Two (Videos) if by Sea

So, an hour with Candace Owens and Douglas Murray from the Candace Owens Show in London. Interesting, Intelligent, and enjoyable. What’s not to like?

Hat tip to Kathy Gyngell at The Conservative Woman.

And Boris Johnson at the Conservative Conference. Always interesting and often fun.

Political Realignment and the Uniparty

Over at American Greatness, Edward Ring says politics is realigning. I say he is correct. Read on.

Just over three years ago, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in New York City, characterized half of Donald Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables.” […]

It might be tempting to return the favor and hate back. That not only would be a tactical mistake—since you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar—but also inaccurate targeting. There are a surprising number of liberals, progressives, and even socialists, who are not only anti-Clinton, but are begrudgingly, and increasingly, capable of seeing the positive side of the Trump presidency.

A very early indication of this came in October 2016, when John Pilger published in the London Progressive Journal an influential article titled, “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump.” Pilger, notwithstanding his socialist leanings, is a world-renowned journalist and filmmaker of undeniable courage and integrity.

He’s not alone, either in Britain or the US. They’re starting to pop up everywhere, in the trade unions, the leftist parties. There’s a full-on Marxist that is an elected Brexit Party MEP. So what’s going on?

The political universe is realigning, the left-right divide that has sufficed since the French Revolution no longer does.

Many Trump supporters cheered his election not because of his pugnacity (about time), or his policies (also about time), but because when you hate the china shop, you love the bull.

Trump has exposed the Democrat versus Republican, Right versus Left, liberal versus conservative paradigms as, if not obsolete shams, then at least models that have lost most of their dialectic vitality. They remain real and represent important differences, but they are overshadowed by a new political polarity, worthy of urgent and vigorous dialectic—globalism versus nationalism.

Until Trump came along, the globalist agenda crept relentlessly forward under the radar. Issues that now can be framed explicitly as globalist versus nationalist—immigration, trade, foreign policy, even climate change—found deceptive expression when shoehorned into the obsolete paradigms.

It suited the uniparty establishment to engage in phony, ostensibly partisan bickering to keep up appearances. It suited them to pretend that immigration and “free” trade bestowed unambiguous global economic benefits, while claiming that to oppose it was economically ignorant and “racist.” It was convenient to pretend ceaseless foreign interventions were based on moral imperatives, while silencing the opposition as “isolationists.” It was easy to get away with promoting climate change policies based on supposedly indisputable scientific evidence, while stigmatizing opponents as “deniers.”

Suddenly all of that is revealed as almost Ptolemaic in its contrived complexity. Here is Trump’s Copernican breakthrough: if you want open borders, absolutely free movement of capital and jobs, and an aggressive international “climate agenda” enforced by the American military, you are a globalist. If you do not, you are a nationalist.

The impact of the globalist agenda has been felt acutely in America already, but the pain is spreading and intensifying.

Unskilled immigrants are taking jobs away from the most vulnerable Americans, and every year, they continue to arrive by the millions. Manufacturing jobs which are vital to America’s economic vitality are being exported to any nation with cheaper labor, costing Americans still more jobs. Policies that are supposedly designed to save the planet have made it virtually impossible to build anything cost-effectively—houses, roads, reservoirs, power plants. In states where the globalist agenda is well advanced, the gap between rich and poor is at record levels, and the cost-of-living is prohibitive.

I think he’s spot on, and even more than the US, the situation in Britain makes it pretty obvious, does one want to join the globalist empire or not? Could hardly be clearer, and that’s why at least for the moment the old designators don’t work. Most of my British friends refer to LibLabCon, which refers to Liberal Democrat, Labour, Conservative, a short form meaning they’re all the same. Pretty much true at this point, there and here.

Interesting times, but at least half the battle is recognizing the enemy, and it is becoming clearer by the day. Press on.

The Great Pineapple Pizza War

In reading over at The Blogmire, I ran across this gem: The Great Pineapple Pizza Controversy and the Battle for Our Minds. Let’s have a look.

However, whilst the controversy may appear to be fairly harmless and light-hearted, sadly there may well be something far more sinister lurking beneath the surface. Without knowing it, it could be that these young people, and in fact anyone entering into the Great Pineapple Pizza Controversy, are in fact being manipulated by malicious foreign actors who “hate our values, our freedoms, and presumably our otherwise moderate views on Pineapple on Pizza.”

Lest you think I have gone mad, allow me to point you to a document produced by the United States Department of Homeland Security, in which Americans are warned about the influence of foreign nations (and you can probably guess who is at the top of their list), using the example of Pineapple on Pizza as an illustration.

Yes, there is. Our tax money at work.

From the document:

“Americans often engage in healthy debate on any number of topics. Foreign influencers try to pollute those debates with bad information and make our positions more extreme by picking fights, or “trolling” people online …

What started in cyberspace can turn very real, with Americans shouting down Americans because of foreign interference.”

Hard to believe that we pay people (overpay, in fact) to write such tosh. Can it happen, well I suppose it can, but that probably indicates that you spend too much time online, and need to get a real job. But there is a serious point here, both in the document and for those of us who think for ourselves as the linked article author says.

