Once My Mouth Got Washed Out by Soap. For the “N” Word

In my defense, I was 3 years old at the time that the tiny sliver of soap was inserted in my mouth. The word had no meaning to me. It was something I said, a mere interesting sound, and for that I was punished. By the time I was seven, I knew what the word meant. I understood it was a horrid insult and not to be spoken. And every kid I knew realized they were in a lot of trouble if they used the word.

But I am in my late sixties right now, and there is an expression that deeply troubles me. Can I, should I, compare this expression to the “n” word? Having never been a person of color, I can’t say how they feel when the “n” word gets used. I do know that poet Maya Angelou took one of the rappers to task for using the “n” expression in a comedy send up. And that person took her seriously and re-evaluated his use of the word.

So I can’t say whether the term is as injurious and as de-humanizing as the “n” word would be. Allow me to ruminate aloud.

I do know that growing up words had significance. A person was a White Supremacist if they bandied about in white robes and burned crosses on the lawns of people of color. Also if they applauded lynchings. If they lay awake at night thinking about how they would punish those trying to break through the color line of de-segregation.

A White Supremacist was someone who could not stand the thought of anyone inferior to them by the sin of having darker skin now being able to send their children to the same school. They wanted equally violent  brutality to come to anyone who was now able to live in their neighborhood.

Over the years, as events in South Africa transpired, another word crept into people’s lexicon: White Nationalist. These people were seen by many people in the USA as being on a par with White Supremacists except they lived in South Africa. They controlled the government in that nation. They waged war against people of color who attempted to break free of apartheid by inter-marriage or by working at a job “above that of the occupations designated for people of color to hold.” The White Nationalists had militias that kidnapped and tortured young men of color who had strayed into their neighborhood.

Finally the people of the nation of South Africa could no longer take it. The day to day brutality of apartheid. The endless fighting of the people of color against whites and vice a versa.

Over a decade later, as a publisher who often spent time on the phone with book distributors across the world,  I asked one woman book distributor in Johannesberg exactly what had happened there. To me it seemed as though one night the nation collectively went to sleep and dreamt its way to peace. That after that dream, the people woke up the next day and people’s expectations had changed. Apartheid was in the past, and Mandela was made the new President of South Africa.

The woman replied that that was essentially what had happened. People were sick of the strife and unrest and the violence and wanted something better. A few minor political events also helped this dream come about. But there was something beyond political events that had changed the world of South Africa. The world of South Africa’s White Nationalists was now over.

Now in our country we have had a revolution. A man, one Donald Trump, who although a corporatist, ran for the nation’s highest office using a veneer of populism. Then he won that office fair and square.

What is more, he has gone on to stick by the many populist pledges he made while running for office. He wants good paying jobs in this country to exist again. For that to happen, he insisted on re-establishing tariffs, cutting back on endless regulations, and ensuring that the borders are not easy for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to cross.

Today there are places in Texas and elsewhere where oil drilling operations that had gone silent are now active again, and inflation rather than low wages has become the problem of the day. We also see that our nation has been pulled out of the Paris Accords, with the 110 billions of dollars that would have been spent there kept in our Treasury and not that of rulers of third world nations. Likewise, NATO nations are now being required to pull their full share and stop paying only half their assessments.

While under the continual harassment of an investigation that I see as rightly being called a witch hunt, he has succeeded in stopping payments from our own CIA over to ISIS. He has made a dive into negotiating a peace accord with North Korea. He is stopping the onslaught of economic serfdom to China such that our trade deficit to that nation will slow if not turn around fully to our advantage. In his spare time, he also un-wrote the disaster of the Peace Plan that Obama had created for Iran.

For all of that, 90% of the Corporate-owned Globalist news media can only focus on how soon it will be that this slime ball of a president will be impeached. Meanwhile the candidates President Trump  supported in Tuesday’s primaries won their victories.

Sensible economic policies that he believes in are tarnished with the expression of “White Nationalistic policies.” Or “White Nationalism.” In fact these polices are simply “Economic Nationalism.” The slur against this President has worked on both a conscious and sub conscious level. From newspaper reporters in Great Britain to the those of the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times and the Talking Heads over on MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN and others, the American public continually hears as little as possible about Trump’s achievements.

