Times for change

The Times is stunned, repelled:

“Under (Trump’s) presidency, the American dream would be primarily reserved for Americans.”


If cannot be THAT much of a shock that the balance of this country’s population isn’t sequestered in fabulously well-appointed, scrupulously well-guarded coops up Central Park West way – as perhaps are many New York Times writers. So when something as wantonly stupid as that line pops up, I doubt elite journalists know how detached and scornful they appear to most Americans.

No, genius. The American dream hasn’t been reserved for Americans in a long while – since your precious New York banks and Wall Street decided running things with the “little people” in mind was cornball for suckers. And when someone, even a bad hairdo, shows up and says a little shake is going to trickle down instead of gush up, they kinda like it. It’s in their best interest.

But… Since pursuing best interests of anyone making less than high six figures a year is crime against humanity in our new, improved social transaction, the Times is rightly appalled.

And completely out of touch… This line follows:

“Historians and legal scholars struggled to recall when a presidential candidate had departed so radically from the traditional view that America’s welcome for immigrants was a prime reason for its exceptional innovation and prosperity.”

Let’s set aside for the moment doubtful invocation of historians’ and legal scholars’ recollections. What did the Times do, convene a congress of eggheads in the few hours between Trump’s speech and the time this brilliant meditation was published?

Up until a few decades ago, I’d have trouble recalling any candidate who suggested Americans shouldn’t be primary beneficiaries of this country’s exceptional innovation and prosperity. Historically, for the most part, Americans produced it. Immigration always was considered important; remember, Emma Lazarus wrote her “give me your tired and poor” stanzas waaay back in the 19th century. But never before have immigration and immigrants been shoved down our throats as the most important sparkly gemstones of the cosmos.

For one thing, previous generations would have seen through this con job. Those lamp-lit, thrown-open doors surely bring aid and comfort to all who want to come here. But if they come by droves, they also provide a constantly renewing cheap-labor pool that benefits only a tiny tip of our widening economic pyramid.

The Newspaper of Record is broken.

~ o ~

Taylor made

Tough times we’ve been having of late. Anottaylo2her day, another tragedy and I know everyone is expressing grief, sorrow, standing tall with victimized cities, tweeting truth to The Man, and so forth. Since I didn’t know any of the victims killed so far this summer, I’m not going to fake concern and sadness. I could give a shit. However, it does give pause to even arch sociopaths.

We’re at a tough moment in human history, when a lot of us who walk and crap upon the earth are finding it difficult if not impossible to cling to those signal fairy tales that would explain reality and why bad things happen to (generally) good people. But junking religion leaves us in a void: On what other moral code do we base our laws? Without a senile, woman-hating, bloodthirsty old psycho in the sky, where do we get necessary breakdowns of good and evil?

Why, from POLITICS, of course. So our political arena has steered away from contests and conflict over ideas and policy, and now discerns for us right road vs. wrong road. Obvious problem leaving moral custody to politics is that politics is MEANT to be factional, to be divisive. It SHOULD counter response to issues from one side with often opposing responses from another. There are no universals – only differing opinions that, in workable democracy, complement each other at least in part as solution and process.

So our elections become crusades. We have no political opponents – we’re battling monsters, instead. And if those with whom we differ are evil, there’s no approaching them. As any group action defaults to its most extreme elements, some will try to destroy these retarded, nativist, inbred, extremist beasts. And so we now have a civil war on our hands – the Daily News is right and fuck everybody whining about it.

Most watch in horror and fascination this tape-loop bus crash. Not me. When the going gets sticky, the sticky take five. So right now, I’m following the celebrity travels and travails of my tall-drink-o’-water Top Chick – Taylor Swift.

Who is this Hiddleston whatever? Who’s ever heard of him? Why is he latching onto my Taylor?

Will I have to pull a coup on his ass?

And, no: There’s no place for morality or moral posturing in politics. Gets in way of necessary graft, feather-bedding, and pork barrels that make the whole thing tick

~ o ~

Narrativo mori

It was a beloved meme of our media – that there have been more bad-whitey terror casualties since 9/11 (they HAD to except that date) in the U.S. than those of Muslim extremists. Yesterday’s Orlando massacre – the worst mass-killing in American history – shot that one down, so to speak.

(It IS obvious there would be more white-terror attacks than Muslim, since whites are still about two thirds of the total population, and Muslims account for only 1.3 percent. …And… that proves, of course, that Muslims are killing way out of proportion to their numbers here.)

