“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory”

It has been frightening to go through the usual blogs I consult to find unanimity – 100% unanimity – in their opposition to Donald Trump as President. I do find it upsetting, but I am used to it, having had the same experience with Margaret Thatcher in 1979 and Ronald Reagan in 1980. The same again in opposing Obama in 2008 and 2012, where I don’t recall anyone I personally knew or regularly read going for McCain and Romney. I therefore went looking today at The Diplomad who has been pretty reliable up until now, but then again, so has everyone else, up until now. And this is his conclusion, found here:

For now, I’ll go with Donald Trump.

Pretty good, and a standout for me, making me feel I can trust him when things are less clear cut than now. He has more explanation for his view, always worth listening to in the past, and apparently still is:

I had been sitting uncomfortably on the fence re the GOP candidates. After listening to the Romney speech and the other “establishment” types, and hearing the anchor pundits, the pundit anchors, and all the other assorted wise ones, I have jumped off the fence. I have landed in Trump’s farm. He is not perfect, far from it. I might even change my mind, but for now I support Trump.

I don’t know if Trump will be terrible; I do know that what we have right now is horrible beyond words. I can’t bear the thought of a Hillary presidency. I know, I know. I have seen the advice about letting the Dems have the White House, and the GOP will hold the Congress, and thus freeze Hillary in place. Don’t buy it. We have seen what has happened over the past few years when the Dems did not have the Congress; we have seen the enormous damage that a progressive President can do even without Congressional approval. In addition, we have seen that the GOP members of the Washington Cartel refuse to fight Obama on what counts. So, I don’t want another Democratic White House.

That was on March 3rd and he has not recanted thus far. Most intriguing, almost all of the commenters have agreed with his decision, and one has even given me a real laugh:

I am reminded of W. Edwards Deeming’s famous quote: ‘It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.’

So the GOP establishment’s much anticipated comeback strategy is to drag from the political grave reserved for failed presidential nominees the man who could not get out, or win, sufficient votes in 2012, to stage a hit on Trump, who is winning, and in the process drawing out new GOP voters, all when the DNC’s turnout is collapsing.

Seriously, what could possibly go wrong? The stupidity is breathtaking.

Beyond insanity.

Donald Trump speaks on Israel

I thought this might be worth seeing on its own rather than as an update to my previous post on TDS. Aside from this being a speech that puts the state of New York into play in November, it has clearly been worked on by others in his foreign policy team. It is both sophisticated and measured, but it is also from the heart. For a change, a conviction politician in the mould of Margaret Thatcher, but someone, also like her, who can get things done and is every inch a conservative. It’s less than half an hour long, and here you will discover a Donald Trump you have not seen before.

UPDATE: From The American Spectator, which begins with the now pro forma declaration of a preference for Cruz: Republicans: Who are You?. And this is the choice. First on the Republican side:

The people who attend Trump rallies and vote for him generally are conservative — fiscally and culturally. They hate big government, they are highly patriotic and wave flags, they hate taxes, affirmative action, gun control, government debt, climate change deals that destroy American jobs, ‎government waste, welfare, political correctness, trade deals they think give away the store, and illegal immigration. They are people who work for a living, are economically stressed out, and see what Obama has done to America economically and culturally and they don’t like it at all. You’d be surprised how many blacks, veterans, soccer moms, and legal immigrants you see at a Trump rally.

And then there is Hillary:

Now many in the party are making the absurd argument that even Hillary Clinton in the White House would be better than Trump.

Huh? This is the Hillary Clinton that wants to raise tax rates to 50 percent or more, is in favor of abortion on demand with no exceptions, wants trillions of dollars of new spending and debt, would shut down America’s oil and gas and coal production, will double down on Obamacare, and was the architect of the disastrous Obama foreign policy of leading from behind. Other than that, apparently, she’s conservative enough.

These independent think-for-themselves types who call themselves conservative but would vote for Hillary give me the impression they have never thought anything not first endorsed by the ABC.

Six years of depressed employment and counting

On the twenty year lost decade in Japan, from my Dangerous Return of Keynesian Economics:

It ought to be the textbook case now for why all such forms of economic stimulus should be avoided at all costs. Because, say what you will about the causes of the Japanese downturn and the failure to recover, all major economies experienced the same deep recession at the start of the 1990s, but only the Japanese economy has never fully recovered its previous strength.

