‘un-pc joke’ – do you look around to make sure isn’t standing nearby – if you see either Ward Cleaver, or a Social Justice Warrior Madonna/Eddie Haskell, you whisper or keep silent, right? But Al Bundy?, you wave ’em over and yuck it up, right?

    Seriously, think about it. Is there a more Ward Cleaveresque visage being channeled into daily life, than that deliberately broadcast by a Brian Williams or Jake Tapper? Why do you suppose that is? They’re taken as authority figures, because they’ve represented those we’ve long thought of as being those in authority – and especially by those who resent, and/or covet, their authority.

    Every tactic used to direct and call the action in ‘the show’ of American life, is based upon that ‘Cleaver’ template. Even, and especially, the infamous Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals‘ – they all depend upon his Rule #4 which says:

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Rule #4 depends upon not only understanding those rules which ‘The Enemy’ (us) lives by, but most important of all, and vital to the success of Alinsky’s entire system, is that “The Enemy” must also believe in them, or that they will at least desperately pretend to live by those rules which they claim to live by (as always, a person’s usefulness to a manipulator, increases in direct proportion to their own hypocrisy). Alinsky, the MSM, the Pro-Regressive Left & Right – let’s just call them The Showmen for short – base their power and their ability to exert it, upon their expectations that their enemy’s rules, mean something to their enemy.

    The first and most obvious meaning of this, is that we, you, our expectations, have always been the secret to their success. Right? Eddie Haskell would’ve gotten himself punched out in nothing flat, if Wally & The Beav’, weren’t raised as Wally & The Beaver’ Cleaver. Alinsky’s rules absolutely rely upon those sensibilities being in place, so that their tactics will be able to tear their targets (you, and me) down, without harm coming to themselves.

    That strategy, of slipping a Ward Cleaver mask over an Eddie Haskell sneer, was what so many thousands of the 1960’s & 1970’s radicals like Tom Hayden’s and Bill Ayer’s of the world, were following when they cut their hair, donned three piece suits, and infiltrated the respectable world of the Cleaver’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!‘. Hayden became a U.S. Senator, and Ayers became a motive force in the world of ‘Education’, as did so many others – but they didn’t leave their old tactics behind, only their hair and clothing, freeing them to ring out their charges: ‘Boozer! Philanderer! Stupid! Greedy! Cheat!‘, at a generation suddenly helplessly hamstrung by Alinsky’s Rule #4, and their own guilt. People, of course, have always had failings (and always will), but now the Eddie Haskell’s, masked in their Ward Cleaver faces, made use of Ward Cleaver’s audience, who expected the establishment to live up to their wholesome ideals – that is how you use Rule #4 to turn people’s own rules, against them.

    And the Ward Cleaver believers needn’t be outright frauds, just less than perfect. Rule #4 was key to how Bush 41 & 43 were manhandled for being ‘out of touch’ with the people, or for not being as being well spoken, highly intelligent, articulate, cultured and reserved as ‘Presidential‘ should be. The roles were even turned about on We The People, to help us to ignore Bill Clinton’s transgressions, as The Showmen directed the audience that a President had a right to his ‘privacy!‘, and to ‘have some respect for the office!‘. They, and we, were contained by the role cast for being ‘Presidential‘, and presidents 41, 42, 43 & 44, wanted, and auditioned for, that role. As have we. The Showmen are all still emulating the Cleaver look, because our expectations, are their means to acquire the power to convey their sense of shock and outrage to us, their viewers – not because they have any respect for those manners, styles and attitudes (one who holds ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pussy hats, or praise those who do), but because WE DO.

    But their recent ineffectiveness in so many areas shows – from Trump’s ‘loser’ to the Montana Rep. body-slamming a reporter on the eve of his election, and still winning, with a national ‘ho-hum’ response -, something has radically changed, which they’ve been surprised and were wholly unprepared for – and the rest of us should be concerned about as well.

    The Termites Coming Home to Roost
    What has changed, is of their own doing, their termites have come home to roost. You can see as much, in the satirical comedy sketches of British actor Tom Walker’s self created character, Jonathan Pie, whose portrayals of a conflicted network news reporter, are perfect illustrations of just this sort of issue I’m describing. Network newsman Pie, finds himself bound and tied and effectively gagged, by the faux-Cleaver role he has to play on camera. He clearly doesn’t believe in his role, or respect it, but having taken the role, it requires that he dutifully perform it for the camera, and the public eye. In his ‘between takes‘ moments, he drops his mask and freaks out in enthusiastically creative four-letter word style, to his off screen control room person, ‘Tim’, about how obscenely F’d up their entire shtick is… and yet as they ‘go live’, he, uncomfortably, slips the Ward Cleaver mask on once again. But the moment he can take his mask off, he colorfully rants his heart out, like this:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE! The only thing that works is F’ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate, talk to people who think differently than you, and persuade them of your argument, it’s so easy, and the Left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil, and racist, or sexist, or stupid, and TALK TO THEM! Persuade them otherwise, because if you don’t, I’ll tell you what you get, PRESIDENT TRUMP!…”

    Steel your ears and listen to it all, as he pours it all out to his fellow insider, what he’d never let on to his audience – and there’s something much more going on there, than simply comedy. Part of that something, as Jonathan Pie shows, is that millennials are sick of, and disgusted with, the pretenses they’ve been compelled to pretend to, and this attitude, is a very prevalent feeling among those currently being cast by The Showmen for their role as ‘Millennials’.

    And unfortunately for the left in general, and for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, who’re all still playing to an ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ audience – that audience has left the building. Or, as one of former president Obama’s favorite sayings repeatedly put it:

    That’s not who we are as Americans

    Good lord, even the Chinese are laughing at our uber-offended and triggered Left, calling them ‘Baizuo’

    “…However, it may surprise you to learn that these people aren’t just a joke in America. They are the laughing stock of the world. They are looked down upon, even in countries where they don’t have a significant presence.

    In China for instance, they have a word for these people. They are called “baizuo” or the “white left” on social media. Which is interesting, because even though China has its fair share of socialists and communists, they don’t have a direct equivalent to our liberal snowflakes. …”

    Hey Showmen! Psst! Do you recall those ‘cool teen in school’ TV shows that you used to transform America with? Do you remember the uber-uptight, uncool, nerdy teacher/principals, that you often had wander into a scene to impart words of wisdom, such as:

    “Now students, remember that you are young adults now, and I trust you to follow the rules and do the right thing, ‘cool’?”

    , to the kiddies for comic relief? Guess what ‘Showmen‘, with the ‘Leave it to Beaver’s America gone, you’ve become the understudies for the role of Mr. Tuttle – that is who you now are.

    Mr. Tuttle = The New Left

    And Donald Trump, in particular, rather than auditioning for the role that The Showmen were offering him – which I suspect that a couple decades on Reality T.V., told him no longer exists – has been improvising his own unscripted, one man Reality T.V. show – which has been a big part of his success.

    Now, if your reaction to that is ‘But he lies!‘ or ‘He isn’t really a Conservative!‘, while I feel for you, someone’s got to break it to you: today’s audience is not seeing that as a fault of his, but as his attraction. And seriously, if you are a fan of T.V. shows such as South Park, any of the movies of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen, or the Hip-Hop ‘music’ of Beyonce’, or Rap – any one of which would have gotten you slapped (if not challenged to a duel) by any major figure from George Washington’s time, through to Harry Truman’s – and yet you somehow still expect the political world to continue by those rules, while you yuck it up with the ‘best’ of modernity? Sorry, but I doubt if you’re even convincing yourself on that one, and you look ridiculous (and not a little bit manipulative and deceptive) trying to influence others to buy into it. Stop it. Pick one world or the other – you can’t have both.

