#134: Kant, Lieutenant Commander Data, and the “What if…” Argument

September 12, 2017

Back in 2009 I wrote a post (#14) on the “What If everyone Did That” moral argument. I still stand by what I wrote then, but I want to add something important, something I clearly missed then.

The “What If” argument actually conceals some ancient and very false assumptions. These assumptions arguably go back to Plato, but achieved their modern force in the late Enlightenment through the moral writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant is a difficult read, but his foundational false belief is not difficult.

This belief is that human beings as we encounter them are actually composites of parts only one of which is the authentically “human” part, the other parts being, in his term, heteronomous (“external” to the “true self”). The part which is  the “true” us is, of course, the rational part. And the rational part, sadly, is  frequently overridden by the heteronomous forces within us, e.g. lust, greed, pride, etc.. Thus, when we sin, we are simply losing the battle against external forces.

Kant further argues that reason is independent of personal identity in the sense that any two people faced with the same circumstances and relying only on reason will reach identical conclusions. For Kant, all authentic people (people shorn of heteronomous influences) are in fact identical; their apparent differences reflect nothing of their true selves, but only the varying heteronomous forces at play in them.

Still further, Kant argues that moral action is nothing other than rational action.

Consequently, in an imaginary world in which heteronomous forces were not present, all men  would behave morally simply by “being themselves.” There would actually be no such category as “moral” behavior in such a world, since there would be no such thing as “immoral” behavior. There would just be “behavior” (which, of  course, we, from our vantage  point in the real world, would judge to be “moral.”)

In contemporary culture terms, a Kantian “moral agent” would look like Lieutenant Commander Data of the Starship Enterprise. All other things being equal, Data acts rationally, this is how he has been programmed. He has no lust, no greed, no pride, no pleasure, no pain, no satisfaction, etc.. If other androids of Data’s kind were manufactured, their behaviors would be indistinguishable from his.

And, according to Kant, Data automatically acts morally.

Now, if we want to simulate ordinary human activity in Data, imagine him infected by a computer virus which mimics human vices and frailties. In such a case, Data is faced with the challenge of dominating the virus’ effects in order to remain “himself” and, thereby, to act morally. That’s ostensibly the human condition according to Kant.

But even if one buys this nonsense, one is still left with the crucial question: What is it “to act rationally?” Kant answers that a rational being acts always and only in accordance with a “rule,” a generalization with regard to behavior. But which rule?

Now, one of the ways in which Kant expresses this “rule” governing the behavior of a moral agent is this:

Act only in such a way as you would have the generalization expressing your action be a law of nature.

This is often expressed as the dictum that when one acts, one acts “for all men,” and it is one version of the rule which guides the actions of any rational being. Kant calls this rule the “categorical (unconditional) imperative.”

A thought experiment capturing this notion is this: When you act, imagine yourself a God whose every act becomes a natural law such that all other men cannot help but act the way in which you did.

And there you have it! The “What If…?” argument with which we began.

Kant’s view is that a rational being cannot act in any way that is not generalizable, that is, in any way he would not have all men act. For him, this is not really a moral imperative, it is a logical imperative: acting according to the categorical imperative follows necessarily from being a rational being. So, when we ask ourselves “what if everyone acted this way,” we are asking ourselves whether a rational being would act this way, and thus whether we should act this way.

To be fair to Kant, let me stress that this is not intended to be a prudential argument, namely that “enlightened self-interest” dictates that we act only on universally generalizable rules. For him, we are not reasoning that we should not do X because if everyone did X, we might ourselves eventually be harmed by that. No, rather the universalizability test of the categorical imperative is there to inform us as to how we would act if we were free. Being subject to heteronomous forces is being un-free. So, assuming that all men wish to be free, the universalizability test allows one to know how one would act if one were not subject to external constraints and forces. On the Kantian story, being moral is equivalent to being rational is equivalent to being free. Should we buy into this? No? Why?

Because any close look at this Kantian story reveals it for what it is: a pathetic Enlightenment fantasy featuring the 18th century’s favorite celebrity: Reason!

Are authentically human beings only their “reasoning” parts? Is “being moral” the same as “being rational.” When we act morally, do we act in such a way as we would have all other men act?