That is, only the Japanese tried a public sector stimulus to end their recession in the 1990s and their economy has never recovered. So we take you now to the United States: Half of U.S. May Endure ‘Lost Decade’ of Depressed Employment

Economic recovery has been unusually sluggish and uneven across regional U.S. job markets, with employment set to stay low for years to come in areas that endured the recession’s worst, according to new research.

At the current pace of improvement, employment rates across the U.S. won’t return to normal levels until the 2020s, “amounting to more than a relative ‘lost decade’ of depressed employment for…half of the country.”. . .

Based on the current trend, employment rates won’t converge to their normal levels until sometime in the 2020s. . . .

“We’re at six years of depressed employment and counting.”

Only about a dozen years to go to catch up with the Japanese, who by then may be in the 30th year of their lost decade.

Is Trump Derangement Syndrome at an end?

Hope so. From Roger Simon:

I was heartened to read on Fox News today: “Donald Trump will reportedly meet Monday in Washington with nearly two dozen influential Republicans, with the apparent hope of improving relations with the GOP establishment.”

His supporters should not panic. I predict this is not the great sell-out. The meeting was arranged by Senator Jeff Sessions, the man said to have the greatest influence on Trump and not one known for selling out. This could be the beginning… even if a tentative one… of the end of Trump Derangement Syndrome and some kind of reconciliation.

I have to admit quite some dismay over the reaction to Trump. Style over substance seems to matter much too much for their and our good among the policy establishment. Therefore it is important that they consider this, also from Simon:

Will and others are suffering from such acute Trump Derangement Syndrome that they don’t allow themselves to acknowledge the obvious — most of Trump’s views, his current ones anyway, fall well within the conservative mainstream.

Add to that the certainty that no one else even has a ghost of a chance to beat Hillary, it really has been a shambles.

Transnational progressivism

I picked up this article at Instapundit and when I went to the link it turned out to be an article from Quadrant, an article that is of the utmost importance in our world. The Quadrant title is Ideologies Have Consequences which explains nothing about what follows after since anyone can say that. But the article, written by John Fonte, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, is far far more than that. What the article is about is what I have called progressive internationalism (discussed here, here, here and here), while he has used the phrase “transnational progressivism”. Both, however, come to the same thing. It is the desire to do away with the nation state and replace it with a world of itinerant and floating individuals, detached from any kind of historic homeland, a post-post-modernism of world citizenship in which everyone is alienated from their roots, disembodied from any traditional way of life or system of belief. It is an impossibility, since no one can live like that, but that is the aim. A community will re-establish itself, but it will be nothing like what we have previously known. And when it really comes down to it, only our Western civilisation is under threat, since nowhere else has modernity even begun to determine how things are done, never mind even post-modernity, which has been at the centre of our own cultural chaos for the past half century.

The article is long, and follows many rabbits down many burrows – in itself a problem – and never seems to define what is meant by transnational progressivism. This seems to be about as close as he gets, coming in two parts. First this:

Western Leftists promote (in varying degrees and where politically possible) what they call “global governance”, meaning the building of supranational institutions and policies that diminish the role of the nation-state, including the democratic nation-state. The ultimate goal of this grand ideological project is the creation of an increasingly integrated global order with laws and institutions that are superior to those of the nation-state.

That’s the “transnational” part. In relation to “progressivism”, there is this:

Progressives focus on promoting what they call “marginalised” groups, such as women, LGBT people, racial minorities, linguistic minorities, immigrants, particularly Muslims. For example, the Western Left calls for “gender parity” (imposed proportional representation) across the board in all institutions of civic life, by fiat if necessary (violating the tenets of a free society). They tout an adversarial multiculturalism or identity politics that problematises national patriotic cultures, traditional institutions (religion, family), the concepts of free speech, individual citizenship and equality under the law (because the marginalised groups are awarded special rights). . . . The general trajectory of today’s Western Left is away from class conflict and towards new antagonisms. These new (post-1960s) fault lines are based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, immigration, language, religion, globalism and other issues that are even more divisive for national cohesion than traditional class struggle.

A world of endless grievances in which the centre will not hold. This is my version, which I called progressive internationalism in the article linked above:

The nation state has to go, or at least the nation states of the first world. No more Australia, at least no more than say an Italy within the EU. It is a kind of World Government idiocy. . . . Once we have been overwhelmed by migration, nothing of what we built will remain, other than some of those technologies we were able to develop. The rest will be utterly swept away in a sea of blended barbarism. The only part I have never understood – other than through envy and hatred (including self-hatred) – is why would anyone wish to see these changes taking place.

