Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 1/12/2018: Sigh. It Never Ends. (Part II) [UPDATED]

A Nigerian locale, and not an atypical one.

From the Washington Post:

President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt that they help the United States economically.

In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.” 

Ethics Observations:

I. “According to several people briefed on the meeting”? What? Not even according to people AT the meeting?

Based on this, without any attributions, the news media is stating that Trump making those alleged comments are fact. Here’s the Times version,

“…according to people with direct knowledge of the conversation.

No, they don’t have “direct knowledge.” What someone tells you about what someone else said at a meeting you were not attending is indirect knowledge. It is, in fact, hearsay. If the Times and the Post did not get confirmation on the record from someone who heard what he said, then this is not fact, but rumor, inadmissible in court because of extreme prejudice and lack of reliability.

Never mind. The Times headline is Trump Alarms Lawmakers With Disparaging Words for Haiti and Africa, as if the second-hand accounts were  confirmed fact. This is unethical journalism. Outrageously so, in fact. Meanwhile, all of the news channels, including Fox, were basing hours of reporting on it.

This is not acceptable. It is not professional, and it is not justifiable. It is a disgrace, and if you accept it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

II. Trump denies that he uttered those words, on Twitter, of course:

“The language used by me at the DACA meeting was tough, but this was not the language used. What was really tough was the outlandish proposal made – a big setback for DACA!…Never said anything derogatory about Haitians other than Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country. Never said “take them out.” Made up by Dems. I have a wonderful relationship with Haitians. Probably should record future meetings – unfortunately, no trust!”

The denials mean nothing, I know. The President has such a bizarre view of reality and such a record of misstatements and reversals that he has no credibility and deserves none. However, that doesn’t mean that he did make the alleged statements either. I wouldn’t be surprised if he did. I certainly wouldn’t be “shocked.” It sounds like something he would say, because nuances of language and tone, not to mention civility ande diplomacy, are alien concepts to him. In other words, it rings true. That doesn’t mean it’s ethical to report it as fact.

III. Senator Durbin, after the headlines and hearsay-based reporting, responded to the President’s denial today by saying that during the meeting, Trump said things “in the course of his comments which were hate-filed, vile and racist,” and added,

“I use those word advisedly. I understand how powerful they are. But I cannot believe in the history of the White House in that Oval Office that any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday.”

That’s still a characterization, not a quote. I’ll decide what words are “hate-filed, vile and racist,” thanks—especially when the speaker is a leader of a party whose members have been calling all sorts of words and opinions “racist” and “hate speech” for years now as a dirty political tactic.

IV. Let us assume, for the benefit of discussion, that Trump did say what has been reported.

  • Is it fair to leak what he said to the news media?

No, it’s not. The leaks are unethical. Closed meetings are meant to encourage free and uninhibited discussion by all participants. Such leaks impede the legislative process and the governing process, undermine trust, and harm all participants.

  • Was it irresponsible nonetheless for the President to say anything this inflammatory, knowing that he cannot trust the people in the room, many of which he knows are, if fact, committed foes?

Irresponsible and incompetent. The President has a flat learning curve.

  • Was it racist to pronounce Haiti and Nigeria, and other African countries “shitholes”?

The proper and accurate term is “hellholes,” and the truth is not racist. Hellholes they are, by any measure.  Nigeria is actually one of the happier African nations, and it’s a mess. Lagos, the capital, is the ugliest, poorest, scariest place I have ever been in my life. Yet Nigeria is in a lot better shape than many other African nations. As for Haiti, it is routinely ranked as one of the worst places to live in the world, and it has been that way for centuries.

It is vulgar to call a hellhole a shithole, though members of a party with a chairman, Tom Perez, who uses “shit” routinely in public addresses are estopped from outrage when someone uses the word in a private meeting. It is certainly poor diplomacy, and needlessly hurtful. It is bad politics.

It is not racist. It is, sadly, true.

  • Was there anything inherently racist about insisting that the U.S. should seek immigrants from “first world” nations like Norway—which the President didn’t choose because of its stereotype Aryan populace but because he had just hosted the Norwegian prime minister at the White House—in preference to those of Third World nations plagued with disease, poverty and persistent cultural maladies?

No. The argument that the U.S. should prioritize admitting immigrants with better education, skills and financial resources has been a legitimate policy position for decades. Of course, that position is often called racist, because calling a position racist when the Left disagrees with it is de rigeur.  Trump’s manner of expressing that argument was, typically, clumsy, crude, and easy to cast in the worst light  by his opponents, but nonetheless, a fair translation of his comment would be,

“Egad! Is it really wise to take our new Americans from these damaged countries that have least prepared them for the challenges and benefits of our democracy? Doesn’t it make far more sense to seek the best and the brightest from nations that share our values?”

  • Finally, is there any justification for reacting with horror when the President expresses himself in exactly the same, meat-axe, uncivil, crude and obnoxious way about essentially the same issue, immigration policy, that he did in his speech announcing his candidacy in 2015?

No. This is how the man speaks. We all know it. It is uncivil, imprecise, presidential and often stupid, but that’s him. Behaving as if it is a nation-rending cataclysm every time Trump acts, tweets and talks  like we know Trump acts, tweets and talks  s a cynical partisan ploy designed to spread fear and division.

See The Julie Principle.

UPDATE: A commenter implied that my analysis might jibe with Althouse’s, and so it did: I just read Ann’s post. Highlights…

“A wretched place… (a) a dirty or dilapidated dwelling; (b) a remote, downtrodden, or unpleasant city, town, etc.”
That’s the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “shithole,” with examples going back to 1930…

It was said by the President of the United States, but at a private meeting, where I presume he, like many Presidents before him say “fuck” and other bad words all the time. We know Nixon did. LBJ did.

