Modern American politics

Three posts at Instapundit today. First this.

.
And then this.
.

DEMOCRATS ROUTINELY SIDE WITH ANTI-SEMITIC ARABS THESE DAYS: McConnell Senate Challenger Attends Dinner Hosted by Hamas-Linked CAIR.

.
And now this.
.

WAIT, ALL THE BEST PEOPLE TOLD ME HE BLEW IT: Trump Outsmarts Putin With Syria Retreat: Russia will soon find itself caught between Turkey and Syria.

If and when such a border fight develops, Putin will find himself between Assad and Erdogan. Whatever he does, he will wind up in that most vulnerable of Middle Eastern positions, the friend of somebody’s enemy.

As the big power in charge, Russia also will be expected to help its Syrian client rebuild the damage from the civil war. Physical reconstruction alone is expected to cost $400-500 billion. This is a bill Trump had no intention of paying — and one more reason he was glad to hand northern Syria to Putin.

Russia cannot afford a project of this magnitude. It’s possible that Putin expects EU countries to foot the bill — motivated either by humanitarian impulses or by the desire to forestall another wave of destitute immigrants. But this is wishful thinking. Faced with a potential influx of Syrian refugees, Europe is more likely to raise barriers on its southern and eastern borders than to invest in affordable housing in the ruins of Aleppo and Homs.

Erdogan’s loud threats to send refugees are likely to boost anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe.

They are broken, loonies even, complete crackpots

I thought this was one of the most on-the-money posts I’ve seen at Instapundit: Denying the sky is blue because Orange Man Bad. This was some of it:

italian1

Yes, America is only 243 years old. But by the same token Italy is only 138 years old.

In any case, if you’re rolling your eyes at Trump’s statement – and thinking that the Italian interpreter is too – you’re missing the point, which is that countries like the United States and Italy – and Great Britain and Australia and Germany and Poland and Spain and Slovenia and so on – do indeed share a cultural and political heritage dating back to ancient Rome (and further back in time). It’s called the Western civilisation. You might hate it, but you’re still in it.

This is what got me right in where I found it at Instapundit!!.

OCTOBER 18, 2019

TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME: Denying the sky is blue because Orange Man Bad. “If Trump – or Obama or Scott Morrison or Hillary Clinton – saying that 2 + 2 = 4 makes you automatically deny the math because your bête noire simply cannot be correct, you might want to take a deep breath or two and reflect on your approach to life. You’re broken. Don’t be that person.”

,
Oh they are broken, loonies even. Complete crackpots. What kind of people live in places like Australia and want to get rid of air conditioning? Nutters through and through.

The Australian anti-family court

The complete post from The Other McCain: Proving @RationalMale Right Again.

In Australia, there has been an uproar since Pauline Hanson of the right-populist One Nation party asserted that false accusations of domestic abuse are a problem in child-custody cases. This is relevant to proposals to reform Australia’s family court system, and Hanson’s remarks have prompted outrage from feminists and the Left generally, where the Women Never Lie Myth is sacrosanct. This mirrors the Left’s position on “rape culture,” where mere accusation is considered tantamount to proof.

The dispute over Australia’s family court system highlights something Rollo Tomassi (@RationalMale on Twitter) has noted: “Child support is the defining feature of our modern family model, since it is the replacement for marriage whether or not a wedding has occurred.”

Own-yay-gee-ah-kah@Tiffany_Ezinwa

How is feminism to blame for men not wanting to be active parents in their child’s life? Clearly kids in single parent homes are dealing with parental abandonment which is a huge factor in emotional issues. Not sure how that’s a woman’s fault https://twitter.com/RationalMale/status/1027360819049259008 

Rollo Tomassi@RationalMale

Children from single parent households (overwhelmingly single mothers) account for 80% of rapists motivated by displaced anger.

Congratulations feminism, you’ve literally bred and raised the ‘rape culture’ you claim to fear.

View image on Twitter

Rollo Tomassi@RationalMale

By actively creating a social order that incentivizes the removal of men from the home as the default. Look up the Duluth Model of feminism. We’ve socially engineered a society that shifted from marriage as the norm to child support as the norm.