Not all cultures are the same, and what is undeniable and absolutely true is that not all national histories are the same. I don’t live in an economy, I live in a society that has its own past and traditions. It is where I call home. There is, however, an international elite doing all it can to undermine these nationalities of ours, who see economic advantage in wiping out our homelands, traditions, cultural values and histories. And they are going to do it, have no doubt about it, since it is almost impossible for most people to see what is going on, and it is even harder to get most people at the elite level either to see why it matters or think through what to do.

Read the article with these thoughts in mind and you will see what he is getting at. Also read the comments at Instapundit, which are depressing since few who read even there thought the article worth commenting on, and even then, only a small proportion of the handful who have commented seem to have any idea what the article is trying to say.

Fonte has written a book, Sovereignty or Submission?, which spells it out in more detail. There is little any of us can do about any of it, but at least you will be able to follow events with a deeper understanding of what is being done.

The rabbit shall lie down with the fox

My son recommended I see the film even though he said I wouldn’t like the storyline. And we weren’t going to go but the review of Zootopia in the Herald-Sun finally did do the trick. This bit of social engineering is what got me in as this apparently is at the centre of the plot:

Once upon a time, all animals were either prey or predators. A return to that time would be a calamity from which this world would never recover.

So now the lions are lying down with the lambs – a reference unlikely to be picked up by our modernly-mis-educated children who are too busy learning other things, so instead we have a fox and a rabbit hanging out. Just like real life. Too bad if you really are a rabbit hanging out with a fox, although a rabbit is likely to have more sense than anyone brought up on such fantastic nonsense.

Oddly, the reason we are going is because they have cast sloths as public servants. More realistic, of course, but amazing to see portrayed on the screen. Dealing with the government in the US must be so vastly recognised as painful beyond measure, no one even thinks about the offence this must cause those dozens of efficient public servants that one must occasionally come across.

For what it’s worth: Rotten Tomatoes: critics 99%; audience 95% while at IMDb: 8.4.

Haven’t seen the film yet so will let you know how it went when we come back.

BACK FROM THE MOVIES: It is impossible to describe how depraved this film is. In every way worse than I could have imagined. It makes you understand how Europe and America have ended up with civilian invasions for which there are almost no psychological defences across the culture. Here is the final line of the film which is its ultimate message, superseding even the often-repeated mantra that “anyone can be anything”. These words are the actual point:

“Trust – and make the world a better place.”

We are a generation of naive and guileless fools, and if you are looking for the evidence, the 99% critics approval with the audiences at 95% tells you a great deal about what you need to know.

Not recommended, although the 108 minutes passes easily enough if you are curious about understanding how intellectually defenceless and inanely stupid our culture has become.

The answer was: “Obama and Merkel” – what then was the question and who was it to?

That was Bill Shorten’s reply when asked: which politicians do you admire the most? If that was his answer, what do you think his answer would be to the question, what do you think about open borders?

Even though this would probably be the same answer given by Malcolm, with Bill he is backed by a party who agree with their leader, while with Malcolm, most of the rest think he is he biggest fool of a leader they have ever had to deal with.

We remain a parliamentary system and so the leader remains no more than first among equals. You have seen it with the “Safe Schools” Project and with other things as well. The leader’s views are not the last word. Putting Labor last remains the only answer if we want to ensure that the fact that our land is girt by sea will still count for something. Let me take you to this which is in no sense an argument against legal migration and from anywhere in the world:

When politicians want to import tens of millions of new immigrants it can look like Washington is trying to remake the electorate. This isn’t pure fantasy. In 1996, Bill Clinton’s White House instructed the Immigration and Naturalization Service “to streamline the naturalization process and greatly increase naturalizations during 1996.” Sure enough, Hispanics more than doubled as a portion of the electorate for Clinton’s 1996 reelection, according to exit polls.

The more dependent on public services voters are, the more the electorate will vote for the party of handouts. As in: Shocking claims Tony Blair led a mass migration conspiracy to ensure Labour’s rule.

The controversial Prime Minister cynically dismantled UK border controls so that two million migrants could settle in the country – and vote for him in future elections.

He then gagged Labour officials and his most senior ministers, telling them not to discuss immigration in public under any circumstances for fear of a backlash.