So what is the big deal? The big deal is that it’s racist. Supposedly. That’s in the mind of the hearer, as the hearer really hears it or chooses to speak of it, and the motivations there are not untainted. Anything about Trump that can be called racist, will be called racist, but Trump said (we’re told) “shithole countries,” and “shithole,” in this context means a wretched place. Is Haiti not a wretched place? There are connotations of dirtiness, obviously, but more notably, that the place is just awful, not that the people are bad in some way because of their race. There’s enough reason to think of Haiti as dilapidated and downtrodden without needing to start assuming that there’s something about the people because of their race. Perhaps the racism is in the mind of the person who hears “shithole” about the country and starts thinking about the race of the people who live there.

 

124 Comments

Filed under Around the World, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Journalism & Media, language, Leadership

124 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up: 1/12/2018: Sigh. It Never Ends. (Part II) [UPDATED]

  1. “Of course, that position is often called racist, because calling a position racist when the Left disagrees with it is de rigeur.”

    And there, in a nutshell, you have the entire matter. We’ve already seen any number of pundits and politicians pretending that the only difference they can imagine between a country like Norway and one like Haiti is the skin color of most of the inhabitants.

    • Willem writes: “And there, in a nutshell, you have the entire matter. We’ve already seen any number of pundits and politicians pretending that the only difference they can imagine between a country like Norway and one like Haiti is the skin color of most of the inhabitants.”

      But if you can get to that point: of seeing the total difference between the people who constructed Norway and the people who constructed Haiti, and who maintain it, you are more than halfway to seeing what will happen to America when ‘the rising tide of color’ (Lothrop Stoddard) gains even more demographic power than it has now. (If you wish I will clearly and deliberately explain).

      The issue is more complex, more difficult, more harder to face. A given people is both their physical, genetic selves, and their self in this sense is the work of so many past generations that bequeaths them their vehicle in this world; as well as the ideas they succeed in defining and holding to. We have a ‘sacred trust’ which is what we have been given through the struggles of our antecedents. We can build on what they have build, or we can carelessly squander it. This is true on all levels, from our physical selves to our emotional and moral selves. It is in a sense the one, basic rule of life.

      Therefor, it is always ‘powerful ideas’ that are the fulcrum that moves the world, but it is the physical structure of a people which can first bring these ideas into manifestation and then succeed in developing them over time. The process of ‘developing ideas’ is really, and in essence, what Europe is about and what ‘Europe’ means. And the peoples who developed these ideas — ideas which have changed the world — have cultivated these ideas within themselves and over a 1500 year period.

      And now we are facing the greatest existential threat that we ever have faced before. This is it. It is on-going right now.

      To understand what happened in Europe, and how it happened, one has to retrace the history, and the history of ideas. The more that one knows, the better positioned on is to protect Europe.

      To become strong again one requires strong ideas, and one also requires a strong physical self. Obviously I am touching into a very difficult idea-set that has to do with cultural and also racial purity. These ideas did not frighten Lothrop Stoddard (Harvard, 1905), but they cause many people to wet themself with pure fear today. The notion of good breeding and proper and successful breeding is simply a no-brainer. The idea must be recovered. And one must come to recognize that no nation should be asked to suffer a multicultural fate.

      I know it is a rather unpleasantly sounding word but the American Cuckservative needs to take off their head, send it in to the shop, have them run the air compressor into all the recesses and to clean out the cobs and the accumulated poison-dust of the last 60 years.

      Then said Cuck needs to coordinate what the head thinks with what the mouth says … and the process of recapturing America and restructuring it needs to begin.

      • Chris Marschner

        Aliza:
        “The notion of good breeding and proper and successful breeding is simply a no-brainer. The idea must be recovered. And one must come to recognize that no nation should be asked to suffer a multicultural fate.”

        Good breeding has absolutely nothing to do with genetics unless we are talking about animal husbandry. In fact, genetic purity is often associated with birth defects when two closely related organisms reproduce due to the likelihood of both containing negative regressive genetic material.

        The notion of good breeding in humans deals with the individual’s exposure to arts, literature, and other things that elevate us beyond our base instincts.

        What I think you are trying to communicate is that the ideal of Americanism as a culture is at risk by virtue of many coming to the U.S. with no desire to assimilate. I have no hard data to corroborate that idea and if we asked new immigrants why they came they would probably tell us that they wanted the American dream. No one knows what truly lurks in the hearts of men.

        There is anecdotal data to support the idea that we are losing our identity of the rugged individualist willing to go west with nothing more than our wits to carve out a niche for ourselves. However, no diversity program did that – we did that to ourselves because we must rely on others to achieve the knowledge needed to be successful in the modern age. No longer are we a subsistence economy. Each of us has talents. Some more than others. Some the same, some different. The combination of successful cultures does improve the emerging culture provided that we do not adopt the deleterious components of those assimilating cultures. Just like genetics, human populations evolve positively when they integrate the strengths of one culture with the strengths of another; sociological natural selection if you will.

        I will concede that there has been a tremendous balkanization within our different demographic populations. But that is a function of politics not genetics. At issue with immigration is how many can be absorbed by the existing culture without incurring too much competitive pressure that leads to balkanization rather than assimilation.

        I read your other comment further down and want to ask you if all we here is propaganda to facilitate the Wal-Mart society then how do you know that what you read is also not propaganda just from a different source? All information is slanted to support a writer’s thesis. Using a Harvard study from 1905 that tackles racial purity is as antiquated as using 3rd century astrology to discuss the big bang. I don’t know what you mean when you reference sub-species. All humans are considered Homo-Sapiens. There is evidence that some members retain some Neanderthal genetic markers but that cannot be called a sub-species.

        You are a smart woman and well read. But I caution you to critique that which you believe as you critique that which others believe. What is interesting that your writing style is very similar to historical propagandists insofar as you create a compelling narrative for those who feel that they are being betrayed by the system while creating a bogeyman for them to attack.

        • “There is anecdotal data to support the idea that we are losing our identity of the rugged individualist willing to go west with nothing more than our wits to carve out a niche for ourselves.”

          Good point, Chris. Possibly of interest from an e-pal of mine.

          “Progressivism and the New Frontier”

          ”If today’s mentality and ‘truths’ had prevailed in the 1850’s, people who tried to go west on the Oregon Trail would have been arrested for child endangerment and trespassing on government-owned land.