Nonsense. Morality is a matter of individual preferences, themselves no more than the result of formative experiences and natural inborn inclinations. For some people who have been conditioned in the Enlightenment mode, a Kantian style “What if …” argument might work; but not because it is sound, merely because they were so conditioned.

Let’s do away with the “What if …” argument and turn our eyes from Kant to Hume, who really knew what he was talking about!


133: Multiculturalism is the Publicly Acceptable Face of Revolution

July 20, 2017

Revolution is by strategy and by ideology essentially an enemy of culture, any culture, attacking it without any of the constraints taken for granted in the culture under attack. Revolution operates in a field devoid of all values save one: the destruction of the existing order. This was true of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and the Chinese Revolution under Mao. It was also true, arguably, of the “bloodless” German revolution of 1918 from which the Left emerged in power and, through the 1930s, proceeded to effect the “revaluation of all values,” in Nietzsche’s phrase. If Weimar was nothing else, it was certainly an attack on the culture of pre-war Europe. The only counter-example to this thesis is that of the American Revolution, which belongs much more in the category of colonial irredentism than genuine revolution. Genuine revolution only takes place within an existing cultural/political entity.

The difference I’m appealing to here really demands a separate blog post, but I’ll just say this much here: irredentism is a defense of a culture, specifically a local culture, against an alien outside occupier; revolution is an attack on a specific local culture from within. This means that properly speaking colonial wars of self-determination are not really revolutionary wars, they are irredentist wars. The American revolution tends to fall between the cracks, since the colony actually shared the culture of the “occupier,” thus not exactly falling in the irredentist mold. Yet, arguably, the colony had gone far enough in culture from the occupier to be classed as irredentist.

There are multiple, converging reasons why revolution is and has to be an enemy of the culture within which it is hatched. For one thing, the revolutionaries believe themselves and others like them to be excluded from the culture under attack, and they hate it for  that reason. Their usual expression for this reason is that the existing culture is “unfair.” But, more important perhaps, is that they perceive rightly that a culture is an impediment to their program of taking power. A culture unifies and strengthens a social/political whole, so it makes perfectly good sense to go about undermining and eroding the culture under attack.

And the revolutionaries have a point: it is far easier to attack a culture than to defend it, and, once the cultural norms and assumptions lie in tatters and chaos reigns, it is much easier to take the government by force. Witness the two revolutions in Russia of 1917: the first, a democratic one unable to organize an utterly failing state, and the second, taken by force by the Bolsheviks. Out of chaos, tyranny.

But how to undermine a culture? Well, there are some obvious steps. One, infiltrate the universities and turn them into platforms of indoctrination. Two, take over the news media and turn them into platforms of indoctrination. Three, take over the entertainment industry and turn it into a platform of indoctrination. Four, take over the  courts and have them legislate from the bench.

A culture is cemented by a social/historical mythology which contains some truths and some outright lies. The fact that it is a mythology is not a fact against it; its function is to provide a social cement. To attack it “as history” is intentionally to miss the point for a political purpose, which, of course, revolutionaries do.

But, lest they be accused of being “nihilists,” as some of them in the 19th century were accused of being, they also bring forward proposals for a “new” set of values, a “new” culture to replace the old. This is a clever strategy, a Trojan horse which conceals a world without any values at all.

The values of this new world are “tolerance” and “acceptance” for any peoples “not like ourselves,” no matter what the implications. But what are the implications? 

The new culture is one of “Multiculturalism.”

This is an interesting move. The U.S. motto is “E pluribus unum” (“Out of many, one.”). The revolutionaries’ new motto is: Out of one, many.

Multiculturalism is an ideology with a strategic purpose: it is dis-integrative of the existing social whole.

And there you have it: Multiculturalism is the public ideological face of a revolutionary movement bent on the take-over of the state through the gradual erosion of its historically rooted unifying identity.