Because of the desanctification of marriage in our secular, sexualized, feminist-dominated culture, wedding vows now come with asterisks next to them, pointing to footnotes that in essence declare, “We don’t actually mean all this stuff about ‘death do us part’ and so forth.”

Every couple now goes to the wedding altar under the threatening shadow of potential divorce, and it is generally acknowledged that divorce is a punitive procedure by which aggrieved women are authorized to obtain a sadistic revenge against their ex-husbands. Because accusations of abuse give women greater leverage in divorce proceedings, we should not be surprised that (a) such accusations are often exaggerated or even sometimes fabricated from whole cloth, and (b) anyone who expresses skepticism toward these accusations will be accused of being anti-woman, an enabler of male violence against women.

Rollo’s comment about the Child Support Model of family structure, where it is more or less assumed on the wedding day that the couple will eventually divorce, highlights how radically our society’s basic institutions have been altered. Between the startling rise in illegitimate births and the frequency of divorce, a majority of children in most Western countries will not be raised in a traditional family. This in turn has produced what Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, in her book The Divorce Culture, has called the “Love Family” ideology, a mentality in which the loyalties once demanded by permanent ties of blood or marriage are replaced by an imagined system of kinship based on mere sentiment.

The problem with the celebration of “love” as a basis for social organization is that human emotions can be ephemeral, and that “love” can be so easily exploited by selfish and dishonest people. For years, I have disavowed any accusation that I am a “men’s rights activist” (MRA) because, in the first place, I reject the identity-politics formula of group “rights.” Secondly, however, I recognize that most MRAs bring a particular axe to grind against women. Many MRAs — if not a majority, certainly an influential plurality — are men who have gone through the ordeal of divorce and custody disputes which are no part of my direct experience and, I pray to God, never will be. Yet while I am not an MRA, this doesn’t mean that they have not made important points about male-female relationships, especially in regard to how divorce has become a state-sponsored instrument to punish and humiliate men. And this is such a fundamental and relatively sudden shift in our culture that most older people (I’m 60 now, and certainly qualify as such) have no idea what absolute hell many young men now face in their relationships. Statistics showing a decline in men’s willingness to commit to marriage, accompanied by a significant drop in birth rates, testify to how the institutions of marriage and fatherhood have been made into something like a medieval torture device to inflict punishment on men. No matter how much a woman may profess to “love” a man, he must take into consideration that if his relationship leads to marriage and fatherhood, he will be at risk of personal destruction if her “love” ever fades.

Quite often, it seems, women seeking divorce view child custody as a weapon to wield in an all-out war to destroy their ex-husbands. It is not enough, for such women, to be free to pursue their own lives; instead, they develop an appetite for revenge against the man they once vowed to love until “death do us part.” Those of us who have been fortunate enough to avoid such a hell-on-earth are generally horrified to watch our friends or relatives endure the ordeal of divorce. We don’t enjoy the pressure to choose sides in the kind of interminable warfare that goes on between divorcing couples, but our court system seems to enable (and indeed, to encourage) the scorched-earth tactics so commonly employed in these disputes. Pauline Hanson has provoked controversy in Australia by saying aloud what everybody actually knows, i.e., that some women will invent or exaggerate incidents of abuse in order to “win” court proceedings against their ex-husbands. This threat hovers like a shadow in every divorce involving children: If her ex tries to dispute custody, or if he doesn’t make child-support payments in a timely manner, he may find himself facing accusations of abuse, and such accusations generally amount to a “he-said/she-said” conflict, where the real matter at issue is the credibility of the accuser. Feminists tend to deny that women ever make false accusations, or else contend that false accusations are so rare that we can disregard the possibility that a woman might be lying, and therefore feminists must destroy Pauline Hanson.

It doesn’t have to be like this. There is no objective reason why men and women should view each other as eternal enemies, but unless and until we are willing to take a hard look at how public policy now offers incentives for male-female conflict — especially including divorce — we are doomed to endure the continuing destruction of our society.