          “Wagon train organizers would have been thrown in prison as human traffickers. Heck, if today’s mentality had prevailed 500 years ago, The New World would never even have been settled.”

          If you have the time-n-interest, click on the Robert Zubrin link at the end of the article, it outlines the importance of a “Frontier.”

          http://bigdustup.blogspot.com/2016/04/progressivism-and-new-frontier.html

        • Paul writes: “Good breeding has absolutely nothing to do with genetics unless we are talking about animal husbandry. In fact, genetic purity is often associated with birth defects when two closely related organisms reproduce due to the likelihood of both containing negative regressive genetic material.”

          If genetics is relevant in animal husbandry then you have clearly indicated and more or less proved that it is relevant in humans. Humans are animals. The bad breeding of a dog is similar therfor to the bad breeding of a human. I am not speaking of hybridization though.

          I am of the opinion that we work on ourselves on all levels. One level of that work is that with our physical self. In the best of corcumstances we have children with the best mate we can find and out of that union produce fine children. This is clearly evident. I notice families all the time who give evidence of good breeding on this, a purely physical level. When I say we ‘work with our self’ I mean over time: decades, centuries. Certainly generations. This is a core discipline of civilization. Easy to see and understand when stated. Self-evident.

          And clearly there is more, much more. Because metaphysics is real, and there is a supernatural order, we use our physical structure and our mind-imagination complex as part of a working unit. You know, Plato and his idea about the Self as charioteer. My perspective is Thomistic (which you may not be famiiar with). But it is our duty to surrender ourself to God —- to the Divine, to the higher orders of Being —- and to work in relation to the impulses that come from Being into our mutability. Good breeding occurs within a set of different circumstances. Literature, arts, and such, is on one level a lower level of life in relation to the Divine. Just having an existence in which literature is read and art appreciated is not enough. The fundamental formation of an individual is more, much more. It is revealed through European paideia,/i>

          The notion of good breeding in humans deals with the individual’s exposure to arts, literature, and other things that elevate us beyond our base instincts.

          ‘Elevating us beyond our basic instincts’ is far more complex. It is, as I tried to express, an historical project. And Europe had dedicated itself to this for about 1500 years in a specific, directed, focused line. You seem focused in a particular distortion very common to American thinking: that we are programmable units and we can be interchanged with other programmable units. Then, you just install the idea software and set the unit to march. It is a largely, but not entirely, false idea.

          What I think you are trying to communicate is that the ideal of Americanism as a culture is at risk by virtue of many coming to the U.S. with no desire to assimilate. I have no hard data to corroborate that idea and if we asked new immigrants why they came they would probably tell us that they wanted the American dream. No one knows what truly lurks in the hearts of men.

          I am communicating that ‘Americanism’ is far from enough. Americanism (and the Americanopolis) are in many ways grotesque perversions, and the present direction of America is dangerously on a wrong course. America was perverted by being subverted by the machinations of the business class, and it stopped being a Republic and became a Neo-Imperial force. It itself stands against itself in relation to its own ideals. America is a branch of the European tree and it needs to recognize what is being done to it, what has happened to it, and why, and it needs to correct itself through purification of idea. But at the same time there is other levels of purification, and not the least is redefining itself on an *identitarian* level. (But I have already spoken of this).

          I read your other comment further down and want to ask you if all we here is propaganda to facilitate the Wal-Mart society then how do you know that what you read is also not propaganda just from a different source? All information is slanted to support a writer’s thesis. Using a Harvard study from 1905 that tackles racial purity is as antiquated as using 3rd century astrology to discuss the big bang. I don’t know what you mean when you reference sub-species. All humans are considered Homo-Sapiens. There is evidence that some members retain some Neanderthal genetic markers but that cannot be called a sub-species.

          I think you are confusing ‘propaganda’ with an ideology, or a vision, or civilizational ideals. Propaganda, in our century (20th) came out of the war offices. Propaganda and PR are a very specific thing. But education and paideia is quite another. The Walmart Society, though a glossay generalization, is a very real thing. A terrible, ugly and destructive thing. It is one of the results of the perverse choices made when the Republic was subverted by interests inimical to it.

          You are a smart woman and well read. But I caution you to critique that which you believe as you critique that which others believe. What is interesting that your writing style is very similar to historical propagandists insofar as you create a compelling narrative for those who feel that they are being betrayed by the system while creating a bogeyman for them to attack.

          Fair enough. In defense I say that I have read very widely on all sides of the political spectrum. Since what I am speaking about has fundamentally to do with spiritual, familial, social and cultural renovation, all the ideas I have must support that project. All people, of whatever color or race, have that as an option, and it is a spirtual ideal of mine that, when possible, the values I speak of should be taught. Indeed, it is Western paidaia that had been taught and it, and technological innovation, completely transformed the world. Where you and others get nervous —- justifiably so of course —- is in speaking of racial and cultural issues in relation to America, and the position I take against multiculturalism and social and cultural pollution generally.

          What I think you are trying to communicate is that the ideal of Americanism as a culture is at risk by virtue of many coming to the U.S. with no desire to assimilate. I have no hard data to corroborate that idea and if we asked new immigrants why they came they would probably tell us that they wanted the American dream. No one knows what truly lurks in the hearts of men.

          What I am talking about, what *we* are talking about, is a reversal of immigration policy to a pre-1965 level (in the best of all worlds). White domographics have gone from 90% (a bit less than that) down to 67% in 50 years. This should be reversed. And that is what a ‘white ethnostate’ is about. It is first the idea that such a thing is possible, good and desirable, and that it can be worked toward. It represents a return, if you will, to what America was (and the reason it was as it was).

          The general ideas I am taling about are largely those of the European New Right which has a clearer sense of itself. America, or the American psyche, is like murky water and there is a tremendous chaos of ideas that keeps clear thinking from coalescing. The things I talk about —- completely common sense, quite sane, quite rational — seem outlandish not because *we* are strange or weird, but because *you* have become astoundingly warped by Marxian forces and a slew of distorting social engineering projects.