    Similarly, what once would have drawn mass outrage nationwide, a candidate for representative, physically body slamming a news reporter, drew little more than ‘ho-hums’ from coast to coast – not because people think it was okay, but because they are tired of the entire show. People aren’t willing to play along, as faux-reporter Jonathan Pie said, ‘anymore!’, and they resent The Showmen’s ‘laugh track’ trying to prod them on. Trump is advancing and prevailing today, because he fits in with today, while his opponents – Left and Right – have tied themselves to a world that was canceled decades ago. Reality T.V.  star Trump, is brazenly doing to The Showmen, what their own Eddie Haskels’ have been surreptitiously doing to us all for decades. He’s flipped Rule #4 on them and has been holding them up to their own pretensions, by both fair means and foul, and America has been voting them off the Reality T.V. island, and their audience participation has been loudly and raucously delivering the line: “Your fired!“.

    The Showmen are victims of their own success in fundamentally transforming the world, but ironically, their Brave New World is one which someone like Donald Trump is far better suited to performing in, than that ‘Leave it to Beaver’ role they woefully miscast themselves into – as clearly, not a damn one of them actually cares for, or reveres, any of the fundamentals which that role requires (again: one who holds ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pink pussy hats, or praise those who do), and the Youth, the Millennials, just as attuned to hypocrisy today, as the young have always been, see more than enough hypocrisy in the Faux-Cleavers. How many Professors spouting Marxist tripe while pulling down six figure salaries, or socialist enthusing senators who own three houses, or ‘Truth to Power!‘ speaking newscasters like Dan Rather, or Brian Williams, being caught out with their forged documents and outlandish stolen valor lies, do you think they need to see, before questioning their credibility? Trump, believe it or not, is credible, because he clearly glories in all the faux-cleavers disdain – his money, his toys, his wives – and he is blunt, unabashedly insulting, and most of all, has become wildly successful by doing it. He may wear a suit & tie, but no one, least of all himself, sees him as ‘Ward Cleaver’, but as an Al Bundy done good.

    And yet the Showmen are still trying to pull their same old faux-outrage schtick on ‘the Trumpian Right’, unaware of how ridiculous they appear. Remember the faux-Cleaver newscaster Jonathan Pie:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE!…”

    They came to war with The Donald, armed with tried and true tactics that were developed for a generation of Americans which now hardly even exists, outside of those who’re only pretending to be them. Much to their surprise, when Donald ‘Al Bundy’ Trump walked onto the stage, the viewing audience almost reflexively began roaring their approval of his every move, because it mirrors what they’ve grown accustomed to, and enjoy, and ‘love’.

    In short: The Eddie Haskell Left, found themselves trying to shame Al Bundy, and got themselves punched out – to the roar of the crowd.

    It is funny, but before we spend too much time laughing at them, those of us who aren’t caught up in either show, need to consider what happens when what were once the tactics of radicals, are now no longer considered either radical or effective.

    Which do you think is more likely – that the frustrated radicals are going to peacefully fade away, or that they’re going to violently ratchet things up?

    Mistaking ‘Progress’, for ‘Pro-Regress’, has its consequences, and fundamentally transforming a society that you never understood to begin with, is an inherently volatile process, one which has left The Showmen and their obsolete ‘Rules for Radicals‘, flailing about in front of an audience that’s grown more used to Al Bundy, Beyonce and South Park, than anything from 1950’s T.V. (except maybe for Twilight Zone), and I’m sorry, but I just can’t help LMAO at them.

    But what now? What follows after that? Once you’ve fundamentally transformed the ground that you’re standing upon, into something new and unstable – what then? We’ll get to that, in the next post.

  • Trumping Alinsky pt 1 – Ward Cleaver meets Al Bundy

    Have you wondered how it is, that the pro-regressive’s best tried and true tactics, tactics that have proven so highly effective at hamstringing their targets over the course of the past 50+ years, have suddenly begun to fail them so publicly? And although, so far, they’ve been unable to lay a solid glove, or even a lasting tweet, on Donald Trump (and no, second hand rumors of Russians do neither), he’s hardly the only example, just the most persistent day to day one. Think Brexit, Trump, the body slamming Montana maniac, Rep. Gianforte, or James Comey being fired, or James Comey leaking his own memos, or James Comey attempting to sabotage Trump, and fingering former Attorney General Lynch, instead, which even Chris ‘thrill running up my leg!‘ Matthews had to admit, has made their entire Russian angle, go bust.

    What’s up with that?

    If you wonder on that long enough to ask some questions, and long enough to move on from those initial questions, to still other questions (and I do mean questions, mind you, not merely doubts), you might find that they will bring you face to face with some interesting clues and questions, which, if you’re willing to follow them, will lead you into taking a closer look at who it is that we, and you, are. True, they might not provide the full answer, and what they do provide, might be a little unsettling, but the clues are at least easy enough to find, and to follow, and, as the examined life is not worth spinning, you might as well.

    Right?

    For instance, to give you a clue just how easy it is to find these clues, just turn on the News. Take a look at the media spokespeople who’re telling you what’s going on – man, woman, Maddow, local, network, web or cable – it doesn’t matter, just take a look, and then ask yourself this question:

    ‘Does the way that these news sources communicate to you – not what they communicate, but how they present themselves and the way they present their information – seem to you to be normal for this day and age?’

    With one or two rare exceptions, which prove the rule, the answer to that will be: No. And I’ll betcha that if you ask yourself what group, place, or time period, that they do remind you of, I’ll bet that the ‘when‘ in time that they remind you most of, is some sort of throwback to the 1950’s, maybe early 1960’s.

    Don’t they?

    And the answer to why that is, is a big clue to why Trump is winning. And yes, he, at least, is still winning. Even now. And you don’t need to be a Trump supporter – I’m certainly not (and by that I only mean that he has no history of displaying the manner and commitment to ideas, that I can support) – in order to see this; it’s just right out there in the open, if you open your eyes and look.

    Those that we are in the habit of looking to, for information about our world, look like they do, because the media, Left, Right and center, have consciously formed themselves from a template derived from a 1950’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!’ world of Ward Cleavers – as have the more popular means of manipulating (or attacking) the world we perceive around us.

    Just look at what is deemed to be ‘edgy‘ today – think Vagina costumes and pink pussy hats. They’re only conceived of as being ‘edgy‘, in relation to those things that would shock that old ‘Leave it to Beaver’ world view – do such fashion choices shock the generations raised in a world of ‘South Park’ or ‘The Simpson’s’? I’m gonna say, nope – in fact, they’re far more likely to laugh at and mock it (another big clue).

    Nope, the stuffed shirt shock and outrage of the estab…but no, ‘establishment’ doesn’t quite cut it.
    What I’m referring to here is more, and less, than that… let’s call them here, our Cultural Showmen’, in that they are more than simply ‘the establishment’; these are those that have a stake in promoting the status quo, from all the places you’d typically think of, but also in areas that you’d tend to think of being less than ‘the establishment’. This would include those in and around your private life as well – school, work, church, sports, whose expectations of what they expect to see, and expect you to cheer, were formed in relation to the worldview of ‘Leave it to Beaver’ – either fondly, or in reaction to it. These are the ones you look around for, if you’re going to make a ‘un-pc joke’ – do you look around to make sure isn’t standing nearby – if you see either Ward Cleaver, or a Social Justice Warrior Madonna/Eddie Haskell, you whisper or keep silent, right? But Al Bundy?, you wave ’em over and yuck it up, right?

    Seriously, think about it. Is there a more Ward Cleaveresque visage being channeled into daily life, than that deliberately broadcast by a Brian Williams or Jake Tapper? Why do you suppose that is? They’re taken as authority figures, because they’ve represented those we’ve long thought of as being those in authority – and especially by those who resent, and/or covet, their authority.