Sadly, it’s an easy sell. The progressive fragmentation of the social unity begins with the fragmentation of the whole into ethnic parts. But it has to be seen that this is just the beginning. These parts are still too large. Fragmentation must continue, so further cracks in the social cements must be created. In addition to ethnic divisions, there must also be sexual divisions. Thus, to start, there are the homosexuals as well as the heterosexuals. But  this is also not enough, there are also the transsexuals, but there are more yet to come. Add to these the zoophiles, the cannibals, the sadists, the masochists, the coprophiles, the necrophiles, and, of course, the a-sexuals … Dare we add, the pedophiles? They all have identities which must be respected because it’s it’s just so wrong to judge. Be tolerant! Have no values at all!

Yes, this is an easy sell. It’s message goes right to the heart of  lazy, drugged, depressed, angry, failed narcissism. Who is immune to that siren call? Certainly not the deranged, screaming, eyes-bulging women of the “Million Women March.” Certainly not the deranged, screaming, eyes-bulging Millenials breaking windows and burning cars at “peaceful protests.”

For the revolutionaries, the beauty of this strategy lies in the fact that a culture’s social and legal conventions and rules presuppose stable and persisting identities and roles. 

The revolutionary strategy has been this: to begin by fragmenting the whole into ethnic parts, to progress to ever smaller parts, with the ultimate goal of a population of shape-shifters whose part-identity is a matter of momentary choice.

At this point, the social whole is no longer a nation, no longer a socially cohesive unit, and it is ready to be merged with all the other colorless, dying progressive polities into a single gigantic mass ruled by bleak, faceless bureaucrats at the UN oligarchy.

Oh, brave new world that hath such people in it.

#132: Mortal Loneliness

June 6, 2017


Many have noticed the religious nature of modern Leftist movements. The acceptance of a priesthood, the proscribing of apostates, the fervor, the hysteria are all hallmarks of the religious. Duly noted.

But more importantly the same Left which exhibits these characteristics fails to be aware of them. If it were, it would also see the inescapable inference: people desperately need and want religious experience (even if they get it from atheism). Science and Leftist indoctrination have stolen the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob from the West, but the need for a God, some God, remains. One such god was Communism; we see this explicitly recognized by the Western ex-commies who contributed to the 1949 book The God that Failed. I actually knew communist devotees in the 1950s, both in high school and college, some adults and some young men. All of them knew the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin like catechism and would discuss them with each other by reciting relevant passages. Not unlike the Christian theologians of the Middle Ages and the students of the Torah in yeshivas for the past 5000 years.

Nowadays, the god is sometimes “mother earth” and sometimes “humanity” and sometimes people have no idea what it is they are worshiping. People just want to worship. They always have, and have all around the world. The need and the impulse are hard wired in them.

But why?

The Existentialists were on the track of this answer, I think, but fell short of the mark. They identified the problem in the “meaninglessness” of human life. We’re born, we live, and not long after we die. Some got closer to the mark when they emphasized that we die alone. I think that’s the heart of the matter.

I remember a deeply disturbing scene in a science-fiction movie in which a man in a space-suit became untethered and slowly drifted out into deep space, alive for only as long as his air held out.

God, religion, and worship are answers to the fear and horror of loneliness in life and in death. Not the social loneliness that can be cured through companionship, but the loneliness experienced simply by being an inaccessible mind, a kind of solipsistic loneliness we suffer in the face of death. I call it “Mortal” loneliness.


Nietzsche announced “the death of God” in 1882. I think he was both premature and late to the party. The slide in God’s health could arguably be said to have begun with Galileo’s work with the telescope (ca. 1650). Many people date the beginning of God’s health problems with those beginnings of modern science. His health certainly declined during the 18th century as more and more intellectuals questioned His very existence. By the late 19th, publishing His obituary was scarcely a big deal. But was God actually dead? Maybe Nietzsche’s surrogate Zarathustra was releasing “fake news” to the media.

Fifty years earlier, Kierkegaard had far more perceptive thoughts. He asked the question later brought to the movie public in the title song of the movie “Alfie”:

What’s it all about, Alfie? Is it just for the moment we live?

Kierkegaard thought that it’s all about the personal bond of love. Not a love between man and woman, but a love between the particular man and a a particular, personal God. Hmm, perhaps God was still alive at that point.

