This short piece by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:
Dense, but worth the effort.
This short piece by Nassim Nicholas Taleb:
Dense, but worth the effort.
Blogger Jim discusses The General Flynn Affair. In summary:
So this looks like a creeping coup, and a creeping countercoup, with Trump countercoup successful. Going after Flynn is an act of pointless self destructive vindictiveness, an act of madness…. If they can punish Flynn, they are still in power. If they cannot, not in power. And now, whether they are in power or not is about to be put to the test. If they cannot punish Flynn, no one will fear them any more, and if no one fears them any more, everything falls apart for the plotters.
Reading the entire article is highly recommended. Jim hammers away at this issue with a hard-nosed logic that is difficult to deny, and is, quite frankly, far more reassuring to us black-pilled Trumpists than the endless Q nonsense. Granted, Q may be correct, but the way that info is coming out just makes it seem like bait for nutjobs. I can’t even bring myself to waste my time on it.
Excellent article by The Saker:
It’s pretty critical of Trump, but also very critical of pretty much everyone else, particularly those who richly deserve it. It’s also a very good summary of the current mess we find ourselves in.
A very short excerpt:
Nobody can predict how this struggle between the Neocons and the Clinton Gang on one hand and Trump on the other will play out, but my personal guess is that Trump is a disposable President: the Neocons will use him to do all the crazy shit they typically are known for, and when the inevitable disaster strikes, they will blame him, him alone, while hiding their own role in what took place.
Sadly, I am in complete agreement. Failing to keep Trump out of office in the first place, the powers that be will settle for making him their scapegoat for whatever happens to go wrong in the next 10 or more years. And there’ll be a lot that goes wrong.
Additionally: I wasn’t sure what I was going to title this piece, until I came across one of the comments to the above which likened our current situation to the mess that Rome found itself in roughly 1800 years ago. It’s a very apt comparison, IMHO.
Lately we’ve been seeing Democrats, who at this point would more accurately be labelled “Communists”, advocating for 70% or higher tax rates for “the wealthy.”
This is idiocy, but it’s also concerning, given the relentless progress of the left that many of us have witnessed over our lifetimes. They may not be able to achieve 70% now, but, given the utter lack of balls within the GOP, it’s only a matter of time.
Unfortunately, the Commies actually believe that they’ll be able to level out the income distribution graph with this sort of strategy. The reality is closer to the opposite: the wealthiest of the wealthy, aka the 1%, or more accurately the 0.1%, are untouchable. Mere politicians can’t touch them, and that is pretty much an inexorable law of nature. However, Commie politicians are not going to simply accept this fact and go home. No, they are going to guess how much money they would be getting from their 70% rate, apply that to the next lower rungs of the income distribution, and call it a victory, even though it would have the net effect of skewing the income distribution even worse than it already is.
What’s more, I suspect the billionaires know this, and that is part of why they support leftist politicians. It’s sheer greed, knowing they’ll be safe while the Commies wipe out the middle class in the name of “tax the rich!” They know the greatest threat to their hold on power is the middle class.
What’s perversely interesting to speculate on, though, is what might happen after that sort of taxation becomes the norm. When the middle class starts getting taxed at 70%, a lot of them are just going to quit their jobs and join the ranks of the poor, hoping they’ll get something in the process. What then? Will we have something like in the late Roman empire, where something very similar happened and the emperor responded by saying, “No, you’re not allowed to quit.” And then, when people stayed in their unprofitable jobs for their entire lives but their sons, not being fools, decided that no way were they going to throw away their lives like that, the next emperor responded by saying, “No, you’re not allowed to abandon the profession of your father.” Is that where we’re headed? Because that, friends and neighbors, is how feudalism got started: Farmers being bound to the land because, for generations, farming had not been profitable, but if someone didn’t keep them there, then the empire would starve. Meanwhile, other, more mobile professions probably snuck out of the reaches of imperial authority and no doubt contributed greatly to the collapse of the empire by doing so.
Look for this to happen in America over the next few generations, once the Commies get their way. Or, maybe the whole mess will just fall apart before we ever get to that point. One can always hope, right?
President Trump is going to address the nation on prime time television tonight, in relation to building The Wall. I will of course attempt to tune in on YouTube or somewhere like that, although I won’t be surprised if I run into problems. (Seems like I always run into internet problems when Trump addresses the nation, but never at any other time. Weird.)