        • Chris

          What I think you are trying to communicate is that the ideal of Americanism as a culture is at risk by virtue of many coming to the U.S. with no desire to assimilate.

          No, what she’s trying to communicate is that non-white people are genetically inferior to white people. This is not subtle. This has never been subtle.

          • Chris, you are the maven of restatement! (I will get to more of this down below with your comments to Jack). You distort what is said, reframe it, and then repeat it.

            What I am trying to communicate is different, more subtle, more challenging really, and requires a good deal more thought to grasp.

            I understand that the US has been/is being culturally and socially reengineered. I speak of ‘social engineering projects’ and have written about this a good deal in other places. With certain immigration reform bills of 1965 or thereabouts a project was begun: to deliberately shift the demographic content of the US through the importation of people from very different racial and cultural backgrounds.

            We now are living in and experiencing the effect of these social engineering projects. The Domcrat Party (to speak broadly but I think accurately) has sided with its base and is fomenting a political, ideological, and social low-intensity war. That was can be summed up in the phrase ‘War Against Whiteness’. But in essence it is a war against the white demographic, and this is of course what was intented with the deliberate shift in immigration policy. The result? In a couple of decades (if the studies are accurate) the white demographic will no longer be a majority.

            Now, it is a fact, a simple fact, that I am, and along with others who think like me, concerned about this. But more: we are activists against this. Just as the present state of things came about through activism, we are of the opinion that it can be reversed and turned back through activism. I am an activist in the realm of ideas. I know what I am about. I have an idea-base that I work from. And I avoid emotionalism and sentimentalism like a plague. I describe my views openly. I write them out clearly so that everyone can see. Nothing hidden. No trickery. No sophistry.

            I am not really concerned with genetic superiority or inferiority. I am concerned with cultural homogeneity. I oppose the false-idea that a nation can be an ‘idea-nation’ or a ‘propositional nation’. To get a sense of where I stand Google: The American Conservative: The Nation of Immigrants Myth. The basic argument is there. I suggest and I maintain that the Lincolnian ‘propositional nation’ creed is a false-creed and a constitutional distortion. It is now and it has been and it will be in the future a destructive idea and one that results, quite directly, in government-instituted social engineering projects.

            My object is to 1) organize my understanding and perception of things into a clear, communicable set, 2) penetrate the ‘system of lies’ that has been concocted which obscures rather simple truths and ‘mind F*%$s’ people so that they end up in a non-decisive internal space. That is, that neutralizes them and renders them non-actors in the construction of a reality that suits them. 3) work as hard as I can to fight against distorting and lying narratives, 4) communicate my ideas to others.

            I am very certainly and very definitely of the opinion that America was founded by white people as a white, European-derived nation. It was invented and constructed by those people. It can only be maintained by people of that stock who succeed, simultaneously, in holding to the ideas and ideals of Europe. What are those? All I do is to write about that! Toward this, I recommend: restructuring of self-awareness; renovation of understanding of what ‘Europe’ is and what it means; recovery and reanimation of the spiritual dimension of Europe, that is, with the metaphysics of Europe. To get to that, to get back to that, one must struggle against certain predominant elements that have tremendous power in our present. I also write a great deal about that. Renovation. Redefinition. Self-awareness, self-empowerment.

            I am also and in a concommitant sense of the opinion that since white America (Americans of European stock) built and made America, that they alone can maintain it. Same is so in Europe, Canada, Australia. The Mesoamericans and the Blacks will, if left to themselves, create what Mesoamericans and Blacks create when left to themselves. Haitis and Nigerias if I were to express it in the most basic terms. You can notice here my basic, operative idea. I have examined it from different angles and I think it is sound. I do not say that it is non-problematic or difficult (as idea) but I do say that the idea is sound.

            Therefor, my stated object is to get clear(er) about what I think and why and succeed in communicating my ideas and my sense of things. This is done through discourse and the sharing of ideas. This occurs in an environment where ‘the free exchange of ideas’ is respected, emulated and practiced.

            Some feet down below this comment I will continue my response, directed against my Admired Adversary Chris who is going and will do anything within his rhetorical and sophistical power to 1) distort what I say and convince others to ‘believe’ his distortions, and 2) succeed in eliminating me from a platform where ideas are discussed freely.

            This is what Chris is really about. I suggest this is so, I demonstrate that it is so in clear, direct prose free of emotional gymnastics, theatrics and hyperbole.

            Trust me to tell you who and what I am. Do not trust others when they distort and paraphrase. I know exactly what I am, where I come from, and what I am doing, and why. I have revealed this ‘from the beginning’.

            • Chris

              The Mesoamericans and the Blacks will, if left to themselves, create what Mesoamericans and Blacks create when left to themselves.

              How much longer should your readers have to tolerate this racist garbage, Jack?

              • Ooops, there it is again: the appeal to censorship. If you don’t like the speech, eliminate the speech. Do it in the public forum, in the university, and do it in your own mind.

                This is how malicious anti-intellectualism functions. When it is bound to a sense of ‘righteousness’, watch out!

                This is the Marxist methodology. It has been quite successful to date!

              • ”How much longer should your readers have to tolerate this racist garbage, Jack?”

                Chris, Alizia posts provocative content, to say the least, but you’re the only one complaining.

                You’re Pro-Choice, am I right? Just spit-balling here, but did you ever consider being proactive and, like, you know, choose to scroll past?

                When a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
                Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

                http://www.martialtalk.com/threads/what-is-the-difference-between-a-conservative-liberal-funny.81168/

                • Ah but Mr. Schle… I mean Paul, you are missing the entire point. Chris must do battle with me (or *me* in an abstract sense). I represent what is now opposing him and his progressivism.

                  Similarly, he represents what I am ideolgically opposed to and what I work hard to define opposition to.