    Every tactic used to direct and call the action in ‘the show’ of American life, is based upon that ‘Cleaver’ template. Even, and especially, the infamous Saul Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals‘ – they all depend upon his Rule #4 which says:

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    Rule #4 depends upon not only understanding those rules which ‘The Enemy’ (us) lives by, but most important of all, and vital to the success of Alinsky’s entire system, is that “The Enemy” must also believe in them, or that they will at least desperately pretend to live by those rules which they claim to live by (as always, a person’s usefulness to a manipulator, increases in direct proportion to their own hypocrisy). Alinsky, the MSM, the Pro-Regressive Left & Right – let’s just call them The Showmen for short – base their power and their ability to exert it, upon their expectations that their enemy’s rules, mean something to their enemy.

    The first and most obvious meaning of this, is that we, you, our expectations, have always been the secret to their success. Right? Eddie Haskell would’ve gotten himself punched out in nothing flat, if Wally & The Beav’, weren’t raised as Wally & The Beaver’ Cleaver. Alinsky’s rules absolutely rely upon those sensibilities being in place, so that their tactics will be able to tear their targets (you, and me) down, without harm coming to themselves.

    That strategy, of slipping a Ward Cleaver mask over an Eddie Haskell sneer, was what so many thousands of the 1960’s & 1970’s radicals like Tom Hayden’s and Bill Ayer’s of the world, were following when they cut their hair, donned three piece suits, and infiltrated the respectable world of the Cleaver’s ‘Leave it to Beaver!‘. Hayden became a U.S. Senator, and Ayers became a motive force in the world of ‘Education’, as did so many others – but they didn’t leave their old tactics behind, only their hair and clothing, freeing them to ring out their charges: ‘Boozer! Philanderer! Stupid! Greedy! Cheat!‘, at a generation suddenly helplessly hamstrung by Alinsky’s Rule #4, and their own guilt. People, of course, have always had failings (and always will), but now the Eddie Haskell’s, masked in their Ward Cleaver faces, made use of Ward Cleaver’s audience, who expected the establishment to live up to their wholesome ideals – that is how you use Rule #4 to turn people’s own rules, against them.

    And the Ward Cleaver believers needn’t be outright frauds, just less than perfect. Rule #4 was key to how Bush 41 & 43 were manhandled for being ‘out of touch’ with the people, or for not being as being well spoken, highly intelligent, articulate, cultured and reserved as ‘Presidential‘ should be. The roles were even turned about on We The People, to help us to ignore Bill Clinton’s transgressions, as The Showmen directed the audience that a President had a right to his ‘privacy!‘, and to ‘have some respect for the office!‘. They, and we, were contained by the role cast for being ‘Presidential‘, and presidents 41, 42, 43 & 44, wanted, and auditioned for, that role. As have we. The Showmen are all still emulating the Cleaver look, because our expectations, are their means to acquire the power to convey their sense of shock and outrage to us, their viewers – not because they have any respect for those manners, styles and attitudes (one who holds ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pussy hats, or praise those who do), but because WE DO.

    But their recent ineffectiveness in so many areas shows – from Trump’s ‘loser’ to the Montana Rep. body-slamming a reporter on the eve of his election, and still winning, with a national ‘ho-hum’ response -, something has radically changed, which they’ve been surprised and were wholly unprepared for – and the rest of us should be concerned about as well.

    The Termites Coming Home to Roost
    What has changed, is of their own doing, their termites have come home to roost. You can see as much, in the satirical comedy sketches of British actor Tom Walker’s self created character, Jonathan Pie, whose portrayals of a conflicted network news reporter, are perfect illustrations of just this sort of issue I’m describing. Network newsman Pie, finds himself bound and tied and effectively gagged, by the faux-Cleaver role he has to play on camera. He clearly doesn’t believe in his role, or respect it, but having taken the role, it requires that he dutifully perform it for the camera, and the public eye. In his ‘between takes‘ moments, he drops his mask and freaks out in enthusiastically creative four-letter word style, to his off screen control room person, ‘Tim’, about how obscenely F’d up their entire shtick is… and yet as they ‘go live’, he, uncomfortably, slips the Ward Cleaver mask on once again. But the moment he can take his mask off, he colorfully rants his heart out, like this:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE! The only thing that works is F’ing bothering, doing something, and all you have to do is engage in the debate, talk to people who think differently than you, and persuade them of your argument, it’s so easy, and the Left have lost the art. Stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is evil, and racist, or sexist, or stupid, and TALK TO THEM! Persuade them otherwise, because if you don’t, I’ll tell you what you get, PRESIDENT TRUMP!…”

    Steel your ears and listen to it all, as he pours it all out to his fellow insider, what he’d never let on to his audience – and there’s something much more going on there, than simply comedy. Part of that something, as Jonathan Pie shows, is that millennials are sick of, and disgusted with, the pretenses they’ve been compelled to pretend to, and this attitude, is a very prevalent feeling among those currently being cast by The Showmen for their role as ‘Millennials’.

    And unfortunately for the left in general, and for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in particular, who’re all still playing to an ‘Ozzie & Harriet’ and ‘Leave it to Beaver’ audience – that audience has left the building. Or, as one of former president Obama’s favorite sayings repeatedly put it:

    That’s not who we are as Americans

    Good lord, even the Chinese are laughing at our uber-offended and triggered Left, calling them ‘Baizuo’

    “…However, it may surprise you to learn that these people aren’t just a joke in America. They are the laughing stock of the world. They are looked down upon, even in countries where they don’t have a significant presence.

    In China for instance, they have a word for these people. They are called “baizuo” or the “white left” on social media. Which is interesting, because even though China has its fair share of socialists and communists, they don’t have a direct equivalent to our liberal snowflakes. …”

    Hey Showmen! Psst! Do you recall those ‘cool teen in school’ TV shows that you used to transform America with? Do you remember the uber-uptight, uncool, nerdy teacher/principals, that you often had wander into a scene to impart words of wisdom, such as:

    “Now students, remember that you are young adults now, and I trust you to follow the rules and do the right thing, ‘cool’?”

    , to the kiddies for comic relief? Guess what ‘Showmen‘, with the ‘Leave it to Beaver’s America gone, you’ve become the understudies for the role of Mr. Tuttle – that is who you now are.

    Mr. Tuttle = The New Left

    And Donald Trump, in particular, rather than auditioning for the role that The Showmen were offering him – which I suspect that a couple decades on Reality T.V., told him no longer exists – has been improvising his own unscripted, one man Reality T.V. show – which has been a big part of his success.

    Now, if your reaction to that is ‘But he lies!‘ or ‘He isn’t really a Conservative!‘, while I feel for you, someone’s got to break it to you: today’s audience is not seeing that as a fault of his, but as his attraction. And seriously, if you are a fan of T.V. shows such as South Park, any of the movies of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen, or the Hip-Hop ‘music’ of Beyonce’, or Rap – any one of which would have gotten you slapped (if not challenged to a duel) by any major figure from George Washington’s time, through to Harry Truman’s – and yet you somehow still expect the political world to continue by those rules, while you yuck it up with the ‘best’ of modernity? Sorry, but I doubt if you’re even convincing yourself on that one, and you look ridiculous (and not a little bit manipulative and deceptive) trying to influence others to buy into it. Stop it. Pick one world or the other – you can’t have both.