But although I am tempted to just laugh at the sheer madness of it, I do want to make one very serious point. What is going on at the moment is that the political elites are trying to create what they call the “centre ground”. Broadly speaking, this so-called centre ground can be defined as an ideology that is committed to: globalisation; the sexual revolution; the destruction of the married family; the demonisation of males; the idea that white people are intrinsically racialist; the erosion of any differences between male and female; the ending of national sovereignty and borders; the right to intervene and wage war against nations for alleged humanitarian reasons; the right to kill human beings in the womb; and a view of crime that puts it down to social injustices, rather than guilt and culpability. Or to put that another way, pretty much everything George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Tony Blair believe in.

What they are also doing, at the same time, is to attempt to stifle and even close down debate. But they are not resorting to the jackboot or the Gulag to achieve this. No, they are resorting to the demonisation and smearing of their opponents, usually achieved by the insertion of the word “phobia” at the end of a word, but also increasingly by the suggestion that anyone holding a contrary position to the officially approved “centre ground” opinion does so because they have been targeted, swayed, propagandised by foreign actors who — altogether now — hate our values, hate our way of life, and who want to destroy us etc etc etc ad infinitumad nauseum.

In short, the deep state mired in the swamp at work. And that is why it is the enemy of the American people, as it is of all free people everywhere. In America, and yes in Britain as well, it is the eternal battle to keep us free, and for the rest, if our peoples fail, they have little hope, as all will subside back into the mire of various forms of autocracy.

For all that, pineapple belongs on ham, not pizza.

The Minefield Called Nationalism

I think most of you are familiar with Steven Hayward. He’s one of the principals at the PowerLine Blog that we refer to often I’d call it nearly essential, even though I don’t always agree with it, the reasoning is almost always impeccable. Here, he is writing for Law and Liberty and it is superb.

Like “America First,” another term that has elbowed its way back into our politics, the word “nationalism” has a lot of baggage that one might have hoped the airline of history would have lost in transit by now. The noted political theorist John Dunn called it “the starkest political shame of the twentieth century, the deepest, most intractable and yet most unanticipated blot on the political history of the world since 1900.” At the same time it is, said Dunn, “the very tissue of modern political sentiment, the most widespread, the most unthinking and the most immediate political disposition of all, at least among the literate populations of the modern world.”

Every government’s primary obligation is to protect the interests of its citizens first before anyone else’s, so “America First” ought to be unobjectionable in the abstract.

As Steven says, “America First” got a bad name from our isolationists in the days leading up to our involvement in the Second World War. While I can understand and sympathize with their thought, they were wrong, our conception of the world depended on the victory of the Anglophone powers.

The “German Question”

First, let us finish the historical picture. Is it possible for an entire continent to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? Or, to put the matter more directly, is the twitchiness about nationalism partly a proxy for what might otherwise be recognized historically as “the German question”?

When, after 1989, it became possible to reunite the communism-sundered East Germany and West Germany, European nervousness about this was accompanied by the qualms of Germans themselves about their national identity. I observed many times in classrooms with European students that, when asked whether individual students regarded themselves as citizens of “Europe” or citizens of their native country, it was always the German students who were the most likely—sometimes the only—ones who tended to identify as “citizens of Europe” first.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that Germany’s lingering war guilt acted, and still acts, as a drag on the mood of the entire Continent. Remember what Sir Humphrey Appleby, in the old British television series Yes, Minister, quipped: Germany went into the European Union “to cleanse themselves of genocide and reapply for admission to the human race.” (Or you might prefer the parallel joke, that the purpose of NATO was to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down.)

An aside is that Sir Humphrey has become an astute guide to European and British politics in the last few years. Thus what we all thought was comedy becomes real life, or at least, black comedy.

There is some evidence that the trauma of the world wars and the Holocaust contribute to a higher degree of general risk-aversion among Europeans than Americans. Europe is where, after all, “genetically modified organisms” meet consumer trepidation that is off the chart as compared to the response in, say, the United States or Canada. Invoking “nationalism” among Europeans is as scary as trying to introduce GMOs in their supermarkets. (Would that Europeans had just as much skepticism of the risks of NGOs as they do of GMOs.) [Amen, Neo]

Europe’s culture of risk-aversion would be insufficient, though, to explain the Europeans’ anti-nationalist unease absent a much more powerful and insidious factor: what Sir Roger Scruton calls the Western Left’s “culture of repudiation”—or, in Pascal Bruckner’s useful label, “the tyranny of guilt.” There can be no sensible or benign nationalism when wide swaths of the intelligentsia of Europe—its universities, its media, and politicians like Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel—are embarrassed by or hostile to historic European civilization as a whole. (It should go without saying that same applies to the American intelligentsia.)

This is all very true, and it is why Europe is badly underperforming its potential, to the point that to many of us it looks suicidal. Britain is somewhat better, but only somewhat, to expect any initiative for much of anything from Europe has become a fool’s errand. The Brits did, on the other hand, manage to vote for Brexit, and appear to be staying the course, even against the opposition of their pusillanimous so-called elite.