                  I cannot help Chris with his ‘eliminate-all-opposition’ gambit, and though I think it is really malicious and destructive, I only point this out politely. No name-calling (except benign jabs) and certainly no calling for him to be banned. This is what the progressive left wants. To eliminate the opposition, to control and delimit ideation.

                  Yet he is, as I am, an integral and important part of the on-going battles. And they are battles. And there will be consequences to these battles. This is not a game. This is very serious material. That is why I have often told him (and anyone reading) to take full advantage of my presence: I am a Herald in this sense. A Cassandra.

                  In some few years, when the battle lines have been drawn, and when the inevitable conflict that is developing (as we must all now realize, soberly but consciously) and

                  When the hurly-burly’s done,
                  When the battle’s lost and won

                  Then we can look back to the Now and understand things better.

                • Here, this will help illustrate:

                • Chris

                  “Provocative content.” Nice way of saying “racist trash” and “holocaust denial,” enabler.

              • We’re grown-ups, Chris. We can handle it. But thanks for the white knighting.

  2. JP

    Jake Tapper’s source says it happened like this:

    The president did not refer to Haiti as a “shithole” country according to the source familiar with the meeting… though he DID say it about countries in Africa…

    What happened, the source says, is there was a conflation of two different remarks by the president.

    I wonder if familiar is direct too.

  3. LFW

    I had hope that after a year he would have learned but I guess it’s true – you can’t teach an old dog new tricks!

  4. Rich in CT

    I. “According to several people briefed on the meeting”? What? Not even according to people AT the meeting?

    I made this exact same point in a text to a friend this morning, based on how the news was reported thus far. No one in attendance publicly on the record, thus it was malicious rumor. Seconds after I sent it, I saw that Senator Durbin did the political math, and concluded it was beneficial to confirm expressly that Trump called those nations a “shit hole”. Three days after this had been reported as fact based on nothing on the record.

    In other news, old man yells at cloud.

  5. Anyone disagree that places are “shitholes,” or “shitshows,” because of their supposed ”leaders?”

    If not, we’re left with inadequate U.S. $upport or the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted.

  6. Chris marschner

    What group of people enjoy taking privileged communications that could be hurtful to a third party if heard by others and then repeat them over and over to for the purpose of diminishing a rival who said them so as to suggest they are morally superior or a better friend of the object of derision even it causes more harm?

    A. 7 GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN
    B. NEWS REPORTERS
    C. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
    D. ALL OF THE ABOVE

    When will Durbin and his fellow democrats chastise Great Britain, Canada, Australia/Oceana and others for their racist policies for immigrants that include: they must have an offer of employment, the ability to read, write and speak the official language of the nation and have suffcient resources to maintain themselves.

    In recent years, the top 10 countries of origin for legal immigrants were from nations that are predominantly poor and people of color. Mexico and China comprise the bulk and are number 1 and 2 in absolute number. These numbers do not include the people overstaying visas or fence jumpers.

    If we evaluate the concept of underrepresentation of immigrants in terms of the number admitted each year relative to their cultural heritage or geographic region then Europeans are vastly underrepresented. Perhaps we should invade Norway and bring some here to get more representation from that country?

    I assume that underrepresentation means to some the idea that total immigration from a given nation vis’ a vis’ all others is small. That would suggest that Mexican and Chinese immigration is too large would it not?

    What exactly does diversity mean? Is a Mexican any different than a Savadoran, Guatemalen, or Nicuraguan in their Hispanicness? Is a person from Spain an Hispanic or a European? Exactly how does one differentiate peoples of Africa whose national boundaries have been created or destroyed by wars and famine over the last 100 years? Is there a difference between a resident of Zimbabway or a former citizen of Rhodesia? If we had a choice between residents of the Dominican Republic or Haiti who should get preference?

    The point is that immigration lotteries are no less a form of moral luck than place of birth. Someone wins which can exclude a more worthy applicant. If selection lotteries work to promote diversity why not use them for employment decisions. Given that genders are roughly equivalent, random selection should ensure that no ethinic group would be underrepresented in all fields. Raise your hand if you think this would be reasonable and equitable. It might even lower the Gini coefficient.

    As for chain migration, or as some like to call it family reunification, as an descendant of a German, can I tell all my relatives in my family tree who live in Germany c’mon over the door’s open. If family reunification is a goal that should be advanced why bring 10 people here when we can send 4 people home. Why is it important that we be responsible for reunifying families when they ran away from their relatives?

  7. Chris

    My biggest problem with the coverage of Trump’s “shithole” comments is that it has completely drowned our the other “Trump said something awful” story from yesterday, which is that the President of the United States thinks it’s “treason” for FBI agents to badmouth him.

    • Chris marschner

      Treason no. Unethical yes if he said it. But no more unethical than calling his behavior treasoness.

    • But who cares, Chris? It wouldn’t be treason, unless there was a genuine plot, and the ambiguous texts can’t be called a plot. So he thinks it’s treason: so what? He’s so far from being a lawyer that it’s ridiculous.He cqn’t get them prosecuted. It’s just another foolish comment. He’s paranoid. No wonder.

      • Chris

        Yeah, who cares whether the President of the United States knows anything about the constitution or the law.

        • Chris marschner

          How many actions of Obama were struck down in the courts. One who is trained in the law should be held to a higher standard than one who is not.
          It’s hyperbole nothing more.

          • Chris

            No, I’m pretty sure every president should be held to the same standard.

            • Chris marschner

              Thus only lawyers are qualified? Should we have a Constitutional/law literacy test for President. If you agree, should we have such tests for voters as well?

              • Chris

                What are you talking about? The standard is that president’s should know about the constitution and the law, and should be criticized when they grossly misrepresent it in order to attack their enemies. Nowhere did I imply that this criticism overrides the will of the people or the democratic process.

                The president doesn’t know the constitution or the law. There’s not much we can do about that.

        • It’s certainly better if a President is at least literate about the two. But the President has multiple legal advisors, and the courts to cover for any gaps in his knowledge? Ignorant tweets? Not helpful, embarrassing, but also non-substantive.