    Similarly, what once would have drawn mass outrage nationwide, a candidate for representative, physically body slamming a news reporter, drew little more than ‘ho-hums’ from coast to coast – not because people think it was okay, but because they are tired of the entire show. People aren’t willing to play along, as faux-reporter Jonathan Pie said, ‘anymore!’, and they resent The Showmen’s ‘laugh track’ trying to prod them on. Trump is advancing and prevailing today, because he fits in with today, while his opponents – Left and Right – have tied themselves to a world that was canceled decades ago. Reality T.V.  star Trump, is brazenly doing to The Showmen, what their own Eddie Haskels’ have been surreptitiously doing to us all for decades. He’s flipped Rule #4 on them and has been holding them up to their own pretensions, by both fair means and foul, and America has been voting them off the Reality T.V. island, and their audience participation has been loudly and raucously delivering the line: “Your fired!“.

    The Showmen are victims of their own success in fundamentally transforming the world, but ironically, their Brave New World is one which someone like Donald Trump is far better suited to performing in, than that ‘Leave it to Beaver’ role they woefully miscast themselves into – as clearly, not a damn one of them actually cares for, or reveres, any of the fundamentals which that role requires (again: one who holds ‘Leave it to Beaver’ dear, does not march about in vagina costumes, or wear pink pussy hats, or praise those who do), and the Youth, the Millennials, just as attuned to hypocrisy today, as the young have always been, see more than enough hypocrisy in the Faux-Cleavers. How many Professors spouting Marxist tripe while pulling down six figure salaries, or socialist enthusing senators who own three houses, or ‘Truth to Power!‘ speaking newscasters like Dan Rather, or Brian Williams, being caught out with their forged documents and outlandish stolen valor lies, do you think they need to see, before questioning their credibility? Trump, believe it or not, is credible, because he clearly glories in all the faux-cleavers disdain – his money, his toys, his wives – and he is blunt, unabashedly insulting, and most of all, has become wildly successful by doing it. He may wear a suit & tie, but no one, least of all himself, sees him as ‘Ward Cleaver’, but as an Al Bundy done good.

    And yet the Showmen are still trying to pull their same old faux-outrage schtick on ‘the Trumpian Right’, unaware of how ridiculous they appear. Remember the faux-Cleaver newscaster Jonathan Pie:

    “…Being offended, doesn’t work anymore! Throwing insults doesn’t work ANYMORE!…”

    They came to war with The Donald, armed with tried and true tactics that were developed for a generation of Americans which now hardly even exists, outside of those who’re only pretending to be them. Much to their surprise, when Donald ‘Al Bundy’ Trump walked onto the stage, the viewing audience almost reflexively began roaring their approval of his every move, because it mirrors what they’ve grown accustomed to, and enjoy, and ‘love’.

    In short: The Eddie Haskell Left, found themselves trying to shame Al Bundy, and got themselves punched out – to the roar of the crowd.

    It is funny, but before we spend too much time laughing at them, those of us who aren’t caught up in either show, need to consider what happens when what were once the tactics of radicals, are now no longer considered either radical or effective.

    Which do you think is more likely – that the frustrated radicals are going to peacefully fade away, or that they’re going to violently ratchet things up?

    Mistaking ‘Progress’, for ‘Pro-Regress’, has its consequences, and fundamentally transforming a society that you never understood to begin with, is an inherently volatile process, one which has left The Showmen and their obsolete ‘Rules for Radicals‘, flailing about in front of an audience that’s grown more used to Al Bundy, Beyonce and South Park, than anything from 1950’s T.V. (except maybe for Twilight Zone), and I’m sorry, but I just can’t help LMAO at them.

    But what now? What follows after that? Once you’ve fundamentally transformed the ground that you’re standing upon, into something new and unstable – what then? We’ll get to that, in the next post.

  • Civics Classes, and a Future Past

    Recently, the actor and sometimes leftist activist, Richard Dreyfuss, was interviewed on Tucker Carlson’s show, and as you may have seen, or heard snippets of, or at least heard about, Dreyfuss soundly denounced the ‘Antifa’ activists who’ve been using violence on campus, to squelch people’s ability to freely speak and associate. Kudos to Dreyfuss on that. But. For those of you on the Right, who are enthusing “Wow! There’s a sensible Leftist that we can get behind!“, please, for once, slow down a bit. While I too like the sound of much of what Dreyfuss says in this video – particularly his call to engage in the ‘Battle of Ideas’ in open discussions, and of course his call of ‘Let’s get back to the constitution and the Bill of Rights!‘, it is well worth remembering that what we think we are hearing, isn’t always what the speaker meant for us to be hearing, and that what was actually meant (or will inevitably follow, despite their best of intentions), will often turn out to be something that we really do not want to hear, let alone experience.

    That very situation, is, of course, what a good discussion should ideally expose and clarify for those in the conversation – but that cannot happen, if we, as we too often do, assume that their words, are said with our meaning, and so we, especially those on the Right, don’t ask, don’t check, don’t clarify, what was meant – and so we are continually blindsided when their actual meaning is put into action. Ya know, for a group that’s so fixated on the need to improve their messaging, you’d think that they’d notice that ‘Wuht?! How did this happen?!‘, isn’t a particularly attractive message to be habitually messaging from your group.

    What sort of words could I mean? Well, words, for instance, such as the ‘Civics’ that Dreyfuss said he wants to see us getting back to,

    “Civics has not been taught in the American public school system, since 1970…”

    ‘Civics’ is a word that sounds very significant. And our schools’ lack of such a class – which is intended to be ‘the training of students for democracy‘ (hmm) – sounds like a shocking situation, and a very sensible concern (although, as I, sadly, had to sit through the drudgery of Civics classes in 1972-74, in a Las Vegas public school at “Hyde Park Junior High”, his blanket statement is at least questionable). But before we on ‘The Right’ go backing up his call, we should remember that the ‘Civics Education’ which he most likely wants to see, came from a concept of civics classes, that was once among the first of those ‘bold, innovative thrusts‘ promoted by the education industry, from the opening of the 20th century, on. Such Civics classes were a particular favorite of ‘educational reformers’ such as John Dewey, who, for what he thought were very good reasons, was very big on pragmatically abandoning our past, and our traditional reverence for Truth, as well as the idea of ‘the training of students for democracy‘ (isn’t putting the ‘training’ of students in political views, into the hands of a government institution, even a trifle concerning?), so as to do ‘what works’, in order to take America ‘into the future!‘.

    Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it occur to anyone else, that it’s quite possible that the current situation we find our educational system, and our society, to be in, is a result of those very Civics classes, which Dreyfuss is advocating for us to engage in? Again?

    Are we really going to blindly accept, that what we assume they mean by that word, is such a good thing for us to want to ‘get back to‘ engaging in? Again? Perhaps, rather than seeking to get back to their future in civics, we should take a little time to consider what teaching Civics, as we once did, does, to a students understanding of civics, and to their understanding of individual rights, and to their understanding of the role of government within that society, that they are soon to become the future civic members and leaders, of?

    One thing that both sides should be clear on, is that what we think we hear when we hear the word ‘Civics’, is highly unlikely to be what the other side means by it, because there exists among us such vast differences of opinion on political philosophy. We don’t simply have differing perspectives on
    the same object, but starkly divergent belief systems, that have grown to be poles apart, and the result is that the meaning of a word such as ‘Civics’, to someone on ‘the Right’, has a very different meaning from the meaning which self described ‘Progressives’ typically attach to it, because what an ideal system of government is – which is what Civics Classes were designed to train students in – is precisely what the different groups differ on!

    The person on ‘The Right’ (supposedly) is looking to have governmental powers securely bound by laws which abide our Constitution, and which puts the rights of individuals, before what others might want to use the power of government to serve ‘the greater good’ with, and they expect a Civics class to be oriented around those sometimes less than obvious supports for the vital ‘self evident’ truths, that a society of liberty rests upon.

    That is not the perspective which the ‘Progressive’ idealizes. Their view, which they’ve held since their early thought leaders, such as Washington Gladden, is that America’s constitutional ideas of Liberty, are that,

    “The tradition of respect for individual liberty, was “a radical defect in the thinking of the average American.”