And how well that worked out. From The Daily Mail: How Blair silenced debate over migrant influx and refused to acknowledge public’s doubts about open borders. It begins:

Jack Straw, Tony Blair’s first Home Secretary, was worried. ‘Isn’t immigration the sort of issue which can blow up in our face?’ he asked the Prime Minister.
‘Immigration won’t be an issue,’ replied Blair. ‘Immigration is good for Britain.’

All through his three terms of office, the PM never changed his mind. By the time he stepped down, over two million more migrants than the government expected had settled in Britain — but he dismissed any concerns by claiming they were good for the economy.

Anyone against free-flowing immigration was assumed to be a racist Tory, a view underpinned by the BBC’s reluctance to debate the issue and endorsed by Labour’s promotion of multiculturalism.

Read both articles and then think about the politics of the UK, Europe and California in the context of the political views of our alternative Prime Minister.

Replying to a #NeverTrump jerk

Another of these self-important fools who shows up under the heading of Why I’m Backing #NeverTrump: A “Cuckservative” Speaks. From the comments section to the post:

Too stupid for words. The whole point of the primary season is to fight for your guy (Walker, Cruz and Fiorina for me) and then absolutely most important of all, back whoever comes out on top, or else you are handing it to the Alinsky-communist Imelda Marcos serial mega-criminal Hillary Clinton, and NOBODY CAN BE THAT FRICKING STUPID! I just want to say go to stinking Hell to every person who can’t get over the the ridiculous mountains they keep making out of Trump molehills.

Every time he reacts to criticism by doing something ridiculous like calling his critic ugly I say fine with me, because I know that it isn’t just narcissism, that he feels that exact same visceral protectiveness for the country. THAT is what his blow-ups about killing the families of terrorists is about, to which I say it is about damned time. We have had eight years of a president who absolutely hates this country and face another four years of a woman who shares the exact same Islamophilic Alinsky communism. Two presidents in a row who are literal stinking communists, both direct acolytes of the leading American communist of the 20th century, and Stephanie is worried about Trump’s lack of refinement.

Sorry Stephanie, but your judgment is insane at the CRUDEST level, you and all the other “never Trumpers.” Absolutely horrible. Destroyers. Vapid, ludicrous, and self-centered beyond belief. Your moral posturing will be offended. Too bad. How about the survival of the nation?

We’ll do everything to save the country except get our nails dirty. Truly beneath contempt. There are plenty of other comments just like this one at the link.

[Via Instapundit through Sarah Hoyt who appears to agree with the nitwit who wrote the original post on why she would never vote for Trump. These people have rocks in their heads. The comments at Instapundit also seem to think Sarah is a queen-size jerk as well.]

“Everyone’s token of their political pluralism and tolerance”

The background:

Published on Mar 14, 2016

A talk by Alan Charles Kors, co-founder of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

Universities once believed themselves to be sacred enclaves, where students and professors could debate the issues of the day and arrive at a better understanding of the human condition. Today, sadly, this ideal of the university is being quietly betrayed from within. Universities still set themselves apart from American society, but now they do so by enforcing their own politically correct worldview through censorship, double standards and a judicial system without due process. Faculty and students who threaten the prevailing norms may be forced to undergo “thought reform.” In a surreptitious about-face, universities have become the enemy of a free society, and the time has come to hold these institutions to account.

This talk is a stinging indictment of the covert system of justice on college campuses, exposing the widespread reliance of on kangaroo courts and arbitrary punishment to coerce students and faculty into conformity.

Dr. Kors lays bare the totalitarian mindset that undergirds speech codes, conduct codes, and “campus life” bureaucracies, through which a cadre of deans and counselors indoctrinate students and faculty in an ideology that favors group rights over individual rights, sacrificing free speech and academic freedom to spare the sensitivities of currently favored groups.

[Via Instapundit]

Only a Republican could be this stupid

pres trump pres clinton cartoon

This is a cartoon that makes sense only if you really are in a dilemma about Trump v Clinton, which means you are a Republican who is too stupid to be allowed to vote. No Democrat would ever be in doubt, and Hillary is a liar, crook and dyed in the wool leftist of the most plundering kind. There is literally no facet of Trump v Clinton that ends up on the Hillary side of the ledger. Such Republicans are Democrats at heart, lacking any genuine desire for the preservation of our Western way of life. Worrying about the effect on international trade or the future viability of the Republican Party are such irrelevancies that it only irritates me to have to listen to it.