This meant really that religion was losing the battle with science not so much, perhaps, because of science’s enormous explanatory power, but because religion had taken on over the centuries the characteristics that science exemplified much more effectively. Aristotelian Christian theology became increasingly abstract and intellectual through the centuries, losing the very element which had been the source of its original power: the loving presence of a personal God in one’s heart and mind. Not an abstract God, but a God who was actually a person, who knew you as a person, and who was there with and for you right inside yourself until the last fragment of your consciousness left this earth. When you and God loved each other, you did not die alone. Had religion stuck with that, it  would have done much better; it should never have gone into competition with science.


It’s not enough, though, to identify the direct benefits of God’s love here. There are complementary benefits as well. Those who love a  personal God within the context of a religion have not only God’s love to sustain them, but they have a further antidote to their mortal loneliness in the community of God-lovers in which they live. There are thus two sources of ease for the mortally lonely, God’s love and what I call “huddling”. There is an important lesson in this. Huddling is a powerful loneliness analgesic, but it comes admittedly at a price: those who huddle together, often work at strengthening their huddle by rejecting others. 

History has in various ways made the acceptance of a loving, personal God more and more difficult. Some people are still able to “make the leap,” thus Nietzsche was wrong and God is still “alive”; but huge masses of people no longer have this solution available to them. Yet “huddling” is still available to them, though one of its most important forms has been systematically attacked by the internationalist Left. This is the huddling of nationalism. And, admittedly, nationalist huddles are often aggressively hostile to other nationalist huddles.

The Left is not ignorant of the political utility of loneliness, it herds masses towards the useful huddles, while driving them away from ones it sees as problematic. The Left drives the masses away from Western God-religion huddles and from Western nationalist huddles, but it encourages earth-worship and humanity worship huddles. And like all huddles, it encourages rage and hatred towards other huddles. This is captured beautifully in Tom Lehrer’s sardonic introduction to his song National Brotherhood Week. He says:

“I’m sure we all agree that we ought to love one another and I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that.


The mortal loneliness I’m speaking of was identified some years ago in sociology by Emile Durkheim. He called it “anomie”. I think it can fairly be described as the condition of feeling to be without an identity. Another way is to call it “looking for a huddle” of one’s own. Huddles have membership requirements, characteristics that all members have and expect others to have as well. These characteristics constitute “identities” or “roles.” Sartre is brilliant in his discussions of personal identity and the way in which people adopt “roles.” In particular, he is very good at identifying the discomfort people feel when they are suddenly bereft of a role. Anomie is the condition of being role-less.

A world of role-less masses presents political opportunists with troubled waters. The Left loves to fish in troubled waters, such waters present them with crises “too good to waste.” And Western waters are very troubled these days with role-less masses.

We see this particularly in the U.S., though also in different ways in Europe. The two largest anomie populations in the U.S. are women and blacks. In the case of the former, traditional roles have been under systematic attack for over a hundred years. Whether one likes or dislikes the roles that women had in America, no one can claim that women have actually formed a new, modern identity. We see this in the media’s coverage of the Women’s March on Washington. More and more of the women interviewed were besides themselves with rage, but unable to articulate their issues except in pre-packaged Leftist talking points and platitudes. And among the young ones, we heard them say, over and over again, “I wanna make a difference,” I wanna make the world a better place,” and other pap. We hear similar sentiments from beauty contest finalists: “I wanna work to end world hunger.”

And we’ve seen American Blacks experiment with one posture after another since the 1960s, the latest one being the “Black Lives Matter” movement.


We live in a time of anomie, a time of failing solutions to the problem of mortal loneliness. Some of the solutions are failing on their own, other solutions are failing because of relentless attack. While the old solutions soldier on in places, huge masses are living in frightening personal isolation, looking either for an old personal god, a new personal god, or a group within which to be loved.

And even “being in search of an identity” has now become a prevalent identity!

#131: Dear Mrs. Merkel, Here’s A Modest Proposal

May 30, 2017

Mrs. Merkel, Mutti as the Germans fondly call her, doesn’t like Mr. Trump. A surprise? I think not, she probably feels much more comfortable with Putin; she is, after all, an East Berliner, an unreconstructed commie finally showing her true colors under stress.