    , and what they thought would be a better, smarter, more modern view, would be to have the civic power under an ‘Administrative State‘ which was empowered to ‘do good!‘ as social experts thought best, even if it meant that some people’s rights were somewhat ‘the worse for wear’ because of it. In the view of those oriented around the ‘Administrative State’, the ‘greater good’ requires the authority to restrict those who have what government experts determine to be unfair advantages, or privileges, from exercising their liberty in ways which they find to be ‘in the way of progress‘, or in some wayunacceptable’, and those are the ideals that our Civics classes were oriented around, from the start.

    Not surprisingly, being a fan of such Civics classes, Mr. Dreyfuss has often expressed how he very much wants the media to be controlled by govt, that he wants govt to put a limit on their profits, and to put further limitations on what can, and cannot be said by, and in, the ‘media’, because he – self appointed expert that he is – thinks that would be best for us,

    “News divisions are obligated to cover the news, not profit from it!” and “I want a constitutional amendment that completely separates money, television, and politics”, and “We license the networks, we don’t sell them, we never sold them, they must behave as we need, not as they wish, for their own profit.”

    What Dreyfuss means, is that he wants a constitutional amendment to give power and authority, to some in government who are, perhaps elected, though probably not (the bureaucratic ‘Administrative State’ of appointed experts regulating how you should live, is an original pro-regressive ideal), who will then be empowered to put limits on our freedom of speech – call me crazy, but I’m not convinced that seeking some a sort of anti-1st Amendment, amendment, to undo our ability to speak, support speech, and associate freely, is the way to go. That legalistic muzzling, is but a ‘kinder, gentler’ Antifa, with textbooks and laws, rather than riots, and it is not a sentiment that you’ll find in a Civics class that’s oriented around the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, but it is what a Civics Class that’s oriented around an ‘Administrative State’ view, was designed to do; that is ‘the training of students for democracy’.

    An ‘Administrative State’ oriented Civics, has to blur, and bury, a knowledgeable understanding of our Constitution, because it runs counter to their day-to-day interpretation of it. Given that, the school’s Civics classes, were written to assist in making their a-constitutional views acceptable, not so much by outright contradiction, but by treating them proactively with an ‘out of sight, out of mind‘ focus, to those ‘educated’ in them. Which was the thinking behind the hugely influential report by the NEA (National Education Association), in 1918, “Cardinal principles of secondary education“, which while making much noise and fanfare over encouraging civic understanding, and understanding of the constitution, had ideas such as this, at its core:

    “…Civics should concern itself less with constitutional questions and remote governmental functions, and should direct attention to social agencies close at hand and to the informal activities of daily life that regard and seek the common good. Such agencies as child-welfare organizations and consumers’ leagues afford specific opportunities for the expression of civic qualifies by the older pupils….”

    The ‘Constitutional!’ sizzle that Civics classes are sold with, soon fizzles out, and the underlying message of the ‘Administrative State’ is what carries forward without it. Yes, a feeling of “Wow!” most definitely comes over me when I hear Pro-Regressives speak of ‘Civics education!‘, but not in a good way, because what I hear them calling for, is a desire for even more of what got us into this mess in the first place. However encouraging it may sound when people like Richard Dreyfuss say they want to engage in a ‘battleground of ideas’, I have grave doubts, stemming from of an understanding of the founding and sustained beliefs of those who’re pleased to refer to themselves as ‘Progressives’, on how willing he and they will be to objectively identify what grounds they’d permit such battles upon, or in how, or to whom, the wins and loses would be scored. Yes, we should be willing to engage with them – absolutely! – and on that basis we should welcome the “Dreyfuss Civics Initiative aims to revive the teaching of civics in American public education and to empower critical-thinking skills students need.“, and all such efforts, but only if we are extremely wary of such cases of ‘Progressives bearing gifts’, especially as their ‘gifts’ have already evidenced a history of effectively eliminating those gifts of Self Governance and Justice under law, which the Greeks have handed down to us.

    To me, that’s not Progress, but the enthusiastic pursuit of its opposite: Pro-Regress.

    What has already been historically proven, is that what all of these innovative bold new thrusts in ‘educations’ serve to accomplish, through Civics classes that ‘…concern itself less with constitutional questions…’ and more ‘…direct attention to social agencies close at hand …’, is to deaden student’s minds with disintegrated (though highly testable!) factoids, while obliterating their conceptual understanding of those principles which make an admirable and American civic life, possible – understanding the value of each person, the importance of respecting each individual’s rights, and the key role which the recognition of property rights, plays in that. That understanding, and the importance of a Rule of Law that follows from it, is what made our society, and our federal and state constitutions, possible in the first place. Lose that, and actively removing what brought it into being, causes it to be lost, and you shouldn’t be surprised that your society is liable to ‘progress’ to the point of having college students dressing up in black block hoods and goggles, throwing Molotov Cocktails at police, and who, though they may very likely test quite well in standardized Civics Tests, will happily do so, even as they justify beating and silencing those speakers they feel triggered by.

    The problem we are experiencing is not a lack of civics classes in our public schools, but the result of what decades of these type of classes, taught as a means of memorizing factoids devoid of conceptual understanding, so as to be testable in class, and utterly useless in life, which has chiefly succeeded in removing from our education, the concepts of individual awareness, responsibility and the essentials of self governance. IOW: Count me out of the call for ‘Civics’.

    A Textbook case of putting ‘out of sight, to keep ‘out of mind
    Unfortunately, modern education has been so effective, that when making that point to someone, the reply I often receive, is:

    “I don’t understand what you are talking about when you say that something has been removed from education.”

    People today, don’t even know, what they don’t know. And it is just as true of the Right, as the Left. Most any middle aged person today, should have tones of anecdotal evidence for this, because those of us who came of age in the 20th Century, were at least made aware of what we didn’t know, as key names and concepts were mentioned, though rarely delved into. But today, the concepts are rarely, if ever, even mentioned, so most people really don’t know, what they don’t ( but should) know – and with those concepts out of the way today, easy answers and propaganda, are easily slid in to take their place, perhaps by meme, and without a fight. I’ve had kids in the public schools for the last twenty years, and I’ve seen a marked decline in the content I’m talking about, even between those that graduated in 2008, and that of the one graduating this year. My own grammar, junior and high school textbooks (I graduated HS in 1978), had vastly more content and depth, than has any of my kids textbooks had, and I consider what I had, to have been pure crap. I have a number of my Grandfather’s grade and high school textbooks (published between 1899 – 1908), complete with his comments (and much highly disrespectful classroom doodles), and they are vastly superior to even the college textbooks that I, my wife, or our kids, have had the use of.

    One such small example, one of his Aurora, Illinois, public school textbooks, “Readings in English History” (1908) (this is an edition from a decade later, but much the same), which his penciled in cover notes as “2A History”, is 780 pages of mostly text, in the words of the people who made England’s history, and which contains only a few, small, illustrations, and which concludes with the section “Growth of Democracy” (a heading that, IMHO, is already corrupted), though still promoting the then very common idea, that a student could not be expected to understand the meaning of, need for, and threats to, society, individual rights and the kind of Rule of Law which can only be depended upon to rule over those in power, if their people have first grasped the need for, development of, and the inherently risky application of, those ideas. That, as an educational norm, is, in any meaningful form, gone today from our public (and most private) schools, from grammar school through college. And it is not simply due to incompetent teachers, or even teachers unions, it’s baked into the very structure and purpose of our modern public school system, from school boards, to teachers colleges, and centralized district directed class curriculums.