 

This was never a valid reason for the President to bring troops home from Syria

From PDT’s speech in Minneapolis on October 10. I have no doubt this is heartfelt and sincere, but as discussed here, here and here, we cannot declare a premature victory because more soldiers are likely to die. They are fighting for a worthy cause, the most important issue in the Western world today. This, unfortunately, is pure sentimentality in the face of the issues that confront us.

Donald Trump: (01:32:25)
So we have three choices. You’re ready? Here are the three choices. We don’t have any soldiers there because we’ve left. We won. We left. Take a victory, United States. We left. Take a victory, take a victory. Bring our troops back home.

Donald Trump: (01:32:45)
I told this story yesterday, I have to sign letters, it’s the hardest thing I have to do. I sign letters, “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Smith from Arkansas. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Jones from Alabama. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Somebody from some great state, I’m sorry to inform you, your son has been killed in combat. I’m so sorry.” And every letter is individually done because sometimes the parents, they’re grieving, and they get together with other parents, and I don’t want to see that it’s like the same letter. So we do different letters. It’s the hardest thing I have to do. Hardest thing.it’s the hardest thing I have … I was telling Tom Cotton, it’s the hardest thing that I have to do. And I sign those letters, and it just, it breaks your heart.

Donald Trump: (01:33:45)
And by the way, there’s a time to fight. Nobody fights harder than I do. But there’s a time, and there’s not necessarily a time. But I send these letters out, quite a few. And sometimes I send letters out, it’s called blue on green, where we’re teaching people how to fight and then they turn the gun on our soldiers and shoot them in the back. And that’s the hardest thing for a parent. I have all of them. I know everyone. That’s the hardest thing for a parent when they get notification, because they learn how their child has died. When the so-called people that were teaching how to fight turn the gun on them, and shoot. We’ve had a lot of that, a lot of it in Afghanistan, more than we’ve ever had proportionately before. It’s a horrible, horrible thing. But I have to sign these letters.

Donald Trump: (01:34:27)
And sometimes I go out to a place, Dover Air Force Base, it’s a very tough experience. Mike Pence goes, I go, other people go, Tom Cotton goes. We go out there, and we meet the parents and the families, the wives, the children, the sisters, the brothers. We meet them, and we talked to them, and their son or daughter is being flown in from some far away place in a coffin, and these things are just impossible. I don’t know how parents can do it, even. And I’ll meet them. And we have a particular Colonel, that’s all he does. So good. So professional. That’s what he does. He said, “I greet the dead, sir. I greet the dead.”

Donald Trump: (01:35:18)
And what happens is this big incredible machine flies in, this tremendous cargo plane, and it flies in so powerful, so big. I’ll be talking to some of the parents, and they’ll act like they’re fine. I said, “How are you doing?” “We’re fine, sir. We’re fine. We’re really good.” I say, “That’s great.” And I’ll tell the Colonel, I’ll say, “Colonel, I think they’re doing great.” “No sir, they’re not going to do great. You’ll see.” And I didn’t know what he was talking about, this is the first time.

Donald Trump: (01:35:51)
Then we went outside to the runway, and this incredible machine is flying in, and it lands, and it comes over, and it pulls up, and we have military guards, we have incredible talented musicians that do this. That’s what they do. What happens is that door opens up, and the Colonel told me, he said, “Sir, when that door opens up, those same people that you think are okay, do things that you’ll never see. You will hear sounds like you’ve never heard.” That’s what he does.

Donald Trump: (01:36:25)
I saw that door open up with a coffin with a flag over it. The door was opened, and these beautiful soldiers, five or six on each side, lifting the coffin and walking down the runway, the plank, they call it, off this cargo plane. And I see parents make sounds, that were just 20 minutes ago absolutely fine, make sounds, scream and cry like you’ve never seen before. The Colonel was telling me that, “Sir, you’ll see things that you’ve never seen before. A mother who was fine 20 minutes ago, you think, breaking the military line and jumping off, and then jumping onto a coffin of her son or her daughter, jumping on, on top of the flowers, on top of the American flag.” I’ve seen this.