Rather these Main$tream media types are bawling their heads off over his racism, sexism, scandalous adulterous affair, and of course, his White Nationalism. Even the usually free thinking Jimmy Dore has stuck with the moniker of “Donny Callahan” implying Trump is nothing better than a NYC mob boss with a nice view of the Rose Garden. And then in the next breath, Dore praises something that Trump recently accomplished.

But perhaps even Dore failing to embrace Trump has to do with the “n” word. He grew up a Chicago kid like I did, and perhaps he still feels in his heart of hearts that to be labelled a Supremacist or Nationalist is akin to embracing the “n” word. He too might have had a mouth washed out – and now he needs to disassociate from any possible display of prejudice that might be akin to saying “n.”

I for one see the expression of “White Nationalism” as a most hurtful  expression as possible, stopping short of the racist epithet of “n.” This is true because we already live inside a world where the political opposition to the Republican Party is advocating Revolution, rather than the mere “resistance” of 12 months ago. Recently in Philadelphia, Trump supporter Candace Owens was mobbed by fanatics that tried to shout her down and possibly would have torn her apart were the city police not available to come to her rescue and arrest these perpetrators. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was also forced to leave a DC area restaurant on account of vigilante activities of a mob. Even after she left, she and her family were not allowed to have peace at the new eatery they were about to sit down at.

Would this be coming about if this injurious term was not allowed to be spoken as though it was not inflammatory? Way back in November of 2017, I was first labelled a “White Supremacist” for my simple statement that I like Trump’s idea of a jobs program. How that statement is the equivalent of being a member of the KKK or White Supremacists, I just don’t know. But the African American woman who gave me that label, she went on to explain about some black minister who had “the inside scoop” that Trump’s job program would never allow for any people of color to be hired and that the entire venture would adhere to Trump’s design to be a slush fund for his family.

With Mona Charon having the audacity to go ahead and use the slur of “White Nationalist” and the site that must not be named allowing her exercise in hostility to be posted, I have to wonder. There are words that are not to be used without a bar of soap coming into play. Because if they are used with impunity, there are far reaching consequences of fomenting hatred, hostility and violence.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Yet Another Chess Set

Aeons ago, in 1995, a Kevin Solway wrote NEWSPEAK, a small and funny unutility denouncing politically correct terror. While the Win16 program is still available on Mr Solway’s Web site, “The Thinking Man’s Minefield”, it is almost impossible to run for most users who do not have a working DOS or Win98SE PC available as I do. The help screen included a small black and white gem, here slightly reedited for clarity and hopefully better look :

Taking into account recent advances too (dange|nume)rous to mention, in social justice, equity and equality is left as an exercise for the viewer.

(Sorry for picture size : it does look prettier on my 15″ CRT 800×600 display !)


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

I am not a “white nationalist” and I do not think “great swaths” of Republicans are either

Great swaths of Republicans are not just biting their tongues about Trump, they are convinced that his white nationalist path is the right one.

-Mona Charen, August 29, 2018

 

What an offensive thing to say. You can read the whole thing here. You cannot read it at National Review, because it seems it was an article too far for National Review. Ignoring the insane idea that using the a specific term is racist (apparently only for Republicans), I find it a huge slur on Republicans. I will leave that to others, such as National Review to condemn.

And what was the other thing she cited? Not changing the name of a building from one old guy to honor another less old guy. How conservative is it to jump on the renaming buildings bandwagon? For the record, I did not want to rename the National Airport Ronald Reagan National Airport. Unseemly. I am against naming roads and building after people, generally speaking, but I am totally against renaming them with whomever popular today. To me, being conservative means you honor a few people, truly worthy of it after good consideration. And they ought to have been gone a good, long while. And once done, leave it be. Find a new building. But no, those sentiments to Ms. Charen are evidence not of a conservative tendency, they are clear evidence that I am a white nationalist.