    I recently served with a dozen others, including parents, school superintendents, principals, teachers and curriculum writers, over the course of a year, in one of Missouri’s curriculum work groups, ours being History, that were formed as an attempt by state’s legislature, to restructure and improve our K-12 school curriculums. We managed to produce a very good, deep and broad, set of standards, which was unanimously approved of by all in our committee of wildly differing political views. Our state dept of education quickly reformatted, hacked and slashed it into something that is hardly distinguishable from that which has been in place for the last twenty years. Their reasons for doing so, which has to do with an agenda that will not tolerate even a hint of the content that I’m speaking of.

    The content which they find to be politically acceptable, may have altered and changed over the decades, but what has not, what has been the explicit intention from the start, is using the power of government to ‘mold the perfect citizen‘, and using ‘our’ schools to do it. Two centuries of self appointed reformers, beginning in earnest with the likes of Horace Mann, and James G. Carter – and many more of our Founders era than most would be comfortable in hearing – looked to Europe, and particularly to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and later Fichte & Hegel, for ideas on how to do it.

    “The objective of educational action by government had little to do with economic or egalitarian goals; it was to shape future citizens to a common pattern. Like Jean-Jacques Rousseau and educational theorists during the French Revolution, Carter turned to the model of Sparta to illustrate what the state cold and should do. “If the spartan could mold and transform a nation to suit his taste, by means of an early education, why may not the same be done at the present day?” (Glenn, 1988, p. 75).
    A crucial step was taken by the Massachusetts legislature in 1837, when it voted to create a state board of education to collect information about schools and to provide advice on how schools could be improved.”

    NOTE: The crisis of their time was not a lack of schooling, or of poor schooling, or even of a later time’s concerns over immigration, their worry was that for America (irony alert: land of liberty) to survive, there needed to be imposed upon all, a uniform system of schooling, intent upon molding all minds, into a common ‘understanding’. Their honest, profusely stated aim, was to use government directed schools to manually form a new type of person, who’d be better suited to being an American.

    And I, we, are way behind the times in our alarm over this. Only three years after Massachusetts created their first school board as an entity with the political power to ‘oversee’ their already existing system of public education, some state representatives, such as Allen W. Dodge, saw what was happening, saw where it would lead, and attempted to put an end it. As you can see from this snippet of his reaction then, their concerns then, weren’t too far from our concerns now:

    “After all that has been said about the French and Prussian systems, they appear to your Committee to be much more admirable, as a means of political influence, and of strengthening the hands of the government, than as a mere means for the diffusion of knowledge. For the latter purpose, the system of public Common Schools, under the control of persons most interested in their flourishing condition, who pay taxes to support them, appears to your Committee much superior. The establishment of the Board of Education seems to be the commencement of a system of centralization and of monopoly of power in a few hands, contrary, in every respect, to the true spirit of our democratical institutions; and which, unless speedily checked, may lead to unlooked-for and dangerous results.”[emphasis added]

    Sadly, they failed to discontinue the imported experiment of politicizing public education, which is exponentially worse today (still, there’s no time like the present to correct an old mistake). I highly recommend reading his full report “Report on the expediency of abolishing the Board of Education and the Normal Schools“.

    With political power established, the new purposes of ‘educational systems’, began to leap from the state level, to the national level, through a number of national education reform efforts, such as The Morrill Act (1863) which established a Federal role in education, and set up the first prototype for the Dept of Education, as well as what I noted above, the NEA’s “Commission on the Reorganization of Secondary Education” (1913), which set about to dumb down, the already pro-regressively stunted, though vastly superior recommendations, of the earlier “Report of the Committee of Ten“, under the chairmanship of Harvard’s president, Charles Eliot, in 1893, which they found to be too concerned with content and ideas.

    The fact that Charles Eliot was the president of Harvard, and his panelists were experienced academics as well, held no sway over the NEA’s ‘Gang of Twenty Seven‘ political appointees and functionaries, as what they were primarily seeking, not unlike their predecessors in the early 1800’s, was the political power to mold the form of their ideal citizen, but unlike those who first sought to establish that power over the minds of the young, and they include Founding Fathers such as Dr. Rush, Noah Webster and even Samuel Adams, the new pro-regressive ideal of an ideal citizen, was not one who would be best suited to carry on their ‘Republican’ ideal of the Founder’s era, but those who would best conform to their presumed ‘democratic’ needs of ‘modern society’; an ideal ‘citizen’ that could work in factories and do ‘what was best‘, as experts such as themselves defined it. Soon after the 20th Century was underway, these new pro-regressive ‘Progressives’ now had the political power to do what their expertise determined was ‘for the greater good‘, and knowing very well what they wanted not to see in the minds of their students (such as a knowledge of Individual Rights and the important reasons for them, and other problematic ‘data’) and they went about ensuring that their curriculum would be less and less likely to be familiarize students with, and then less and less likely to inform them of them at all, until finally, we today are almost entirely unaware of such names and ideas at all, of what was once considered the ‘common American mind’, having been progressively moved from known knowns, to known unknowns, until in the future – our present – such names and ideas of Aristotle, Cicero, Sydney, Locke, are very nearly unknown, unknowns.

    But the fact remains that that sense of what made America exceptional, was once there, which is evident in this, a once common means of teaching our Constitution and its amendments (mostly without benefit of political school boards directing them), “Elementary catechism on the Constitution of the United States”, to grade school children, this version published in 1828 (and this was already an example of degrading from how the ideas those documents express, were learned prior to that time), and I daresay that the content of the catechism is something that most Law School graduates are almost entirely ignorant of today (and yes, I’ve paid very close attention to the development of, and the teaching of, The Law, over both our, England’s, and Rome’s history. I’m weird that way).

    Knowingly or not, the structure and design of our modern educational systems, centralizing and standardizing content as fed by the latest concerns of public opinion (and profit seeking interests) demanded, resulted in ridding Americans of their familiarity with and understanding of our common individual rights under the Rule of Law, their meaning and need, which are the only effective defenses against the good (or ill) intentions of those in positions of elected power, is essentially absent from our modern understanding, an absence which is often visited upon us under the cover of the name (used or not) of ‘Civics‘, and an education which results in that, is like fertilizing the populace for harvest by public demagogues. What we see happening across the nation today, from black block riots, to leftist Antifa & Alt-Right responses to them on college campuses, is that harvest of the demagogues, a harvest made easy by our having removed from our common understanding, those ideas that make America possible, and without which, we cannot be either exceptional or America.

    Back to the future
    These ‘Civics’ classes – as opposed to history taught in depth – of which Mr. Dreyfuss speaks so determinedly, were taught as ‘the way of the future!‘ over a century ago, and they are what pro-regressives then, such as John Dewey, and today, such as Richard Dreyfuss, are wanting to take us back to the future of, today. The problem with that, is, that we’ve already been to their future, our present, which most of us can clearly see, it does not work!

    As I hope you’ve guessed from the above examples from the 1840’s, 1860’s, 1893, and 1913, the ideas which our Civics classes were formed from, are not new, and are serving to combine a mixture of the bigotry of soft expectations, benevolent despotism, and the hubris of those who not only believe that ‘they know best‘, but that they should be empowered to reform the masses lives, as they deem to be best for them. Far from being modern and ‘progressive!‘, these are some of the oldest, most backwards of views, and those ‘Progressives’ who hold them, are truly advocating for our pro-regressing into a world once past, as an error unlearned from, and repeated yet again. Whether their message comes clothed in the earnest republicanism of a James G. Carter, who, idealizing the old Spartan Republic’s ability to ‘mold children into a uniform character‘ (or end their lives should they not measure up to their utilitarian standards) or that of the more modern reformers such as John Dewey, who also seek that utilitarian, pragmatic approach, they are all rapping out rhymes from history’s most foreboding hits.