Donald Trump: (01:37:21)
Then I have all these people that want to stay. They want to stay. And I don’t want to stay. We were supposed to be in Syria for 30 days. We’ve now been there for 10 years. We were supposed to be in Afghanistan for a short period of time. We’re now going to be there for close to 19 years. It’s time to bring them home. It’s time to bring them home. It’s true. Time to bring them home. We’ve done our job, we’ve defeated everyone that we’re supposed to defeat. And now we are, we are policing, we are now policing. That’s what we’re doing. We’re policing. And that, as I said, no more respect for the police, but these are military people, and those are police, but we are now policing. We’re not fighting, we’re policing. And you know what? After all of these years … One other story, and I have to tell you. I go to Walter Reed on Friday, and I do it quite often. I gave out five Purple Hearts. And I meet people that are so beautiful, so amazing. I met five warriors, and one was so badly hurt, with the loss of arms and a leg, another one … they’re just very, very devastated. But these are great, great people. And I gave out the Purple Heart. And I see the parents, and I have to say, Walter Reed, I want to just say, the doctors there, the job they do, you know, you hear so many complaints about doctors and about the vets, and the vets’ care, and nobody’s done better. We got choice for the vets. We did things for the vets that nobody thought would be possible.

Donald Trump: (01:39:26)
But I saw these young men, and I gave them their Purple Hearts. And their parents were there crying. And one of them was so amazing. I said, “What’s your problem?” “Sir, my face was blown apart. My nose was absolutely just blown apart.” He said, “Sir, it’s incredible.” And I looked at him, I said, “That’s the most beautiful nose I’ve ever seen. What do you mean?” He said, “A doctor worked on my face for 10 hours in the field. He said there were a thousand fragments.” Now I don’t know if that’s right, but well, a lot. He meant a lot. “He said there were a thousand fragments. He rebuilt my nose with glue. He glued the bones together. He rebuilt my nose.” I say, “You have the most beautiful nose I’ve ever seen,” and it’s true. And his father came over to me, he said, “Sir,” father was crying, he said, “Sir, honestly, my son looks better now.” He said, “My son did not have a good look. He knows. Now look at it, it’s beautiful, it’s beautiful.”

Donald Trump: (01:40:34)
But these doctors at Walter Reed, and these Army, and Marine, and the medical doctors, they are unbelievably great people. And they see sights that you and I hopefully will never see. They see things that nobody will ever see, and there’s nobody like them. And I have to give a shout out to those people, there’s nobody like them. So in the case of Turkey, and Syria, and the Kurds, we could send in a thousand troops for a military conflict with Turkey. No, you don’t want to do that. We could hit Turkey very hard financially. Or we could mediate a deal between Turkey and the Kurds. I like that. You know? Let’s mediate a deal. But remember they’ve been fighting each other for hundreds of years, and we were artificially put there, in this case by President Obama. So we did our job. We knocked out.

How dare you!

Having to deal with the global swarmists must be unbelievably difficult for any political leader who finds they are dealing with the con in con-servation to the extent it has now become mandatory. That elections depend on such matters really does suggest our Western supposedly rational way of life is heading off into the wilderness. There is a ton of money to be made through channelling various projects subsidised by public funding.

It is not just how fantastically gullible these people are, but how the left has latched onto these various issues. There are no skeptics on the left, and not all that many on the right. Bi-partisan madness.

And then there are real issues that also need deep consideration but who can understand the intricacies of the Middle East, other than that for the left, anything that is done that is different – or even exactly the same – from how it was previously done, and for which some victim can be conjured, or some responsibility can be manufactured, becomes a focal point for criticism. The alliance of Socialists, Climate activists, University far-left academics and the Media (SCUM for short) will ruin our lives. California here we come.

As Victor Davis Hanson asks, Is America Entering a Dark Age? And not just America but the whole of the West, and that means you.

What exactly is to be done?

Here’s the challenge, but where’s the plan? Let’s stand up to globalist cant. There we find written:

Journalist Sebastian Haffner, writing on Hitler’s rise in Germany, refers to the ­absence of conservative resistance: “They went along with everything: the terror, the persecution of Jews … They were not even bothered when their own party was banned and their own members arrested.” ­Alexander the Great similarly ­observed that the people of Asia were slaves because they had not learned the word “no”.