          • Chris

            This wasn’t a tweet, it was an interview. You seem to be arguing that the president’s ignorance of the law and the constitution doesn’t matter because others in his administration will stop him from acting in an unconstitutional manner. This would seem to corroborate Jennifer Rubin’s thesis that Trump is basically a figurehead and the country is actually being run by his advisors. I’d be surprised if you find this ethical.

            Trump’s lawyers didn’t stop him from signing the initial travel ban, which was unconstitutional and violated the law, and only found constitutional after its teeth were completely removed. But maybe they’ve learned since then.

            • Emily

              I’ll agree with you that the president has an ethical duty to be familiar with the constitution (as do pretty much any government officials, from congressmen to police officers.) The fact that none of these people do that duty is a rationalization, and doesn’t make it okay that Trump neglects it.

              However, I am going to quibble with your suggestion that Trump’s lawyers not stopping the travel ban proves anything about whether they or Trump understand the constitution. The travel ban wasn’t a blatant violation, it was an interpretation the courts disagreed with. The writers of the Constitution expected that to happen and the process worked exactly as intended.

              If understanding the Constitution meant that everyone would agree on what’s constitutional, every Supreme Court decision would be unanimous.

              • The halt on travel from terrorist teeming nations was not a ban, and so far, the Supreme Court, which is charged with interpreting the Constitution, has largely given it a thumbs up. The lower judges who blocked it themselves acted as if they didn’t know the law.

                Where did you get the idea that the measure has been struck down in any decisive way? From today:
                “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in December that the travel ban, currently in its third iteration, could go into effect while the lower courts continued to hear appeals in the cases.

                Later that month, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a Hawaii district court injunction against travel ban 3.0, agreeing with the lower court that the policy violates federal immigration law and exceeds the authority of the executive branch. But the ban remained in effect, pending the final U.S. Supreme Court review.”

                Essentially lower courts are using political rather than legal reasoning to interfere with a lawful order. That’s MY interpretation, and I do know the Constitution. I’ll be surprised if SCOTUS doesn’t eventually agree with me. In any event, so far, the order hasn’t been decisively found illegal at all.

                • And a final note, because it irritates the hell out of me. The suddenly faddish theory being pushed by left-wing judges and professors that a completely legal act within the power of the President somehow becomes illegal if a Court reads his mind and decides they don’t like his motives for doing what any of his predecessors—Democrats, anyway—could have done with ease is bad law, bad jurisprudence, imposes a double standard, and is ethically unconscionable. And its one more reason why the President’s successful appointment of conservative judges is a major positive accomplishment.

                  • Chris

                    Jack,

                    As I’ve shown before, the original ban violated a law passed by the legislative branch. The president does not have unlimited authority on immigration.

                    https://www.lawfareblog.com/new-travel-ban-undermining-immigration-and-nationality-act

                    • You didn’t show that, and the Supreme Court didn’t endorse that argument. Nor was that law the basis for the partisan opinions from the judges who blocked the orders. Nor was it cited by Sally Yates. THAT is also a classic example where any President, even the lawyers, have to rely on legal advisors.

                      It’s obvious that the enemies of the administration will bootstrap their arguments against the measure and all versions, because they wants to withhold Constitutional powers from an elected President. The linked article cleverly uses “indefinitely” as if the order is permanent: the President is within his power to take measures to protect the safety of US citizens, and the terrorism threat posed by the nations included is a perfectly good justification.

                      The tactic of interfering with the policy is government by judge. And eventually, this application of it will fail. The lawfareblog theory isn’t the consensus, it’s the legal consensus of the lawyers who want to block Trump.

                    • Chris

                      Nor was it cited by Sally Yates.

                      Wrong.

                      Cruz began an exchange during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing by citing a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides the president with broad power to suspend the entry of foreigners he believes would be detrimental “to the interest of the” US.

                      “Would you agree that that is broad statutory authorization?” Cruz asked.

                      “I would, and I am familiar with that,” Yates responded. “And I’m also familiar with an additional provision … that says no person shall receive preference or be discriminated against in issuance of a visa because of race, nationality, and place of birth. That I believe was promulgated after the statute that you just quoted. And that’s been part of the discussion with the courts … whether this more specific statute trumps the first one that you described.”

                      http://www.businessinsider.com/sally-yates-ted-cruz-trump-travel-ban-muslim-immigration-2017-5

                    • Irrelevant to my point. She did not cite that as why she was defying her client, the President of the United States in his official capacity. Once she was properly fired, I don’t care what she had to say.

                      As I said, it’s a lame theory, and it won’t prevail.

            • Chris Marschner

              Chris, I was being facetious. The crime of Treason has been thrown about by all sides for many years. Most of the electorate would not know it if they fell over it. Secondly, it’s damn difficult to prove – and for a very good reason as demonstrated by the “resistance”. First, capital (T) Treason ( a proper noun) as spelled out in the Constitution requires the actual taking up of arms against the government or aiding the enemy in a time of war. Secondly a successful prosecution requires two witnesses testify to that fact in open court.

              Conversely, lower case (t) treason is simply a word that denotes a vile breach of trust. For example: I divulge trade secrets in a meeting of senior executives who had pledged never to disclose them before I disclosed them. One executive then sells the information to my competitor and violates that trust. Such behavior is treasonous (adjective) to the firm and the person disclosing the information committed treason (regular noun). When I find out about the act I might call him/her a treasonous bastard and file suit.

              Second example: You tell your pastor or doctor that you committed adultery many years ago but have been faithful ever since and he/she runs and tells your spouse – that too is treasonous unless it can be shown that such behavior might place the spouse in physical jeopardy because of the prior adultery.

              My point is that an educated electorate would see the difference in the utterance if not the written word in the article. Confirmation bias would have his detractors ignore the lowercase (t) and insist he was using capital (T) Treason, whereas other people like myself see it as hyperbole.