    Such a rhyme as that, can be heard ringing out fairly clearly in the popular ‘progressive’ view from just a century ago, as was here explained by Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton, in a speech to the Federation of High School teachers:

    “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class of necessity in every society, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.”

    The position of deciding who is to forgo such privileges, has always been eagerly filled by corporate busybodies, from Carnegie, to Thorndike and Rockefeller, and that of Bill Gates today, who’s spent millions of dollars to establish the data mining that standardized testing requires, and which “Common Core” usefully accompanies – why? To track your student’s progress, so that their programmed algorithms can be trusted to determine what your children will receive, or forgo, in the business friendly, skills based ‘educations’ of their planned societies. And hardly noticed by most, is that through a system founded upon usurping political power from the bottom up, their own economic power is transformed into real political power, without need or benefit of representation, or even a market – only their own ‘expert’ judgment upon us.

    How Bill Gates pulled off the swift Common Core revolution

    And what of people like Richard Dreyfuss, you can see how passionately he feels about his foundation, and about civics, it seems just as unlikely that he’d knowingly align himself with the profit seeking amusements of billionaires, and it’s just as unlikely that my school teacher cousins in northern California, are either – so why are all of them so united in promoting a form of education that has such dark implications? It can’t be because it’s so difficult to discover, the information on what they are advocating for, and the historical and measurable results of them, are freely available to him, them, and you too – yet most people are ignorant of it.

    Why? Partly, I suspect, because it is so easy and enticing to think that one’s own ‘noble’ ends, somehow justify their using government power as a means to their ends – it’s for ‘the greater good’ after all. And they are Pro-Regressive Progressives, such ends and means are what they think schools, and education, are for – to reform our people, your children, into their ideal, for us. And conveniently, as can be seen from their own statements, it is a fact that they are personally disbelieving of, and opposed to, that understanding of Individual Rights, Law, Property Rights and Justice, which our Constitution was formed from – and which it cannot long stand without the support of.

    They aren’t, on the whole, bad people, they aren’t stupid, they are simply enthusiastic supporters of easy answers from smart people, who see no need to integrate their ideas any further than their own immediate interests and passions. That IS the modern, pragmatic, sense, purpose, and design, of our ‘public educational system’, which, is now neither public, nor educational, and yet it has replaced what our once thriving system of educating ourselves, was. It was only a dozen years after Allen W. Dodge’s warning against what the centralizing of power away from the control of those it would be used upon, under the cover of education, that the passage of America’s first compulsory schooling statute, in Massachusetts in 1852 (there were earlier measures, but they didn’t make the state into the definer and provider of their education), and because it was so generally accepted that education was a broad societal good, which people could, would, long had and still did, achieve and pursue in, and out of, formal schooling, that few took note that political powers now had the power, to decide upon the daily activities and formation of the mind and sentiments, of each parents most valued treasure – their child. What greater power is there than that? What tyrant, greedy to feast on power, could seek more than that? Could mere taxation be more satisfying? I don’t think so. All else, IMHO, from then to know, all the visible falling away from the understanding and regard for our constitutional form of self-governance, has been but a more or less leisurely flexing of the powers we’ve long ago ceded to Leviathan, and without our conscious awareness of what we’ve so willingly lost.

    Note: I am not trying to say that, unreforming our system of public education, will solve all our problems, that it will somehow return us to some mythical time when attentive students were all good, peaceful, citizens. Education will not produce any perfect cure. Nothing ever will.

    But a system of education that is more concerned with providing a worthy education to its students, rather than training them to be useful as other people’s human capital, or even more usefully as cogs in political machines, will tend to result in a vastly better society, than the society that the later two lave left us with: where ‘educated’ people advocate the public to ‘punch a nazi‘, while understanding ‘nazi’ with little more depth than ‘anyone I disagree with‘ – and yes, this goes just as much for any alt-right response of ‘punch a leftist!‘, as well as any anarchic libertarian equivalent that might pop up.

    Those who are unhappy with We The People understanding that which secures us our liberty, are also going to be, as they always have, a people who’re unhappy with our having and exercising our freedom of speech. And people who disrespect the right of others to differ in opinion, are most likely to resort to that which is the only alternative to reasonable discourse: Violence – and the fervent self-justification of it.

    The desire for power, and the urge to use violence to get it, are natural human tendencies.

    One of the purposes of getting an Education, in the Western sense, is to better understand how you yourself are naturally tending towards that desire for power, and a willingness to exert force to satisfy your impulses; it is by way of an educated understanding, and habituation to true principles, that we learn how to try to rise above those tendencies. To Educate a student, is to ‘Educere est educare’, a process of bringing you up and leading you out of darkness, to liberate you, from those passions and small minded habits that are normal for human beings who’ve not learned better. That purpose and process, is what led our ‘liberal education‘ to become the most valuable jewel in the crown of Western Civilization in general, and in American culture in particular, as being the means that societies which are predicated upon the need to respect the rights of others, and to understand why, are better able to do so. It is that ‘Liberal Education’ (not to be confused with Leftist Indoctrination), which pro-regressives of the Left and Right, are most opposed to – and one of the few paths to where the future might actually be found.

    The whole modern pro-regressive view of education, with their view of taking us into “the future!“, is rooted in modernity’s formative past, especially with Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s declaration that Civilization was not a ‘Good’, but was in fact the source of all of our misery. It was Rousseau that formulated the political roots of Fascism, by declaring that those who don’t believe as ‘The Legislator’ determines to be best, can’t be free, and as they prevent society from progressing, this ‘means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free‘ for the greater good. As I summed it up a few years back, that,

    “… he’d traced the origins of injustice to the first man who fenced off property and called it his own, married a woman and started a family. Everything else in political modernity is rooted in that thought, and it is in absolute opposition to what this nation was founded upon, Property Rights and the family.”

    Robespierre brought Rousseau’s seeds to bloody flower, Babeuf economized them into Socialism, and Marx helped them go viral internationally, via Communism, and all of them find both willing and unwitting pollination through the re-forming of ‘Education’, which Rousseau made sound so sweet and alluring… which is a song that self important, comfortable, lazy busybodies have never been able to resist.

    As with Greece, then Rome, then England, and now us, the same old self important ‘debased posterity‘, bored with the ‘restrictions’ handed down from their forefathers, decides that the ‘the old ways’ no longer suit their ‘modern’ preferences and tastes (of the 4th century B.C., and the 1st, 19th & 20th centuries, A.D.), and so they stop teaching them to the generations following them, substituting their own desires and whims dressed up in intellectualized drag. Clearly they are not philosophers, they do not love wisdom, they are, at best, annoyed by it, and more likely are hostile, and even hate, wisdom – they are not philosophers, but only misosophers.

    But fortunately for us today, we aren’t limited to the choices that they’re telling us we have to choose from, because we have something which history’s doomed masses who were brought down by the ‘new ideas’ of their privileged classes, whether the Greeks, Romans, or the English, didn’t have, and that is: the Internet. Not because of its technological glitz, but because it provides the means for the first time in history, of giving access to that knowledge which those who think of themselves as being our superiors, shun themselves, and seek to withhold from us – the wealth of learning and information that is the inheritance of the West. And as the dated smallness of their notions becomes known to us, we should be asking ourselves, who in their right mind wants to give such backwards ‘educational reformers‘, the power to decide that their children must ‘forgo the privilege of a liberal education‘, in order to serve society as their human capital?

    Civilization comes down to a matter of choice between a civilization that is civilizing, or one that seeks the power to force ‘the other’ to be what it describes as ‘free’. Civilization is ultimately a choice between seeking what is true, with the liberty to act accordingly; or seeking the power to reform your fellows through force and violence. People, of course, always have, and always will, tend towards violence, but, if they are familiar with the idea of being better, and are educated on how to be Civilized in that way, then they can choose to master themselves. And a Civics without that, is an end to Civilization as we still might know it – an uncivilized civics will turn your bright future, into the darkest past. Choose differently.