It is funny, by the way, because the person she wants to honor, is exactly the sort of person to go on and on about how great a former Senator was, regardless of how bad the man was in real life. How fitting, really, for a name change to be blocked on such grounds. McCain might even approve. I think he had a pretty good sense of history.

I understand that Ms. Charen does not like the direction of the current Republican Party. Indeed, I can see how she gets passionate and gets carried away. However, just as she is complaining about one word in a prepared speech, she uttered a sentence where she calls the majority of republicans supporters of white nationalism. Since she is unwilling to give any grace at all, then she herself deserves none. In fact, using the same logic as Ms. Charen, we can take this statement to look deep into her heart, and we can there see the burning contempt she has for the racists in the GOP. She clearly sees anyone willing to work with Trump as sell outs to save their skin: “Thus does cowardice masquerade as pragmatism.” And they are cowards in the face of the white nationalist Trump supporting voters, who are racists.

I applaud National Review for not running this column. It is the right thing to do, as a publisher to not publish a column that unfairly slurs others as racist. It is good business sense to not to publish a column that applies that slur to the paying readership of your publication.

Like 13+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

TOTD 2018-08-31: A Reckoning Cannot Be Delayed Indefinitely

When you proclaim your allegiance to a set of principles, you are expected to follow them.  When you carry a banner for an organization, you are expected to support its goals and those of its members.

When this is out of alignment, there is a reckoning coming.  No matter how much you put it off, there is going to be a moment when either the group changes to fit the leadership, or the group tosses out the leadership.  We have seen this in numerous settings, most recently the conservative movement and the Catholic Church.  A similar disconnect between the leaders and the bulk of the organization.

Conservatives are now shocked to discover that many of their leaders are more devoted to corporations and whoever is paying their salary than their supposed principles.  Corporations are vital to the economy , but they can be agents of leftism under the direction of social justice CEOs.  If we could get businesses to stick to making money and focus any moral interests on either not killing their workforce or traditional charities, we would be in a much better situation.   However, many supposed leaders of the conservative movement condemn any right wing pressure on a corporation or any efforts to cut off the flow of Mexican helots to serve as cheap disposable labor.

Similarly, most people thought the Catholic Church was in the business of saving souls and giving out charity, not focusing on climate change or trying to protect Muslim migrants from Catholic countries wanting to enforce border controls.  However, Cardinal Cupcake of Chicago has made it clear that dealing with mortal sin in the clergy is not on the leadership’s priority – this despite him being in charge of the committee on the protection of children.

The reckoning is coming, whether we want it or not.

Like 10+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Paul Spudis R.I.P.

In June 2015, I was on the Milt Rosenberg show for the second time.  Bill Mellberg, friend of RA, organized this program; we were joined in the second half of the first hour by lunar expert Paul Spudis.  Bill died a year ago in April and Milt died this January.  I just got word that Paul died yesterday.  So I’m the only one left out of four people who did a show 38 months ago.  This is shocking to me.

http://hark.io/podcast/space-exploration-a-history-current-affairs-and-a-look-toward-the-future/


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

The Ghost of Tom Joad

MJ commented on my use of Tom Joad in a post- here is my counterpoint.

Tom Joad defies labels- he is an American who has had too much oppression. He reflects “Don’t Tread on Me” far more than Progressivism.

I could add to his speech:

Wherever an FBI guy falsifies charges to destroy an innocent man…

Wherever politicians send jobs overseas so they can pocket donor money…

Whenever Techno Barons decide to make me a non person…

I’ll be there…

Add your own codas to this speech….

Help! How to enlighten Democrats?

                        Daniel in the lions den (1890) by Briton Riviere

My New York, Jewish, Democrat friend, Carol, has invited me to her Democrat Expatriate Group meeting in the middle of September. Her Group are trying to see President Trump from the other side.

Having been given 10-15 minutes to address the Group, I am carefully preparing for the occasion. My family and friends are all horror-struck. They are tossing out comments such as I am being thrown into the lions’ den like Daniel. It is expected that I will be shredded to the bone with huge knives. Perhaps I will return as a blithering idiot.

Any ideas of how I can approach the challenge?


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar

Academic Brain Washing

When I was in college, I loved studying the humanities. I almost abandoned my major in order to pursue a humanities degree. Correction: I did. I was undeclared for the last quarter of my Freshman year.

One of the things I observed as very different between humanities and mathematics is that the humanities never has a right answer – it is argumentative in nature (which is what makes it so much fun to converse over!). Present an argument and draw on known facts and logic to support your position. Correct is not the same as Right – if you cogently support your claim and it stands up to counter argument, it is sound.

This is why I like math – math always has a right answer. In fact, when stressed, math homework was a relief. Stress was usually driven by a feeling of frustration in not knowing the right course in life. Math gave comfort in its exacting correctness. Follow the methods, work it out, puzzle over it, and the right answer reveals itself.

The humanities used to be the building ground of critical thinking skills and why a humanities education was so vaunted. However, among an easily influenced youth, it can easily become ground zero for propaganda and, for lack of a better word, brainwashing (not to be hyperbolic) (clearly my humanities education failed me). All you have to do is claim that there is a right answer and push your preferred conclusion on those entrusted to your care.

Under this paradigm, marxist propogandists have been able to influence 2-3 generations of young people and potentially more. Not content to leave it at just this, but add in a new qualification that in order to posit your own claim and support it academically, you must be studying for your doctorate. Elsewise, you are expected to regurgitate an expert’s argument and defend it through other sources. This is convenient to the propagandists when the experts studied are in accord with the professors.

So far untainted by this argumentative weakness, engineering and mathematics have been somewhat sheltered from the pushing of unsupported as true. If lies are relied upon as truth, bridges collapse, building crumble, and mars landers don’t stick the landing (oops).

Well, not for much longer!

http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/30/professor-worked-common-core-tests-math-needs-downplay-objects-truth-knowledge/

A U.S. professor who teaches future public school teachers will “argue for a movement against objects, truths, and knowledge” in a keynote to the Mathematics Education and Society conference this coming January, says her talk description.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Wasn’t Doctor Zhivago a lovely, romantic film?

Doctor Zhivago (1965) is a British-Italian epic romantic drama, over three hours long. My Film Group loved it, but we stopped our first viewing at the Intermission. It was going to be so late if we continued to watch until the end, we decided to carry it over for another week.

The film is set in Russia during the years prior to the First World War (1914-18) and the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922. Produced by Carlo Ponti and directed by David Lean shortly after he had directed Lawrence of Arabia, it is based on the novel (1957) of the same name, by Boris Pasternak. Filmed mainly in Spain, the winter scenes of the family travelling to Yuriatin by rail were filmed in Canada. It did look familiar, but I thought that was because Russia lies in the same latitude as Canada, and the scenery in parts of Russia would look similar.

Omar Sharif was unforgettable as Doctor Yuri Zhivago. Yuri as a child, was played by Tarek Sharif, Omar Sharif’s son. This explains the good casting, as the child looked so like the man. Julie Christie was absolutely beautiful as Lara Antipova, as was Geraldine Chaplin as Tonya Gromenko. Rod Steiger was perfect as Victor Ippolitovich Komarovsky, as was Alex Guinness as Lieutenant General Yevgraf Andreyevich Zhivago, Yuri’s brother. Tom Courtney as Paval “Pasha” Antipov / Strelnikov was excellent, as were the rest of the distinguished cast. From 2018, they all look look so young. 

The 38th Academy Awards gave Doctor Zhivago five Oscars: Best Adapted Screenplay; Best Original Score; Best Cinematography; Best Art Direction; and Best Costume Design. The film was nominated for five others: Best Picture; Best Director; Best Supporting Actor; Best Editing; and Best Sound, but lost out to The Sound of Music. At the Golden Globes, it won Best Actor for Sharif; Best Motion Picture – Drama; Best Director; Best Screenplay; and Best Original Score. The American Film Institute recognized it as No. 39 in its list of 100 Best Movies.

The budget for Dr. Zhivago was $11 million USD, and the world showed its appreciation of the film at the box office to the total of $111.7 million USD.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

TOTD 2018-8-30: Disagreement Versus Disruption

In a pluralist society disagreement is its mother milk. People need to keep true to their beliefs. I am a firm believer in, there is more unity in diversity* than uniformity. It works because hopefully there is enough commonality on the basics that people can live in peace. What a society or community can’t handle is willful disruptions. I would put Antifa in this group.

There seems to be a trend where people want to shut down the discussion rather than have it. Many tactics are used. One is the extreme pejorative. “You’re a racist.” “You hate poor people.” “You have no principles.” The next is to heckle. This person wants to stop a good conversation from happening. They don’t rent the room or gather the people. But they figure they have a right to disrupt the people who do. Third, there are the thought police. One can’t even bring up the subject. Certain words need to be bleeped out. “You are part of the patriarchy. ” “Meritocracy is code for keeping people down.” “We know what you really mean.” “One giant leap for [Redacted].”

Whereas disagreement is how we learn. We challenge and listen and respond respectfully. We might go to the lecture and ask questions but we don’t try to shut it down or picket it. We gather people who are like minded and form groups who agree to disagree. Many of the best movements started this way. They disagreed with the status quo and persuaded people that there was a better way.

Good disagreement does not demonize the other person. It does not heckle or shout down the other argument. It does not limit the discussion to only a certain set of words. It should be a marketplace that ideas can be exchanged and positions can change.

* Don’t confuse this with the current use of the word where diversity is used to be anti-opposing views.


Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

Signs and Portents

I am noticing a gaze in the eyes of the deplorables.

I have seen it before, a few times.

A gaze of forged steel, of wounded hearts, of humiliation borne, of retreat no more. A gaze of resolve, a gaze of willingness to stand and not back down.

People see hope and hear plain talk. Old virtues spoken without a sneer or subtle laughter. A sense of not being alone begins to swell.

Things will never return to ‘normal’, no matter that leaders fail, or evil ascends. People know they have been screwed and the fault is not in them, or their stars, but in the few, the band of elites , who wish them ill and place no value on them.

Like 15+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar

The Immorality of Trump

Is there a difference between political morals and personal morals?

When the ramping up and campaigning began in 2015, I was dismayed to see Donald Trump in the top half of the candidates who announced.   I perceived him as a bombastic arrogant New Yorker of low morals.   Is that an unfair characterization?

Well, bombastic and arrogant seem undebated; even his fans acknowledge that, and New Yorker seems not to be considered a drawback; he won lots of Southern votes.   What I want to address in this post is related to the way his fans call him an “honorable man” and a “principled man.”   Well, perhaps, but with qualifications.

Sexual Morality

Remember the “Access Hollywood” tape?   Journalists thought it would be an “October Surprise,” but in fear that they would be scooped (they had been holding it back for many months) they rolled it out in mid-September of 2016.   It made no difference to the polling numbers.   This puzzled journalists who knew that Evangelicals’ support was key to Trump’s base.   They had expected the Trump campaign to wilt.   The NeverTrump pundits were even more distressed than Leftist journalists.   They faulted the journalists who broke the story for not waiting until mid-October to drop their October Surprise.

We remarked at the time that it was old news.   Evangelical voters had already absorbed the understanding of Trump’s sexual immorality, and had decided to support his candidacy anyhow.   When the Nevers railed at “rationalizing” and said it was “immoral” to support such an immoral man, we brushed them off.   Our response was “but Hillary.”   The choice was clear.

And there was no question about the immorality of Donald Trump.   He had famously bragged about adulterous affairs with “top women” who were wives of “A-list” men whose names you would recognize.   He clearly had been planning to take up a wife number three at the very time he was planning the wedding with wife number two.   There were rumors of other affairs besides the ones he bragged about.   He said rude things.   He implied in the “Access Hollywood” tape that he was willing to take advantage of his star status to treat women badly.   He was uncouth.   He made reckless accusations in obvious bad faith.

Nevertheless, we chose to support Donald Trump.   He won the Republican nomination on the strength of support among Evangelical voters.   By the time the fall campaign season neared the debates, the revelation of the Access Hollywood tape was only one additional piece of evidence for an aspect of Mr. Trump that was already well known.   And the emotional distress of the Nevers over that issue was revealing of their true position.   Their failure to see that other issues were more important and more relevant was indicative that their moral values did not match our moral values.   Though they are mostly not Christian, they clamored about Trump’s sexual immorality.   They invoked Biblical teachings.

Though we are Christians and promote conservative teachings about sexual morality, we brushed aside their histrionics and continued to support Donald Trump, the unapologetic serial adulterer who famously opined that he felt no need to seek forgiveness.

Does this mean, as the Nevers say, that we have “jettisoned morality”?

No.  It only means that we made a different political calculation than they did.

Political calculus

I don’t care how many times the Nevers stamp their feet and shout that the choice in November of 2016 “was not binary,” that election was a choice between only two outcomes.   But it does beg the question:  why were Evangelicals determined to keep Hillary out of the White House?   Even if that left only one choice, to vote for an immoral man?

With the choice set before us, we chose to support immoral Trump over “moral” Hillary.

So now to explain.   Many of us would question that Hillary Clinton is “more moral” than D.J. Trump.   We are considering the entire range of personal morality, and not just sexual morality.   There are many aspects to the human moral condition.   Perhaps it is appropriate to weigh different vices and virtues differently when making political decisions.

Morals

One of the reasons that western civilization always prized Socrates, Plato and Aristotle was because they were exploring what makes something a virtue and what makes something a vice.   They were looking for a way to make distinctions between good and bad human behaviors, and this became the foundation of western philosophy.

It would have been far better to have grounded western philosophy in Solomon, for the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.   This may not be commonly recognized as it once was in America, but this is common to us Evangelical voters.   We use the Bible as our source for moral learning.   (As the universities embraced modern post-Enlightenment thinking, there was a deliberate shift of philosophy away from the Bible and to a line of thinking that is more directly descended from the Pagan philosophers.   Ethics for business and journalists is a field that draws on the language of philosophy and not on religious language.   When journalists hear terms they think are religious, they think “dog whistle.”)

We Evangelical voters recognize all sorts of aspects to human morality.   Chastity, Temperance, Charity, Diligence, Patience, Kindness, and Humility were the classical “Seven Virtues” of Christian antiquity.   To those can be added Courage, Justice, Prudence, Faith, and Hope.   They come down to us through the generations.

While we may commonly recognize President Trump as lacking in chastity, prudence, temperance, humility and faith, we also thought he had shown a solid core when it comes to courage, diligence, and justice.   We see this in opposition to his 2016 opponent, Ms. Hillary Clinton.   We think of her as lacking in courage (triangulation and focus-group testing and scapegoating provide the evidence there).   We think of her as lacking a sense of justice (her attacks on Bill’s bimbos is recalled).   She showed a lack of both faith and courage, plus a lack of trustworthiness (which is an aspect of justice), when she disallowed a military response to Benghazi.   Her e-mail scandal, plus the baggage of many scandals from the Obama Administration, counted against her as moral failings.

This sort of evaluation did not necessarily leave us with a sense of balance, but it did leave us with a sense that there were other factors in the political decision that could outweigh Mr. Trump’s moral failings.

Fear

I posted this past weekend about the fears of Evangelical voters.   These have been very badly mischaracterized by Leftists in journalism, religion and politics.   The fear that a Hillary Administration would crush individual liberties was paramount in the consideration of many Evangelical voters.

We did not look to Donald Trump as some sort of spiritual savior.   We did see in Candidate Trump a clear alternative to the Party of Death and Mrs. Clinton.   We were far more concerned with fears that a renewed Democrat Administration could kick the final props out from under western civilization.   That would not endanger our salvation, but it would deprive our grandchildren of liberty.

We made the right choice.

President Trump has exceeded our expectations.   And, every day when I get up in the morning, Hillary is not my president.