She doesn’t like Trump? Gee, pech, too bad. Europeans have long felt superior to Americans, but only too happy to accept their money. Maybe the time has come when they have to get along on their own.

Europe has not only become a welfare state, it has been America’s own welfare dependent since 1945. It started with the Marshall Plan and it hasn’t stopped for a moment since then, the US tax payer paying for European defense, and by that token, money being fungible, subsidizing Europe’s generous Socialist benefits. Even when France bungled the North African invasion of Libya, it had to beg armaments from the United States. Well, now they’ll have to repurpose their cheese factories into the production of ammo, though, on second thought, they’ll probably prefer Russian occupation to giving up their cheese. Ha! They’ll have to get used to watery borscht with rotting potatoes. No more cheese for Francois!

Mutti is bitter now, doesn’t relish having to pay her own way. Sad, bitter Mutti.

Since Monarchism finally failed and left a governance vacuum in Europe, starting with the French Revolution, through the Russian one, the bloodless German one of 1918, and the Chinese one, Socialisms of one stripe or another have been battling for possession of the continent. Into the Weimar vacuum after WW I swept the Spartacists and the Nazis, both Socialists; they fought in the streets, the Spartacists with Stalin’s backing, the Nazis feeding off a fictional past. The Nazis won that fight, but lost the war they began soon after, leaving the field open in 1945 to their erstwhile losers.

The post-war Socialists were no Stalinists, they chose what they called the “third way”: “Social Democracy”. Make no mistake about it, it was still Socialism (the “Sozis,” as they were called). This Socialism learned from the commies’ mistakes as well as from their insights; on the one hand, they eschewed their heavy handed dictatorships, but on the other, they saw the value of Hitler’s partnerships with giant corporations. They implemented and perfected Crony-Socialism. And it’s worth noting that the first revolution in Russia in 1917 was in fact a democratic one and that it fell very quickly to Lenin and his tactics. Lenin, however, and Stalin after him tried to be doctrinaire Marxists and thoroughly destroyed Russia’s productive capacity (along with millions and millions of lives). Fortunately, there was no Lenin in 1945 Europe and Social Democracy seemed able to take over governance. To some extent this was an illusion, since European reconstruction was being paid for by the United States, which has continued paying and paying ever since.

While it is true that Mutti’s bunch has been doing very well, the rest of Europe has not, particularly the Southern countries. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and to some extent France, have been flirting with bankruptcy. The Norwegians have North Sea oil, so they’re doing ok, the Swedes’ immigrations policies are bringing the country into deep trouble. I confess that I am not bullish on Europe. If the continent has to start paying its own way, expect tires burning in the streets — that’s how political discontent is expressed in Europe. Unsubsidized Socialism does not do well, even when it has wealth under its feet: witness Venezuela.

And while the US was subsidizing Europe’s recovery, the scribbler positions which had gone empty over the bad years were being rapidly filled with the old commie intellectual hold-overs from the 1920s and 30s. As well, the GI Bill and the reconstruction of Europe created huge numbers of new openings for scribblers. From their various platforms in the Universities and the mass media, they worked away at boring from within, a Socialist/Communist fifth column within the Western world. Their goal was nothing less than the one which had animated Lenin and Stalin and Mao, namely world domination. They worked by directly eroding and undermining the cultural distinctiveness of the Western nations: their values, conventions, and religions, and indirectly by importing populations utterly unable and unwilling to share and support the Western cultures hosting them. They hoped to produce a population-wide anomie into which one-world-Socialism could easily slide.

Hussein Obama thought he had a chance to turn the US into a domesticated Socialist cash cow for an increasingly socialistically unified world: an analogue, in effect, of an imperial colony for Europe. Just as the French sucked North Africa dry without giving anything in return, Hussein thought Europe as a whole could enjoy its sophisticated civilization on the revenue from its wealthy, primitive colony, the United States. He overshot, as did the Europeans, and now they’re just sad, bitter, and frustrated. Poor Mutti. Hussein has indeed managed to increase an anomie that was already present, which is why we’re seeing deranged screaming and violence in the streets. But his grasp of arithmetic was perhaps not up to the task of predicting an election outcome: there just weren’t enough of the crazed available (yet) to turn the trick. Poor sad, bitter Democrats; bitter, sad Europeans.