  • Why is America fired up over President Trump telling Comey: “You’re fired!”

    If you’ve had it already with the ‘James Comey fired from the FBI!’ stories, I get it, but as no one seems to have any more facts than I do, I’m going to add one more comment to the mix.

    Do try to recognize, that asking and answering ‘Why did Trump fire James Comey?!‘, is, in absence of an exhaustive cross examination of Donald Trump, nothing more than an exercise in expressing your own feelings about Trump, and Comey. Period.

    The only facts that we can actually know at this time, is that shortly after the Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, was finally confirmed by the senate, with high bi-partisan support (and which satisfied some procedural protocols for removing the agency director, from a staffing perspective), and he was asked to write a report on Comey’s status as director of the FBI, and his conclusion (which as he adamantly expressed, even reportedly threatening to resign if it was misrepresented, was not the causal reason for Comey’s firing, but simply an evaluation of the existing situation) was that Comey was compromised and ineffective, and that the FBI would be better off with a new director.

    Of course, as I posted last year, Comey, by his own testimony, had used his position as head of investigations, to make prosecutorial, and even judicial judgments, about whether charges should be brought or pursued, against Hillary, Huma Abedein, Anthony Wiener, etc. For me, that alone warranted his instant termination. My own question on why Trump fired him, is not ‘Why now?’ but ‘Why not earlier?’. However, as James Comey himself noted in his farewell letter, the president has the power and authority to fire the director of the FBI at any time, for any reason. You should note, that his removal does not halt or impede any ongoing investigations. It’s also worth noting, that his temporary replacement as Director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, is a Clinton appointee, who has shown, especially through his wife’s campaigning for office a potential for highly partisan leftist leanings – Trump is unlikely to get much aid and comfort through his position as director, so do tailor your pet conspiracy theory appropriately.

    Why did Trump fire him? Because he felt it was time to. And in typical Trump fashion, having reached that decision, he acted swiftly, and in a dramatic fashion worthy of Reality T.V. – Comey found out that he’d been fired while standing in front of a room full of FBI agents, as they saw that the TV monitor behind him, was running the news crawl that Trump had fired him. Talk about your ratings moment!

    For those of you who are all up in arms about this, honestly, I can only laugh and shake my head. America as a whole, Left, Right, Center and Libertarian, has shown itself to be uninterested in, and unfamiliar with, the concepts of, and structures of, our constitutional republic, preferring popularity, personal interest, and ‘gotcha!’ partisan political posturing, to prudent wisdom in governing. America, sorry, but as you clearly prefer to be entertained by the likes of South Park, The Simpsons, and Reality T.V., and YOU voted on that basis, whether for Clinton, Trump or the also-ran obstructionists, for President of the United States of America.

    THIS is what that looks like! What did you expect?! Personally, I expected much worse, and so far I’ve been pleasantly surprised with what Trump has, and has not, done in office – I was imagining much worse. I dislike his lack of understanding our constitutional principles, and especially his economic views, but despite your angst and caricatures, he has a long history of capable executive, management and administrative abilities, a fond regard for Americana, as well as a flare for drama and publicity, which he’s honed through a decade or more of Reality T.V., and so far, he has used all of that to deliver above my expectations. Fingers crossed. Salt tossed over shoulder. Wood knocked.

    For those whose reactions are dramatically different from mine, they might have been summed up best by Stephen Colbert’s startlement at his audience’s failure to be up to speed with the PC Media’s latest ‘against him, for him, against him’ positions on Comey, as they cheered when he announced his firing. The thing that came to mind for me, when I heard that, was George Orwell’s ‘1984’, as the crowd is being led in 5 minutes of hate against “Eurasia”, and the speaker receives a message and stops mid word, and changes to “Eastasia”, as the hate continues on unimpeded. Unfortunately, Wiki is the best source ref that I can do at the moment, but I think it captures the Colbert moment in ‘1984’:

    “At the start, Oceania and Eastasia are allies fighting Eurasia in northern Africa and the Malabar Coast.

    That alliance ends and Oceania, allied with Eurasia, fights Eastasia, a change which occurred during Hate Week, dedicated to creating patriotic fervour for the Party’s perpetual war. The public are blind to the change; in mid-sentence an orator changes the name of the enemy from “Eurasia” to “Eastasia” without pause. When the public are enraged at noticing that the wrong flags and posters are displayed, they tear them down—thus the origin of the idiom “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”; later the Party claims to have captured Africa.”

    Ladies and Gentlemen of America, if you disregard the concepts and principles and history that made this nation uniquely American, in favor of idle and base amusements, while giving political power over your lives, to people who have more regard for their own power, than your individual rights – what did you think would follow after that? Last year, the HBO series “Westworld” made masterful use of a Shakespearean nugget of a quote, from “Romeo & Juliet”,

    “These violent delights, have violent ends”

    When you comment, and act, not from careful consideration, but simply to give swift vent to your passionate and emotional feelings, you transform yourself into the ideal audience for taking part in ‘Hate Week’, and lacking any solid conceptual foundation, you too will hardly skip a beat in venting your emotions, as the label of your hated enemy is switched, from one set of letters, to another… and seriously, why would you think such labels would have any more value or purpose, to those you’ve put in charge of running the show, than a red cape to a bull?

    Again I’ve got to ask, America, what did you expect? SMDH.

  • Earth Day: Comply, or be put six feet under it!

    The underlying meaning of Earth Day, a day that was chosen to coincide with Vladimir Lenin’s birthday, shouldn’t be all that difficult to realize. The fact that one of its original promoters and first MC, was a fellow who later murdered his girlfriend …

  • A question for ‘REAL Conservatives’™

    I’ve got a question for my ‘REAL Conservatives’™ friends out there. While I’ve come to think of myself as more as more of a Liberal Conservative – Politically Liberal (Not Leftist, but Liberal in the classical sense of advocating for liberty), and culturally Conservative (not socially conservative, but seeking to conserve the ideals and treasures of Western Culture) – I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of Principles, to the point of preferring Principled thinking, over attempting to think with prefabricated store bought ‘principles’ (IOW I can get a bit obnoxious over it).

    Between Scylla and Charybdis

    I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of individual rights, the vital role that property plays in upholding them under a system of justice based upon the Rule of Law, which restrains and restricts the necessary power of government to defending the lives and rights of its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking through how those abstract rights, follow from perceptual realities, in a conceptual chain that is perilous to abridge. And while I rarely find politicians who think as I do, I do seek out and support those who at least show a deep regard for our rights, for the rule of law, and the structure and purpose of our Constitution.

    Given that focus, I couldn’t find a way to support Donald Trump in the Primaries, because I didn’t see any evidence that he understood, or gave much thought or regard, for what I did. I couldn’t exactly support him in the general election either, although I strongly advocated for casting your vote, as I did, with his name on it, as the most effective means of defeating the greater evil facing us, from the Pro-Regressive Left.

    My question for ‘REAL Conservatives’™, is this: Why is it, that with all the ‘REAL Conservatives’™ we’ve supported and elected over the decades, why is it that this billionaire, Twitter headed, Reality T.V. star, Donald J. Trump, is the ONLY one to propose the type of budget measures he has, the ONLY one who’s moved to slay the Hydra of the Administrative State, the ONLY one who’s used his executive powers to attack it, the ONLY one whose told the hell hole of North Korea that the era of ‘strategic patience’ is at an end, and the ONLY one to begin to pull back from the Charybdis of suck that is the United Nations?

    That seems like a question that might be worth giving some thought to.

Posts navigation