“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.” The meaning here is unmistakable. While natural rights might be universal, securing them requires the nation-state—a “separate” nation-state, as the clause after that one says. And you can’t have distinctive nation-states without some kind of nationalist self-definition. The Declaration implicitly acknowledges that even universal rights will require, in practice, particular regimes that will be the product of history as much as reason. There is nothing to fear from a prudential understanding of this essential point.

And that is why Britain so badly needs the support of the United States at this time. A friend wrote years ago that we are the only ones still willing to go out into the world to address evil. Her words have become settled truth, but still, we too have our elites, who think their European counterparts are correct.

Read his article, I’ve not done it even close to justice here.

But Steven also reminds us that a few years ago one of the great nationalistic slogans was coined here:

We have nothing to fear but fear itself

Calling Out Racists

So, Candace Owens was on Laura Ingraham last week with some racist Democrat. 🙂 Yeah, in a sense, I’m kidding, but in a pretty serious way, I’m not. Let’s take a look, via CNS News.

Owens debated Democrat strategist Monique Pressley about whether President Donald Trump is a racist. Owens said Trump wasn’t considered a racist until he ran for president.

PRESSLEY: I’m not here to defend anyone who takes the side of a racist, so when the president retweets or comments about Nazi enthusiasts or people in Britain who are saying things that are hateful or —

LAURA INGRAHAM: So you don’t think he was a white supremacist in the ’80s but you do today? You didn’t think he was a white supremacist in the ’80s or the 90s?

PRESSLEY: I said I didn’t disagree that he received those awards. I think when he was taking out the article on the Central Park Five who was then the exonerated Park Five, I think that he was a racist then.

INGRAHAM: That’s fine. No one’s gonna follow Central Park Five but I’m just asking you because I really do want to understand. Do you believe in the ’80s and ’90s that Donald trump was not a white supremacist or he’s been a white supremacist his whole life but hid it from everybody?

PRESSLEY: I can’t speak about what he hid or what I believe. All I can go with is what is factual. So what we know — if I can just answer, what I’m basing my belief on is the fact that he 1) took out an article for people who were ultimately exonerated – a full-page ad for those young men who were citizens — …

So Obama was someone who, according to him, was not born in the United States – I guess Hawaii is not part of the United States. The immigrants from the first time he came down the escalator were coming.

INGRAHAM: He didn’t say immigrants. He said illegal.

PRESSLEY: The Mexicans. I’m sorry. The Mexicans – not just the illegals, and I’m not here to defend —

OWENS: So basically, your argument is that he went from being so not racist that Al Sharpton was hugging him to suddenly one day he decided to run for president and boom, just like that he became an avowed racist and all of a sudden we’re digging back into Central Park Five, which by the way in his ad said that if anybody is found guilty, any person of killing somebody in the park, then they should be put to death.

Guess what? Nobody got killed in a park that day, so that’s completely irrelevant. All the points just made about Central Park Five were completely irrelevant, because the woman did not die. She actually survived. We can debate that another day. What we’re talking about today is nobody suddenly becomes racist, okay, as time goes on. You decide that one day he goes, oh, you know what? Never mind. Forget me hugging and doing so much for black America that I was receiving awards. Suddenly today, I’m a racist.

You want to know why he’s a racist suddenly? Because he ran for the presidency and this is how the Democrats try to score points in order to enslave black Americans ideologically.

PRESSLEY: When his entire family was running slum landlord tenements and then refusing..

OWENS: Actually that’s wrong. In Mar-A-Lago, he launched a lawsuit against the state because he felt that they were discriminated against Spanish people and black people. In 1995, Trump did that. You can look it up. So much for being a racist.

See what I mean? Not only do they lie, they tell stupid, obvious lies, and then they have the hubris to demand that we accord their every lie the status of given, unchallengeable truth. Yeah, well, no. It ain’t happening, not anymore. If you want to be taken seriously, your story must at least make superficial sense.

It is one of those obvious lies that President Trump was one of the leaders of the black community in the 80s. No that’s mot the lie, he was trying hard to help them then, as now. The lie is that suddenly when he became President he became a racist.

What he became is a truthful man, and the liars and yes, the racists, who work every day to keep the black people down on the plantation, are both horrific racists and liars. How many black people have had their lives ruined by this bigotry in our lifetimes? That doesn’t even cover their support for the Klan, for Jim Crow laws, and yes, for slavery itself.

Thank God, some of the blacks are finally awakening to what has been done to them.

Sunday Funnies: Horsemen and Debates

 

Did you watch the Democrat Debate?  Nope, I didn’t, were what 16 months out, and I already know every single one of them wants to hurt the country. There are better ways to waste time. But the highlights are funny, I’ll admit.

This should cover most of it…

You know when I was growing up around Chicago, there was lots of corruption, but minor things usually got fixed, garbage picked up, rats sort of under control (except in the projects, of course). Something has changed.

And, of course

%d bloggers like this: