Is the Political Class Mentally Stable Enough to Provide Meaningful Political Analysis?

The short answer is: no. But I don’t do short answers, so here’s the long one.

In How Dare You, I described the fact that nearly a year into Trump’s presidency, his opposition has yet to come to terms with the fact that he did actually win the election:

The larger issue here is that those who would consider themselves our cultural betters have affixed to their beliefs the status of The Truth, by fiat. What is accomplished by this is the elevation of what really are mere opinions to base maxims of the sort that are the foundation of the country, thus in theory unassailable.

And so when Trump disagrees with this or that leftist talking point, and vehemently to boot, there is a collective shock that permeates the commentariat. How dare Trump express views which aren’t in agreement with the one Truth that is Leftism in all its forms? How dare Taylor Swift not instantly condemn Trump despite having no reason to voice an opinion, and furthermore how dare Taylor Swift disagree when she is declared to be a white supremacist? How dare Sidney Crosby, a white man, turn up to the White House to accept praise from Trump?

The fact that leftism has gone without a real challenge for multiple decades, and in particular through the Obama years, has rendered the nascent Trump era to be nothing short of a hammer blow through the sensibilities of most leftists. Many still haven’t come to terms with the fact that Trump really is the president, and more fundamentally that the Leftist Truth is not held as such by a YUGE swath of America.

The recent excitement over Michael Wolff’s new book, Fire and Fury, which bills itself as an exclusive inside look at the Trump White House, is further evidence that the failure to come to terms with Trump 45 is as prevalent as ever. Indeed, it seems that Trump Derangement Syndrome has reached levels that shouldn’t be possible. In the past week, this book has been endlessly covered in the mainstream media, with Wolff himself doing interviews with basically every network and media publication to drum up the hype, bolstered by stories of how the book has been flying off the shelves in record time.

President Trump has unsurprisingly said less than favorable things about the book, and in fairness it does require the reader to suspend logic at regular intervals. For a start, it tries to advance the popular meme that Trump really didn’t want to be president. Wolff’s ‘evidence’ for this is the fact that Trump actually ran the campaign of an authentic outsider.

The Trump campaign had, perhaps less than inadvertently, replicated the scheme from Mel Brooks’s The Producers. In that classic, Brooks’s larcenous and dopey heroes, Max Bialystock and Leo Bloom, set out to sell more than 100 percent of the ownership stakes in the Broadway show they are producing. Since they will be found out only if the show is a hit, everything about the show is premised on its being a flop. Accordingly, they create a show so outlandish that it actually succeeds, thus dooming our heroes.

[…]

The Trump calculation, quite a conscious one, was different. The candidate and his top lieutenants believed they could get all the benefits of almost becoming president without having to change their behavior or their fundamental worldview one whit: we don’t have to be anything but who and what we are, because of course we won’t win.

Many candidates for president have made a virtue of being Washington outsiders; in practice, this strategy merely favors governors over senators. Every serious candidate, no matter how much he or she disses Washington, relies on Beltway insiders for counsel and support. But with Trump, hardly a person in his innermost circle had ever worked in politics at the national level—his closest advisers had not worked in politics at all. Throughout his life, Trump had few close friends of any kind, but when he began his campaign for president he had almost no friends in politics. The only two actual politicians with whom Trump was close were Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie, and both men were in their own way peculiar and isolated. And to say that he knew nothing—nothing at all—about the basic intellectual foundations of the job was a comic understatement. Early in the campaign, in a Producers-worthy scene, Sam Nunberg was sent to explain the Constitution to the candidate: “I got as far as the Fourth Amendment before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head.”

Almost everybody on the Trump team came with the kind of messy conflicts bound to bite a president or his staff.

In short, Wolff is perplexed at the fact that Trump was genuine, a trait foreign to those who work in journalism and politics. According to Wolff’s logic, the measure of Trump as a ‘serious candidate’ would have been his reliance on hundreds of so-called experts, who would have run every word he was to utter in public through carefully curated focus groups so as to craft the message which had the highest possibility of winning according to BIGDATA analysis.

Read more

The Downsides of #MeToo

A comment on this Rational Male post does a pretty good job in outlining the changes to gender relations we’ve seen in just 3 years:

We went from No means No (which meant that if she doesn’t say no, it’s on … which pretty much is the basic human mating script) to “affirmative consent” (“may I kiss you now” … “may I lick your breast now?”, etc., per the “rules” required before any physical contact *and* at “each stage of escalation”). Very few people actually follow affirmative consent, as we know, but it’s the rule at most colleges and universities. It isn’t the legal rule for rape, in terms of determining what was “consensual”, currently, but the FI is working on that, believe me.

Now, we have the goalposts moving even further along, from “affirmative consent” to “enthusiastic consent” — which means that if her consent is even verbally expressed, but isn’t clearly enthusiastic, then it isn’t “reliable as consent” because it could be the result of “pressure”, and if the consent “was real, it would be expressed enthusiastically, because when people really are consenting to sex, they’re always enthusiastic about it”. So essentially the standard they are pushing now (and which is getting rolled out on campuses right now) is that if the girl isn’t jumping your bones and begging for your cock, it’s rape/assault. Of course, again, not the legal standard, but that doesn’t matter that much — as we can all see what is happening right now is that the legal standard is being marginalized, because people can be destroyed in our media saturated environment without any involvement of the legal system at all, and the standards that apply in that extra-legal environment are the ones that the FI wants to apply, whether the legal system applies them or not.

Recall that December 2017 is the three year anniversary of Sabrina Erderly’s Rolling Stone article about a completely non-existent rape at a University of Virginia fraternity house. Fast forward three years and female-driven allegations of sexual misconduct have ushered in fresh calls to Believe Women, and Fight Patriarchy.

The difference is that this time around, there are real lives, real careers and real reputations at stake among the accused. Haven Monahan wasn’t a real person. As such, the ramifications of men losing their livelihoods and reputations the second an allegation is levied, without due process, sets a dangerous precedent. It seems as though some are starting to understand this. Cue Mika Brzezinski, co-host of Morning Joe, who ruffled some feathers within the Feminist Thotocracy with the following comments the other day on her show:

It’s going to be complicated, but I think women feel that they are maligned and treated through the process and therefore they’re afraid to step forward, so we need to look at the process.

But right now any woman, can say anything, and a man’s career is ruined. Now, a lot of women can say things that are true, and careers should be ruined. But the problem is that any woman can say anything, and that’s it, it’s over. Is that how we’re running businesses now?

Read more

How Dare You

Taylor Swift has gotten herself into some trouble over the past year or so, not necessarily for anything she has said or done, but rather for what she hasn’t said or done. Specifically, she has not chosen to join the bevy of celebrities and social media superstars in declaring that every little thing President Trump does or says is going to result in the immediate extinction of mankind.

I was alerted to this over the last few days or so, when Swift expressed her gratitude for what was a personally fulfilling year. As you can see from that article, she was destroyed for this on Twitter, by leftists who deemed her callous for not seeing 2017 as anything but the worst year in human history, because of President Trump, and other developments which were distasteful to their leftist sensibilities.

This led me to finding out that quite a few people harbored disappointment in the pop superstar for her silence in these matters. Her recognition by Time magazine as a ’silence breaker’ in their year end review of 2017 was roasted by The Daily Beast. The same publication has put out at least three other articles (here, here and here) in the past 12 months blasting Swift for not going all in on the Social Justice Warrior warpath in the same manner as the likes of Lena Dunham, Katy Perry and Ashley Judd, who have denounced the President, and for that matter any political views to the right of Mao.

Read more

The Lesson In Tactics From Charlottesville

Yesterday’s Charlottesville post was mostly concerned with the event as a whole from a legal and constitutional standpoint. And on that score, Unite The Right, who were there protesting the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue were expressing a first amendment right, and had gotten the OK of the authorities. Any violence that occurred was because Antifa ‘counter-protesters’ showed up with the explicit intent to bring the ruckus. The police and the government, perhaps deliberately, did little to prevent the powder keg from exploding. The authorities are ultimately responsible for spiral of violence that followed.

That doesn’t mean Richard Spencer and company can be proud of themselves for the events of the weekend. They made a substantial tactical error by continuing to permit the Nazi LARPing, even feeding into it with some of the visuals from the torch rally the night before. As I said in the post yesterday: if you actually want to win the long run, where winning is restoring America to her former greatness, extolling the virtues of 1930s German National Socialism is an odd way to do it, to put it mildly. Read more

On the Violence in Charlottesville

My take on what happened in Charlottesville:

Whatever you think of Unite the Right, or the demonstration against the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, they had a lawful and constitutional right to stage a peaceful rally. The only reason violence “broke out” was because Antifa operate on the principle of “We don’t like you so you can’t associate, so we’ll stop you from associating by any means necessary.” This is unlawful.

To the extent to which there were Nazi cosplayers among the Unite the Right crowd is almost irrelevant. This is the United States of America, one has the right to express his or herself, no matter how terrible that expression is. Furthermore, and I reiterate – the Unite the Right crowd went through the proper channels, obtained a permit to demonstrate, working with the authorities to guarantee a safe environment. Antifa did not.

The Antifa “counter-protesters” went there with the express purpose of breaking up a legitimate, constitutionally backed assembly of individuals. That is a crime, an infringement on the rights of others. Doubly so when the means of breaking up said assembly was through violence.

Antifa responding to a rally it doesn’t like

Now, the argument leveled by Antifa is that the mere existence of Unite the Right/white nationalists/whatever is itself a violent act. Indeed, anyone who voices opinions to the right of Lenin is lumped together by Antifa as dispensers of ‘hate speech,’ and thus violent actors against whom counter-violence is acceptable, and even honorable. These are communists after all, and they don’t shy away from it, with hammer and sickle flags flying high above their congregations, and propaganda posters which highlight the influence of the intellectual progenitor of the movement, Bolshevism. Read more

Reality Doesn’t Care About Feelings, Vol. 7 – Goolag

In 1957, Chairman Mao said the following during a speech in Peking:

Letting a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in our land.

The speech was intended to encourage Chinese intellectuals to voice their criticism of the Chinese system, such that it could be improved. What ended up happening was that the outpouring of dissent against the Communist regime was used as evidence in the sentencing of those intellectuals to hard labor and prison for crimes against the regime.

The period was known as the Hundred Flowers Campaign. The recent case of Google engineer James Damore and his viral memo has parallels to what happened during that campaign. Google’s Vice President of Diversity, Integrity & Governance, Danielle Brown released a statement in response to the memo, part of which contained the following:

Diversity and inclusion are a fundamental part of our values and the culture we continue to cultivate. We are unequivocal in our belief that diversity and inclusion are critical to our success as a company, and we’ll continue to stand for that and be committed to it for the long haul. As Ari Balogh said in his internal G+ post, “Building an open, inclusive environment is core to who we are, and the right thing to do. ‘Nuff said.”

Like Mao, Brown was effusive in the praise for multiple viewpoints, openness, and inclusion, which she described as ‘critical to our success as a company.’

Yet, Damore’s views clearly were not acceptable, both internally and to the public as word of the memo started to spread. Read more