But really, now, they should be more understanding. They should just reflect on how annoying they themselves find the Greeks’ unwillingness to pay their own way. The Greeks expect the rest of Europe, particularly Mutti and her people, to subsidize their leisurely lives. The Germans are not enthused about this, why should the Americans be any more so? But this would require a level of perspective perhaps too demanding of a commie-manqué like Mutti.

So, Mrs. Merkel, here’s a modest proposal given in the spirit of communal contribution with which you are so familiar: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen. (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — Karl Marx). The EU has become more than a mere economic union, it has evolved into an entity which speaks as if it is the unified voice of the continent on all matters social, moral, and political. I suggest, therefore, that the EU speak also with a single, unified purse on the continent’s financial obligations. Let the EU pay the 2% (or more) annual dues to NATO, rather than having individual nations of differing means struggle to meet their commitments, eh? How about them apples, Mutti?

Now, I know that this might hit Germany a bit hard since it is currently a deadbeat, but give the plan a chance. A quick look at the stats shows where Germany falls: United States, 3.61%. Greece, 2.38%. Britain, 2.21%. Estonia, 2.16%. Poland, 2%. France, 1.78%. Turkey, 1.56%. Norway, 1.54%. Lithuania, 1.49%. Romania, 1.48%. Latvia, 1.45%. Portugal, 1.38%. Bulgaria, 1.35%. Croatia, 1.23%. Albania, 1.21%. Germany, 1.19%. Denmark, 1.17%. Netherlands, 1.17%. Slovakia, 1.16%. Italy, 1.11%. Czech Republic, 1.04%. Hungary, 1.01%. Canada, 0.99%. Slovenia, 0.94%. Spain, 0.91%. Belgium, 0.85%. Luxembourg, 0.44%.

Gee, Mutti, aren’t you just a little embarrassed that Greece of all nations should be paying its bills better than you? But for goodness sake, Mutti, even  Albania is cleaning your  clock, making you look bad!

So consider my solution. Sure, you’re a deadbeat nation, but if you follow my suggestion, that can be nicely obscured. You can bury your non-compliance within the single payment made on the EU behalf. Not only that, but you can probably bully some of your more pathetic members into upping their contributions so that Germany can pay even less! Maybe you can intimidate languishing France into coughing up 2.5% or more. Remind them of the last two Wars, eh? Think it over, Mutti, I’ve got your back.

#130: Trump & the Media

February 21, 2017

Among the many fine things that President Trump has done in only his first thirty days in office is smack down the press. His attacks on the press have gotten the same entertaining results as his order on immigration did: talking heads in psychiatric level shock over the sheer personal violation they feel. Their eyes rolling in their heads, spittle flecking their lips, they whine and screech: Does he not KNOW who we are??!!

Yes, they repeat over and over again, We are the Press, guaranteed freedom by the US Constitution!  

Jeez, they weren’t so interested in the Constitution while Hussein was president. Maybe we should point out to them that in their own view of the Constitution, it is a “living thing” responsive to changing social and political norms in which it can mean whatever we want it to. Maybe “free press” now means “a press told to mind its manners”. Just a little joke, I’m an Originalist so “free press” still means “free press.”

But what’s particularly intriguing about the nonsense issuing from their over-heated spitty lips is the word “adversarial.”

Again and again, they complain that the president has no business objecting to their lying, biased, often unsourced, “reporting.” He just doesn’t understand (the simple fool!) the special nature of the relationship in The U.S. between the (free) press and the government: that it is by its very nature “adversarial.”

Well, that’s o.k.. We know what adversarial relationships are like. The relationship between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier was adversarial. The relationship in North American courts between prosecution and defense are famously adversarial. But what does this really mean?

It means that, for example, that the prosecution gets to say things, often perhaps outrageous things (under the watchful eye of the  court, of course), BUT then the defense gets to respond or rebut or simply bloviate in turn. Neither of the two gets to use the other as his (or her) punching bag without the other getting his (or her) turn. “Adversarial” means that BOTH sides get to punch.