I do not believe this is even remotely true, that conservatives “went along with everything: the terror, the persecution of Jews … they were not even bothered when their own party was banned and their own members arrested.” I bet they were bothered quite a lot, possibly even alarmed and frightened and would have refused to go along with any of it had there been any actual choice. Tell me what they should have done?

It is almost certainly the case that the tanks have so far been kept out of Hong Kong only because of the presence of Donald Trump in the White House. The most interesting aspect of the present moment in our political history is to find that, as has occurred over and again in the past, the left have declared war on the established rules that we “conservatives” count on to preserve our way of life and wellbeing.

So what’s the plan? What should we be doing exactly that we are not doing already? What should Donald Trump be doing?

Look at these ignorant yokels sitting on the streets of Melbourne. What exactly do you intend to do to get their attention. How are you going to get them to see how inane their concerns are?

Protesters sit on the ground on a major road in Melbourne. Picture: AFP

Smiling and cheerful. A lark and a day in the park. How about this for a contrast.

Image result for hong kong protest

Are we there yet? Where are we exactly? As Lenin himself asked at a different time and in a different place: What is to be done? There’s plenty of caution to go around but it’s all very well to rabble rouse those of us who leave things to our democratic institutions. We voted in Tony Abbott and Donald Trump and both uncovered a very deep institutional state of very dangerous people who will do anything to overturn the will of the people which does not coincide with the will of the “elites”, morally worthless scum though they be. And then there’s Boris as well so we are not without forces of our own.

I will tell you what the only plan we have is. To continue arguing our case in public, and to hope that we can get at least half the population to understand the dangers “climate change” and “socialism” and all the rest of it have for themselves and for their own futures.

If I have told this story before, well here it is again. I taught something like 1500 students over the years and I used to say when I came to my History of Economics section that I would give an automatic “A” to anyone who could tell me a single historical fact about John Stuart Mill. And no one ever did. Look at those dimwits in the street. They are not only your future, they are their own future. If you’re not worried you should be.

Free speech as an economic principle

This is John Stuart Mill discussing freedom of speech as an economic issue in his Principles of Political Economy (1848), in my view the best single text on economics ever written. Freedom of speech, as he writes in the passage below, is a crucial element in allowing minds to wander where they will and consider all kinds of ideas and alternatives, and then to debate freely each and every one of the various considerations that different individuals might have. Without such freedom of thought, an economy cannot prosper. What is specially interesting are the examples from his time where different ideas have been suppressed. It would almost entirely be the reverse opinions that might be suppressed today.

The notion, for example, that a government should choose opinions for the people, and should not suffer any doctrines in politics, morals, law, or religion, but such as it approves, to be printed or publicly professed, may be said to be altogether abandoned as a general thesis. It is now well understood that a régime of this sort is fatal to all prosperity, even of an economical kind: that the human mind when prevented either by fear of the law or by fear of opinion from exercising its faculties freely on the most important subjects, acquires a general torpidity and imbecility, by which, when they reach a certain point, it is disqualified from making any considerable advances even in the common affairs of life, and which, when greater still, make it gradually lose even its previous attainments….

Yet although these truths are very widely recognized, and freedom both of opinion and of discussion is admitted as an axiom in all free countries, this apparent liberality and tolerance has acquired so little of the authority of a principle, that it is always ready to give way to the dread or horror inspired by some particular sort of opinions. Within the last fifteen or twenty years, several individuals have suffered imprisonment, for the public profession, sometimes in a very temperate manner, of disbelief in religion; and it is probable that both the public and the government, at the first panic which arises on the subject of Chartism or Communism, will fly to similar means for checking the propagation of democratic or anti-property doctrines. In this country, however, the effective restraints on mental freedom proceed much less from the law or the government, than from the intolerant temper of the national mind; arising no longer from even as respectable a source as bigotry or fanaticism, but rather from the general habit, both in opinion and conduct, of making adherence to custom the rule of life, and enforcing it, by social penalties, against all persons who, without a party to back them, assert their individual independence. (Mill ([1871] 1921): 940)

Did you make it this far? Not everyone finds Mill all that easy to read, but once you get the rhythm there is no one like him anywhere.