              It strikes me that the author of the WSJ article you cited did not request any clarification on his use of the term. Was that failure to get clarification a result of the author knowing that the word is incendiary and can be used in either a legal sense or as a common expression which would have the effect of punching up the story, or was it the author does not know the difference? The question arises, did the writer rely on the ignorance of the public on matters of grammar to sensationalize the story?

              See Below: The word treason is shown in lower case T. Therefore, either the writer does not know a proper noun from regular noun, adjective, or adverb – depending upon its use and conjugation- or he knew Trump was using hyperbole to describe the behavior of an FBI agent whose published texts indicate that that he may be conspiring to affect the election thus breaching the sacred trust of fidelity which happens to be represented by the first letter in FBI’s motto.

              WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump said Thursday that an FBI agent once involved in the special counsel’s Russia probe committed “treason,” and he called for Republican investigators in Congress to conclude their probes swiftly.

              I submit the author knew it was hyperbole and put lowercase (t) treason in quotes. Much like the “shithole” comment no one asked for clarification such as, “Mr. President are you suggesting that we not allow any person regardless of merit from emigrating to the U.S. or are you saying we should not randomly select from places whose people have limited employability and may not assimilate well .” Instead, someone decided it was imperative to repeat a crude, if not factual statement, for the purpose of neutering the negotiating power of the other side.

              As a teacher, it is imperative that you teach children contextual language usage, and the difference in meaning when a regular noun is used in place of a proper noun.

              • Chris Marschner

                addendum: Let me ask Mr. Durbin, how many Haitian Bayakou positions do we need to fill next year here in the U.S.?

              • Chris

                The context is that the person speaking was President of the United States, who should know better than to accuse a citizen of treason, even as hyperbole. The context is also that this same president previously accused his predecessor of wiretapping his place of business based on nothing, accused that same predecessor of forging multiple birth certificates based on nothing, and accused thousands of New Jersey Muslims of celebrating 9/11 based on nothing. This is what he does. What’s the argument here? That we shouldn’t criticize him for these baseless accusations? That we shouldn’t be troubled that the most powerful man in the world uses his position to lob such baseless accusations? Is it really your position that this can’t cause any real harm?

    • Matthew B

      When you have a media that reports the sky is falling a dozen times a day, they get tuned out.

      My fear? Trump is going to actually do something bad, and no one is going to care because nobody knows who to believe.

      • Chris

        The president’s approval rating is in the 30s. “No one is going to care” is bubble language. Most people care about the bad things he does now.

        • Rich in CT

          But most people are just sick of the constant bad news. They do not even listen any more. And that is the intent. Make the public so sick of hearing of Trump, they will elect someone else.

          It’s a cynical long game.

          • Other Bill

            I think it’s going to have the opposite effect, Rich. People are going to want to vote for him to stick it to the Dems and the media.

            • Chris

              Bubble language. There is no evidence that the majority of voters feel the way you’re describing, Bill. Of course, the majority of voters didn’t like Trump last time either, but he still won a majority of voters in the right states. If you mean “people in the right states,” then maybe you’re right, and he’ll win again. But let’s not pretend they represent the majority of the country.

        • Joe Fowler

          Today, from the Rasmussen Report Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:
          “Friday, January 12, 2018

          The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.”

          Do you ever check anything before you start typing, Chris?

          • If the economic news stays good, and if all the doomsaying looks as silly as it looks now, and as the news media destroys it ability to slant the news by its own recklessness, those unreliable polls will eventually start looking better for the President.

            Unless he does something incredibly stupid.
            Which is always a good possibility.

            • Chris will say that Rasmussen is an outlier that always tilts right.
              Which is true.

              • Joe Fowler

                It is, however, the last daily Presidential approval poll, now that Gallup has discontinued theirs. I happened to come across the poll after I had read Chris’ comment, and returned to cite it. I’ve noticed that certain contributors will frequently claim incorrect facts to buttress their position. It’s either sloppy, or dishonest.

                • In this case, I think it’s the polarized news sources and mass media that’s the problem. Stephen Colbert, for example—and has their ever been a more smug, insufferable comic than what Colbert has morphed into?—recently cited a stat showing that 38% of American give Trump an “F” as President. I can see someone seeing that and making a leap to the assumption Chris made.

                • John Fowler writes: “I’ve noticed that certain contributors will frequently claim incorrect facts to buttress their position. It’s either sloppy, or dishonest.”

                  One can grab just the facts one wants and when one wants. I mean, when it comes to controversial topics, the partisans alway have their ‘facts and evidences’ which they unroll before their audience. The thing is there is so much general lying, and lying and misrepresentation is so fundamental to the American PR system, and people have been and are being lied to, that one winds up in a postmodern swamp: unable to distinguish truth from fiction.

                  But the issue is even larger, really. People come into conversations such like these with radically different essential predicates. Very different Weltanschauungen. And the question of ‘facts’ and the veracity of facts is not applicable to larger, existential vision.

                  I have struggled with this issue of ‘dishonesty’. One side always accuses the other of ‘being dishonest’, and yet the other side cannot be dishonest. Everyone is essentially being honest. Or they could not live with themselves. Only agencies and PR companies and propaganda offices can deliberately construct lies. A person requires to be in basic integrity with his or herself.

                  The curious thing is when a person (I have met them, we all have) does in fact ‘live in a lie’. Thus they are divided people. It even shows up in their physical self. I guess it distorts their whole being, the whole way they manifest in the world.

                  Going further: I suggest and have been suggesting that America (to speak of a grand generality) is caught in lies: systems and structures of lies which will be very painful when they fall down. They are now falling down and it is painful. Thus: a psychological trauma is upon us.

                • “I’m not being mean, I’m telling the truth”.

                  Lie to me. Please, lie to me”.

                  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq0w_XsEAAU&t=1m13s]

          • Chris

            Joe, your condescension would be much more effective if you had not chosen to cite literally the only polling agency that consistently finds higher approval ratings for Trump and Republicans generally than every other polling agency. Did you know that?

            Yes, I did check Trump’s approval ratings before I typed that. Did you check anything except Rasmussen? If so, why didn’t you cite them? Because only Rasmussen gave you the result you wanted?