Anyway, my money is on him NOT declaring a state of emergency in relation to building the wall.
If he was really planning on declaring an emergency, he wouldn’t be talking about it and thereby giving the opposition a chance to prepare a solid legal challenge.
It’s a negotiating technique. Hint that something worse could be in store if the opposition doesn’t get their ass in gear and agree to the current terms of the deal.
If I’m wrong, though, that would be really cool. What he ought to do is declare a state of emergency and when some liberal judge inevitably throws up an injunction, declare the judge to be an enemy agent and subject to arrest. We could keep Gitmo populated with liberal judges for the foreseeable future! Heheheh.
With the recent mid-term elections pretty much over now, one thing has become clear, and that is that the Republican party has seized the opportunity to return to its old, cucked self, wherein they happily lose every election they can get away with losing. And yet, the Democrats remain worried that the “Blue Wave” they were hoping for didn’t actually materialize.
Why are Democrats so worried? Do they not recognize how effectively the GOP managed to lose this November? This is great news for the Democrats! The Republican party is back to its glory days of Mitt Romney, John McCain and Paul Ryan, accomplishing as little as they possibly can while keeping those donations rolling in! They even managed to get Scott Walker, one of the few effective Republicans in the country, to lose to some upstart nobody Democrat in the Wisconsin governor’s race!
So, here’s my special memo to the Democrats:
Don’t worry, you just keep your eyes peeled and stay alert and you’ll be running this country with no effective GOP opposition within one or two more election cycles. It’s a virtual certainty. In fact, the Republicans are already leaps and bounds behind where they were in 2016, as evidenced by your seizure of the House of Representatives, defeat of Scott Walker, and other victories.
How so, you might ask?
Do you recall that old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy repeatedly pulls away the football every time Charlie Brown tries to kick it? No matter how many times it happens, Lucy always pulls the ball away, and Charlie Brown never gives up thinking that maybe this time is the time when Lucy will finally play fair and allow him to kick the ball. Charlie Brown always plays fair, therefore Lucy should eventually relent and allow him to kick the ball, right?
Democrats, don’t worry. You are Lucy. The Republicans are Charlie Brown. You can go on cheating with impunity, because it’s obvious that the Republicans are never going to give up being Charlie Brown. They’ll never give up hope that you’ll play fair, and they’ll never put forth any serious complaint when you inevitably don’t. They’ll always come back for one more kick, and, so long as you remember to actually pull the ball away from them, they’ll always lose.
So, why did they win so big in 2016? Well that’s easy: Trump grabbed the ball early, and he kept it for the entire game. You got caught with your pants down. That election was yours to win, just like all the others. As always, the Republican party did everything they could do to prevent themselves from winning, but they weren’t counting on Trump either. If he hadn’t come along, their brilliant masterplan to lose the election to Hillary Clinton would have worked, easily.
Nobody expected Trump to grab the ball before the Democrats or anyone else even realized what was happening. Trump pulled the ball away from his fellow GOP candidates when they went for the kick, as evidenced by the party giving him the nomination even though they very obviously didn’t want to. The Clinton team tried the standard array of Democrat dirty tricks in the general campaign, of course, but at that point they made another big mistake: they expected Trump to just lay down and take it. They expected him to compliantly fall back into the role of Charlie Brown, like any other GOP nominee would have. They didn’t realize Trump was Lucy this time, and Lucy doesn’t take any shit from anybody.
So: Grab that ball early, before anybody else does, hold on to it, and offer it up to the Republicans for the kick, as usual. They’ll go for it, as they always do. Pull it away like normal, and the election is yours. Easy peasy.
The liberals (i.e. socialists) have their sights set on Laura Ingalls Wilder. There was some obscure literary award which bore her name, but which was recently renamed due to the fact that her books contain “‘expressions of stereotypical attitudes inconsistent with ALSC’s core values’ based on Wilder’s portrayal of black people and Native Americans.”
As I sit here, writing this, I wonder if I actually have the energy or inclination to slog through the layers of bullshit that are being slung here.
The truth is, not really. However, I am also highly annoyed, having been a young fan of these books myself.