So let me spell it out. The one and only issue is open borders. This belief that anyone can migrate anywhere and it won’t make any difference of any kind is such a stupidity that I have to say that when I hear it I can only think I am dealing with political morons who are incapable of learning any lessons from the fantastic array of social instruction to be seen at every turn.

Europe at this very moment is being invaded and only a minority of these invaders are Syrian refugees with nowhere else to go. The news we get is minimal. Every so often the media is forced to cover some part of it, such as “Cologne”, or “Malmo” or “Charlie Hebdo”, but as rapidly as it is possible to go back to other things, it is dropped and nothing more is said. Were it not for Drudge, I would feel I would not know a thing about what is going on. We have in no sense a free press, and the ridicule that Trump pours on the people who are covering him warms me. It is you, who cannot see through the media attack squads that get me down. No writer for any Murdoch paper in the world – and aside from The Daily Mail, his are the best there are – will ever say a positive word about Trump. There is this migrating evil in the world, and you cannot find it in the news you read. Trump is a phenomenon because he, for very particular reasons, does not depend on the media or outside money to get his message across.

The progressive internationalism of our present day is being driven by George Soros, a Nazi collaborator and actually much more. Go to the link. What you will find is this, which was published only last December:

Human Events’ readers, in an online poll, recently voted billionaire financier George Soros “the single most destructive leftist demagogue in the country.”

Here is the first on the list of ten, but go on to read the entire article. If you don’t know any of this already, you should ask yourself why that is:

1. Gives billions to left-wing causes: Soros started the Open Society Institute in 1993 as a way to spread his wealth to progressive causes. Using Open Society as a conduit, Soros has given more than $7 billion to a who’s who of left-wing groups. This partial list of recipients of Soros’ money says it all: ACORN, Apollo Alliance, National Council of La Raza, Tides Foundation, Huffington Post,Southern Poverty Law Center, Soujourners, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, and the National Organization for Women.

The American political system is driven by money and Soros is hardly the only one of his class and wealth who are driving this agenda. The graft and outright thievery of Hillary Clinton is no longer even hidden. She is a tool of the progressive internationalist cause. These people really do want to ruin your way of life, and it is not incidental. This is what they want to do. If you think they are well meaning socialists who want only the best for everyone, you are simply deluded. Billionaire socialists is not how to think of a working class movement. Our Western way of life – our “white privilege” – is being put to the torch and there is hardly a one amongst us who is willing to fight this one out.

But at least there is one, and he has support, and the way things are going there will soon be more. Whether there will be enough and whether it is even still possible to save ourselves, is yet to be determined. But if you cannot see what’s going on, if you really cannot see what is going on, then you will just have to keep your heads in the sand.

And it is here that left and right meet. Let me finish with a quote from Murray Rothbard discussing Ludwig von Mises in a little booklet titled, The Clash of Group Interests. The “consideration” referred to is how individuals continue to examine only their short-term interests and fail to see the long-run as clearly as Mises does.

This consideration becomes still more poignant in the noble and surprising essay, “The Freedom to Move as an International Problem,” newly translated from a 1935 newspaper in Vienna. It is surprising because it presents a remarkably sharp attack on the immigration barriers erected by the United States and the British Dominions. For Mises trenchantly identifies these barriers as creating a ruling class elite, albeit a large one, in which workers in a particular geographical area with a high standard of living, use the State to keep immigrants from lower-wage areas out, thereby freezing the latter into a permanently lower wage. Mises correctly adds that, contrary to the Marxian myth of the international solidarity of the proletariat, it is the unions in the high living standard countries who have lobbied for the immigration restrictions. Mises is hard-hitting on the privileges conferred by immigration barriers: “The oft-referred-to ‘miracle’ of the high wages in the United States and Australia may be explained simply by the policy of trying to prevent a new immigration. For decades people have not dared to discuss these things in Europe.” Mises concludes his essay with an implicit justification of overcrowded Europe making war upon the restrictive countries: “This is a problem of the right of immigration into the largest and most productive lands…. Without the reestablishment of freedom of migration throughout the world, there can be no lasting peace.”

World peace through open borders, and cheaper labour as well. If these ideas weren’t so unbelievably dangerous you would want to laugh at how stupid this is. Soros and Mises, left and right united in trying to end the civilisation of the West.