Historically, presidents have for the most part decided to simply “take it.” This has generated a population of wussy news bullies who have taken it for granted that they can say absolutely anything with impunity. In effect, we are talking about a generation of snowflake reporters (I won’t use the overblown honorific they constantly bestow on themselves: “journalist.”) The combination of presidential forbearance and left wing control of the media has allowed the newsy population to develop and market a fictional “brand” for themselves: the honorable, courageous, deeply insightful, counter-balance to “power.” I suspect that this began in the post-war years with personalities like Murrow and Cronkite, the erstwhile priests of news, since canonized to News Sainthood. Again and again we hear them repeat the hackneyed phrase “we speak truth to power.” Jeez, get over yourselves! “Journalist,” today, is treated (by themselves) like “superhero fighting the forces of darkness.” But even in the comic books, the arch-enemies of the superheroes do fight back without the superheroes going into a crying tantrum.

Our modern “journalists” (it’s ok to use the word as long as it’s in quotes) resemble nothing so much as modern “Palestinians”: they throw rockets again and again at Israel, then get outraged when Israel hits back: “they hit back too hard, it’s disproportionate,” wah, wah, wah.

The lesson is simple: you don’t wanna get whacked, play nice. You don’t wanna play nice, then don’t whine when you get whacked. You insist on whining? Eventually, people are gonna point at you and laugh. It’s already started, get used to it.

#129 The Clintons and the FBI

July 5, 2016

FBI director James Comey this morning gave a press conference in which he described in great detail precisely what it was that Hillary Clinton did in the email scandal and the relevant legislation. At the very end, he stated that the FBI was not going to recommend to AG Loretta Lynch that a criminal indictment take place.

The general response among pundits was that this was a “great victory” for HC. Perhaps. But was it a great victory for the Democratic Party? Time will, of course, be the final arbiter, but there’s another possible take here.

In effect, what Comey did may be more subtle than appears.

On the surface, the whole affair, including the meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton, smells to high heaven. It smells so much that it is difficult to understand how it could have been allowed to go so far. And when Comey did his strange routine, the whole thing became even more mysterious.

What Comey did was this: the laid out in the greatest detail the strong criminal case against HC under “gross negligence” legislation and then declined to recommend prosecution! This certainly increases the impression that “the fix is in.” But, if the fix was indeed in, then why would he lay out such a damning case against her? It makes him look bad and it certainly energizes the conservative voting public against her. Well, maybe that was precisely his intent, especially if there was indeed pressure being applied on HC’s behalf.

Here’s a possible scenario. Obama or his minions lean on Comey. Comey contacts Lynch who has also had pressure. They decide that Lynch would shift the decision burden to Comey (which she did). Comey decides to satisfy his bosses by meeting the letter of their demand: he agrees to not recommend criminal indictment (which he did). But, he’s a pissed off Republican, so he reasons that publishing a complete and damning case against her even as he recommends no criminal indictment will have the following consequences.

First, it will avoid a bad and likely outcome. Had Comey recommended indictment, it is very likely that the Party would have dumped HC and brought in Biden. The voting population on both sides would likely have heaved a sigh of relief and moved on masse behind him, assuring a Democratic victory. Comey’s move, instead, has the effect of simultaneously wounding her severely and yet keeping her as the Dem candidate.

At the same time, his move will further energize that vast part of the voting population who already believe that the fix is in.

There are two things in this speculation which are not really essential. There’s no need for Comey to have been pressured; he might have just decided that far more was to be gained from having a wounded HC staggering around on the campaign field than by finishing her off in a legal mercy killing. Second, it isn’t necessary to involve Lynch here at all. Lynch was in a terrible bind and her decision allowed her to escape her problem. In a sense, Bill Clinton’s “accidental” meeting with her was a great favour since it provided her with a convenient pretext for getting out of the fix she was in.

All in all, I think it likely that Comey’s performance will do much more damage to the Hildabeast than to Trump.

#128 The Assimilation of Illegal Aliens

March 19, 2016

Apologists for the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. frequently make the argument that these people will quickly become upstanding and contributing American citizens and should consequently be welcomed.