Note that they don’t appear to be flat-out claiming that Laura Ingalls Wilder herself was a racist or a bigot, an allegation which would be more contentious. They are instead focusing on depiction of racism and stereotypes in the books. My guess is what they find most objectionable is in relation to “Indians.” Laura’s mother was definitely not a fan of Native Americans at all, and more than once (as I recall) insisted that “the only good Indian is a dead Indian.” Even in the relatively racist 1970’s when I first read these books, I remember feeling a bit shocked at that statement. What I also remember, though, is that it was presented in the context of a debate between Laura’s parents, where her mother was firmly anti-Indian, but her father took an opposing view. Furthermore, since he was also the person who actually spoke with them, on the rare occasions when there was any direct interaction at all, his viewpoint inevitably comes through as the more credible of the two. Laura never advocated her mother’s opinion, although she did report on it. I’m guessing, though, that this is part of the problem: Liberals don’t even want people to know that, at one time, such a completely shocking opinion was held by ordinary, respectable, likeable people like Laura’s mother–even though the fact that many people clearly felt that way at the time actually supports the liberal narrative in the first place!
There were undoubtedly some other things relating to Native Americans that liberals find objectionable too, but the above example is the most flagrant one, so, as such, it serves well enough to illustrate the point.
As for what they are complaining about in reference to “black people”, well, that’s a little harder to suss out. There was, as I recall, one black character in the entire series of books, a doctor, who treated the family for malaria in the second book. Obviously, the libtards are not complaining about him, right? A black doctor in the early 1870’s is about the most progressive thing you can come up with, I would think, especially since he was a real life guy and people have identified who he actually was. So what could the problem be? Reading about this issue on another blog, one commenter remarked that, perhaps the objection is to the following:
They were probably referring to “Little Town on the Prairie,” where Laura’s father and two other men don blackface and sing and joke as ‘darkies.’
That could be it. I, myself, had totally forgotten about that section. Of course, people used to do that. (I even remember it myself as late as 1984 or so, when students in my high school put on a production of the musical “Showboat.” One of the featured songs in that musical is “Old Man River,” sung by a black character. Well, my high school only had one black student in the entire school, and he wasn’t a singer, so they put a white student with a baritone voice in blackface and had him sing the song. The response of the student body was a bit of mild laughter because, frankly, the guy looked silly in the makeup, especially with the spotlight on him, which made the makeup look a sort of comical blue-ish color. But, no one there thought there was anything offensive about what was being done. From what I recall, condemning the practice of white actors in blackface started in the late 1980’s as a means of attacking fraternities on college campuses, not because black people were objecting to it themselves. But, I could be wrong.)
I suspect, though, that the major issue that the libs have with these books is simply the fact that here are all these white people out on the frontier, not only surviving under really harsh conditions but building a new nation in the process, without any black people around at all, and they even dare to do it without personally slaughtering any Native Americans or anything. That, of course, runs exactly counter to the narrative that libtards want people to believe, namely that there was no aspect of the development of America in which African Americans did not play an essential role, and, of course, throughout all of this, whites were engaged in continual massacre of Native Americans at all times. Nope – Heaven forbid that any young people should be exposed to an account of some stuff as it actually happened.
This gets to a more fundamental point about what’s going on here, and about liberalism itself, which is this: What liberals, being socialists, probably find more threatening than anything else about these books is that, due to the fact that Laura Ingalls Wilder is a primary source, meaning she wrote about historical events that actually happened to her, these books can be considered a reliable reporting of history. Not only that, but the “Little House” books have always been popular with children, i.e. people at an age when their lifelong opinions and beliefs are still being formed. Liberals hate all of that, because primary sources are hard to refute, and they certainly don’t want to risk having young people form their own, non-liberal-approved beliefs. What liberals, i.e. socialists, want more than anything is to be able to impose their own made-up version of history on people, as a means of instilling Marxist beliefs in everyone. Having a series of popular children’s books out there which is actually accurate represents a real problem to them. The books can’t be discredited on historical grounds, so instead they have to be discredited on the grounds of racism. In a world without primary sources, there would be no obstacle to crafting a completely new, socialist-approved “history.” That’s what this is ultimately about.
There is an irony in this, of course. I’d actually been thinking recently about the Little House books, but in the sense of how effective they were at promulgating a feminist viewpoint in children of my and my parents’ generations. I believe they actually played a major role in that, for quite a lot of people. That means, however, that the current changes also serve as a good example of the ongoing deterioration of the liberal coalition, and, in that sense, I suppose the downgrading of these books to verboten status can be considered good news. I suppose. I still don’t like it, though.