Progress

I had been thinking about this when I stumbled across a post at R>.   (I was browsing there in the wake of their banning of our friend Ms. Hypatia.)   The interesting post was by one of their popular Catholic ladies.

She posted to describe how she has turned 180 degrees around in her thinking, just in the past year.   She was an ardent NeverTrumper all through the campaign, and for the first half of 2017.   In the past year she has experienced a complete change of thinking.   She posted to describe her thoughts, and to say that, though reluctantly, she now supports President Trump, and, in fact, strongly supports President Trump.

Her reasoning is that the ascendency of the Left is endangering western civilization to a far greater extent than she had previously realized.   The revelations of how deeply entrenched the Deep State is in the Department of Justice, the FBI and other agencies shocked her into looking more carefully at the threat within, and the hysterical groupthink swarming of Leftist mass media, with their transparent lies, confirmed for her that the pro-Trump conservatives were actually on the right track.

Here are delightful excerpts:

I’ve had to revise practically all my opinions. Maybe the outward civility and personal rectitude of people like George W., Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Marco Rubio actually were a liability. Maybe “principled politicians” like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz really are insufferable and out of touch. Maybe we needed a crude, narcissistic president to make headway in a crude, narcissistic culture. And maybe Trump’s not as bad a person as I’d thought. Maybe he does have some core principles and values down there somewhere, under all the bluster and mess. In any case, he’s getting stuff done, and his media-baiting has served the good purpose of exposing their extreme bias, thank God.

His enemies have proven to be far worse than I’d imagined. I knew Obama was a covert narcissist and a leftist ideologue, a Marxist even. I knew he was governed by an evil worldview that saw America as needing to be taken down some pegs, while peoples marginalized by colonialism were given a leg up. I knew he’d set out to be the great un-Reagan and un-Churchill. He had a Saul Alinskite political MO: ends justify whatever means; isolate a target (like marriage) and destroy it. Pose as high-minded, even-keeled, and above the fray, while really being deeply nasty and harboring contempt for American institutions and the rule of law. And oppose all things Judeo-Christian and conservative, except insofar as they provide a handy cover for a leftist social justice agenda. I knew his appointees were bad guys — either ideologues like him, corrupt opportunists, or both.

But even I couldn’t have believed it was  this bad — that the Justice Department and the FBI would shamelessly deploy the awesome tools of their trade to destroy Trump and elect Clinton, that the mainstream media would openly abandon even the pretense of objectivity to become flagrant propagandists while demanding the deference due to true reporters, that it would become almost impossible to have a conversation with an anti-Trumper (since to defend him is to be instantly shunned as a racist and a fascist), that so many of our institutions would be so decimated so fast.

It’s weird and ironic, but true: our best hope for national salvation lies in rallying round Trump.

I’m back with Rush and Drudge and Ricochet. I’m practically stalking Mark Steyn and Victor Davis Hansen. Now it’s David French and Jonah Goldberg I can hardly stand to read. Forget about  Commentary and  The Weekly Standard. How can they not see what’s really going on here?  Who  cares how sleazy and corrupt Trump and his inner circle have been over the years? It’s nothing, just nothing, in comparison with the depth and extent of the corrosion at the heart of things in Washington DC. If we care about our country, we’ll make electing Republicans this November our top priority.

And then the capper came in the comments:

Why is Donald Trump the only person capable of saving the Republic?

Because he happens to be the President right now, and if he’s impeached, the corrupt DoJ and FBI plus their media sycophants will be vindicated and strengthened. Pence will be horribly weakened. The already divided Republicans will be more demoralized and divided, plus alienated from the voters. If he’s strengthened, on the other hand, he will be in a great position to clean house, plus do lots of other good stuff. Weak-kneed Republicans will be more likely to come on board, etc.  I’ll have hope that America can actually be turned back around.

With good moral devout Catholic married white female Nevers like her coming around to a full-throated energetic support for President Trump, I am taking heart and renewing hope that we can forestall the collapse of western civilization for a few more years.

Like 18+

Users who have liked this post:

  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar
  • avatar