The larger issue of their illegality aside, along with that of the security risks involved and the additional costs to the communities in which they concentrate, there is the further problem that what the apologists claim is most likely simply false.

The same population making this claim, that the illegals will soon assimilate, mocked G.W. Bush for his democracy spreading rhetoric. They said that it was absurd to think that one could take a middle Eastern population accustomed for centuries to strong man rule and make it respect the rule of law. It takes cultural evolution to change the political and social inclinations of a population, they said.

They were quite right in that mockery and, at the time, I was also against the invasion of Iraq for that reason as well as for the reason that Saddam was a necessary constraint on Iran. Bush would have been well served by reading a bit about the history of WW I’s military campaign in the Middle East. The effort to turn the Arab tribes into a viable army against the Turks failed miserably. Why? For substantially the same reasons that democratizing Iraq has failed. But where the apologists are wrong is in not applying this insight to the migrating illegals.

There is ample evidence that these migrants will not be a net benefit to the U.S.A..

Since the Democrat Party declared war on poverty back in the 60s, how has that gone? Billions, if not trillions, spent on this miserable fantasy war and what do we have now? Ever larger ghettos, so large in fact as to consume entire cities. Consider Baltimore, consider Detroit, consider the barrios of Los Angeles. We cannot even make our indigenous sub-populations assimilate, what could possibly make us think that importing millions of ethnically similar groups would do better?

The apologists point to the successes of the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, the Poles, the Czechs and so on. They could also point to the successes of the Asians, which are plentiful, but can they point to the successes of the Hispanics? They can try, but on balance how has that gone for us? What should be clear, political considerations aside for the moment, is that some cultures assimilate to the Western mercantile society and others do not. Europe, both Western and Eastern, has done very well. South America, Africa, and the Middle East? Not well at all.

Is this just an example of an ideologically driven mistake? Oops, sorry, didn’t expect this? Not likely.

There’s a wise old saying: When people say “It’s not the money that’s motivating me,” it’s the money. I would suggest the same is true when they say “It’s not political advantage that’s motivating me.” It’s the political advantage.

The comedian Jay Leno got it exactly right. He quipped, “We can’t say ‘illegal alien’ anymore, that’s politically incorrect. The acceptable new term,” he said, “is ‘undocumented Democrat’.” Sad, but right on the money. It’s about importing new Democrat voters.

In a democracy, it’s all about the votes. If you haven’t got them, import them, breed them, buy them, or turn to the dead (somehow, they always vote Democrat).

Kennedy was first in importing them (the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act), Obama has doubled down on that. Johnson bred them with his welfare policies. Obama simply bought them, and all Democrats appeal to the dead.

These are eternal verities. Our newly empowered Canadian Liberal Party is experimenting with a universal monthly stipend to buy votes (even though this will significantly increase the national debt) and it is taking advantage of the Syrian crisis to import Syrian refugees (i.e. Liberal voters). In the words of Rahm Emmanuel, it was just too good a crisis to waste.

Open borders policy should be understood as a tool of the conglomerate of the Democrat Party and its billionaire cronies. The Party gets its lemming voters and cash from the billionaires; the billionaires get cheap labor and favorable treatment in their multinational business transactions. It has to be understood that neither the Democrat Party nor their billionaire cronies find their interests best served by the existence of national boundaries.  Just as in the case of the EU, this partnership of financial and political convenience sees a single undivided world as best serving its own interests. The fact that the citizens of individual countries violently prefer to have national unities is an inconvenience best ignored. This attitude didn’t work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it hasn’t worked in the EU, and the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the U.S. suggests it’s not working there.

Oddly, the Democrat/Crony partnership shares a common objective with that much vilified old world notion: empire. Both have wanted a world under a single government and for similar reasons, only their rhetoric has been different. Go figger.

In the words of Tom Lehrer’s song “The Old Dope Peddler,” the Democrat Party and its friends does well by “doing good.” The problem is that while the Party members and their cronies do well, and the dependent class that supports them does well, the tax paying middle class citizens gets squeezed ever more tightly to support this gigantic boondoggle.

Open borders policy survives on other people’s money. As Margaret Thatcher said, sooner or later, you run out of it.