In that time, according to New America, a Washington think tank, Islamists launched nine attacks that murdered 45, while the right-wing extremists struck 18 times, leaving 48 dead. These Americans thrive on hate and conspiracy theories, many fed to them by politicians and commentators who blithely blather about government concentration camps and impending martial law and plans to seize guns and other dystopian gibberish…

- Newsweek, February 2016

We can expect at least some half-hearted “Muslim community bracing for conjectural, rarely executed ‘backlash'” in wake of this attack. And we KNOW we’ll never again see reference to Muslim/beer-belly militia terror match-ups.

Could Orlando’s jihadist – Omar Mateen – qualify as “gentle giant”?…

~ o ~

Week indie

Yeah… Massacres are imminent. But… Likely not.

Modern campuses seem a kind of stagnant daycare, where young adults relearn the Toddler Method: Demanding, irrational, prone to crying jags, wildly oversensitive… ignorant.

Our youthful American Taliban, though, are risking eradication of our half-century experiment in soft-Marxism. Its tenets have been institutionalized in our social and administrative functions, which have become more static and oppressive; forsaken are Marxian economic brainstorms, which have proven sorry failures since first out for a test drive in 1917.

Collegiate SJWs have opened up the whole program to ridicule, and that will be its death knell. In the past, when the Right responded with outrage to Lefty forays, the Right was derided. Old fogeys, whitebread morality, politically retarded, whatever.

But now… Trigger warnings? Safe spaces? Microaggressions? What’s next? Pacifiers? Che bibs? Their insipid, infantile demands are congenital punchlines.

Even resiliently dense True “You Mean Haven Monahan WASN’T the Brains Behind UVA’s Crystalmangumnacht?!” Believers are beginning to panic. The whole, 60-year experiment in spiritual corrosion for the common good could collapse in on itself like the rotten old shack it is.

~ o ~

Cut it

occamModern journalism has forgotten Occam’s Razor – a theorum dreamed up by a Medieval monk that advises against complicating your theory. In short, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Maybe someone can see it in this New Y0rker article – I didn’t. It reinforces the case that a lot of tender young vibrant enrichers from Islam tend to go radical because of shabby treatment from Westerners once they immigrate. That’s been THE default position of our deep thinkers for 50+ years now: Whenever something bad happens in the world, it’s fault of racist, hate-filled Western butterflies flapping their wings somewhere in placid Whiteyland.

Of correlations researchers in this study found, one was that most extremists came from French-speaking countries, overwhelmingly from France itself. They go on to cite high-unemployment among Muslims now enriching the Gallic homeland, those ugly state-driven campaigns against public veil-wearing, etc., as factors in this process of alienation, then radicalization.

But isn’t there a simpler factor? France is home to the highest Muslim population in Europe – 6.5 million. That’s almost 10 percent of the country’s ENTIRE population.

‘Course that fact, if endorsed (or even mentioned), would indicate encouraging immigration from the Land of the Prophet might not be such a grand idea – in spite of plaintive squeals by soft-hearted (and -headed?) open-borders fans.

Can’t have that… But why? Why not even bring up the possibility for debate?

~ ooo ~

Odd this was run the same week as Obama’s HUD announced it’s boosting housing vouchers to allow urban poor to rent in ever-more-upscale suburbs. This is “magic dirt” theory of integration – transform forever-struggling, mostly non-white inner-city folk into prosperous doctors, lawyers and aeronautical engineers by moving them to places where those professions dwell.

Oddly, it also will empty fashionable but presently ‘problematic’ urban areas so they can be gentrified, revived, and whitened into upscale – and quite high-rent – party keeps for Millennial affluees. Winners: Those ready to rennovate ghettos into boutique neighborhoods. Losers: Those out in the ‘burbs now, who’ve sunk their life savings into that magic dirt.

We know media always will have the back of these urban pioneers, since both developers and asphalt settlers are wealthiest faction in this social-justice/financial killing equation.

Since it’s the most famous test-tube in an earlier incarnation of this rather destructive social experiment, we might as well say these tracts will be “Fergusoned”.












3 Responses to HOME

  1. ALNLA

    Your June 29th column mentioned Lynn Langton of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and her stating that “A similar percentage of whites experienced violence from blacks as blacks experienced from whites,” as though that fact established parity between black and white behavior. It does just the opposite, of course. If there are six times as many whites as blacks, then “similar percentages” of each would include six times as many whites as blacks. That would mean black-on-white attacks were six times as frequent as white-on-black. Does this woman not even realize what she has conceded?

  2. Most will read her comment and assume the violence is about the same.
    That’s how our inconvenient truths are bent and muddied by double talk.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>