        • Chris Marschner

          Chris, do you know what bubble language is?
          First order definition: Urban Dictionary
          bubble language

          Bubble-fubble labble-fanguage ibble-fis ablefay grayble-fayt wayble-fay tooble-foo ibble-firritate rebble-felatives abblefand teable-feachers. Ibblefit ibblefis toble-fotally cubble-fustomible-fizable.

          Estimated Translation Bubble language is ??? way to irritate feeble relatives and feable teachers. It is totally customizable.

          Definition 2:
          Bubble language

          A weird language in which two friends made one day to pass time, and now make it their goal to educate others of this language. All attempts made in vain.

          This language is widely used in the United States of America and can be translated into French, Irish, and German

          Fish and pigeons use this language often.

          I don’t understand why you use it to discount another opinion.

  8. Matthew B

    “I use those word advisedly. I understand how powerful they are. But I cannot believe in the history of the White House in that Oval Office that any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday.”

    George Washington is the only president who didn’t use the oval office. It seems a stretch that one of the other 43 to occupy the office didn’t use the term at least once.

    As for the specific term – shithole country – I could easily see Truman or Eisenhower utter that about Korea or LBJ about Vietnam. Certainly utterances with the same contempt.

    If we want to delve into flagrantly racist presidents, we’ve got a good list. If everything the left wants to say about Trump were true, I don’t see him holding a candle to Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, or Woodrow Wilson.

  9. “So what is the big deal? The big deal is that it’s racist. Supposedly. That’s in the mind of the hearer, as the hearer really hears it or chooses to speak of it, and the motivations there are not untainted. Anything about Trump that can be called racist, will be called racist, but Trump said (we’re told) “shithole countries,” and “shithole,” in this context means a wretched place. Is Haiti not a wretched place? There are connotations of dirtiness, obviously, but more notably, that the place is just awful, not that the people are bad in some way because of their race. There’s enough reason to think of Haiti as dilapidated and downtrodden without needing to start assuming that there’s something about the people because of their race. Perhaps the racism is in the mind of the person who hears “shithole” about the country and starts thinking about the race of the people who live there.”

    My understanding goes like this: over the last 50-60 years *you* (Americans, American culture-elites, academics, public opinion, religious leaders like MLK, and then of course the Marxist operatives) have waged an ideological war against Occidental cultures. They have established so many different false narratives that are based in idealistic progressivism but that run, in fact, contrary to ‘reality’ and also ‘truth’.

    I have yet to discover the ‘basic lie’, the fundamental lie, but I notice that one major aspect of this process is destroying hierarchies. You are not allowed to notice, and far less to say, that races of men are different, and even that some races almost seem like a sub-species. Yet it is true, and it is scientifically true. The evidence is there and it can be researched. Different groups of human beings — quite obviously — show different strengths and weaknesses. Intuitively, we all know this. But it has become illegal to even think in these categories.

    America is a ‘white country’. It was put in motion by the white race. Its founders were white men. It became possible because of the specific men from the specific Europe from which they came. No one else could have pulled it off. The various other races were brought into the project. That is, they came to be integrated in it but it was not theirs and it is not theirs now. This is simple. Direct. Truthful. All you need to do is to 1) reinstall the truth in your mind and rewire yourself to see and understand truth, then 2) dissolve the dissonance between what you think and know and what you allow yourself to vocalize. It is that simple.

    Then, the same must be done in all the categories that have been infected by progressive idealism and Marxian undermining. Gender, race, sexuality, equality, high and low, superior and inferior. It is fun! Once you start you will gain analytical power. Once the distorting ball of twine begins to unravel — oh my oh my — there is no telling how far it will go.

    Now, here is the other part. Race-realism is good, ethical, upstanding and necessary. And the categories are now being reestablished. For 50 years you have falsely worked to destroy them through elaborate charades and games-of-lies. Now in this category and many other connected categories the truth is being seen again. But the System that upholds these lies, and whose power in many senses is based in these lies, is mortally terrified. They hold the power of the State (substantially) and most of the media. That is, they control information. They control the ‘narrative’. They spin them like crafty, tireless spiders. They have to be IDENTIFIED. The narratives have to be dismantled and seen for what they are.

    Ah but this is difficult, painful! Identity, our identities, have been constructed around these lies. The very structure of the self, like a bird’s nest, is built with them. This is collapsing. The psychological tension is mounting and the string gets pulled taut. There will be breaks and snaps. But moreover the very foundation of the country is in a process of modification. That is, this false assertion that ‘all men are created equal’ and that a globalized, multicultural world-reality is inevitable or even good.

    And so castles made of sand
    fall in the sea
    eventually

    The weird thing — and it really is strange! — is that the Joker, the Trickster, that aspect of the Divine that acts through paradox and trickery (when the self is resistant to change and evolution) is the strangest of strange American figures. The Donald. I keep thinking in Jungian terms. That which the conscious self cannot or will not recognize, and rejects, comes back in stranger forms until the self must see, must understand, must grow.

    Race is real, race matters. America is now at the beginning of a realization project which will, as it progresses, shake the country to its foundation.

    White America is waking up. That really is what is going on. 100% I support the waking up process. I serve it. Not for purposes of hate or cruelty, but to reestablish real and truthful categories. The reconstruction of Europe and thus America depends on it.

    • Chris

      You are not allowed to notice, and far less to say, that races of men are different, and even that some races almost seem like a sub-species. Yet it is true, and it is scientifically true.

      No, it isn’t scientifically true that different races are a “sub-species,” you stupid racist asshole.

      • Charles! Charles! Chris called Alizia a “racist asshole!”

        • Chris

          Because she is. At what point is it unethical to allow someone to push pseudoscientific theories of racial superiority on this blog?

          • Nice one! This is your first open appeal to work to see me be banned! That is, of course, what your progressive-democratic set does. It feels it can establish the moral boundaries of discourse and when it determines that someone is outside of the acceptable boundaries, it advocates for their removal from the platform of discourse.

            [For the record the Left is big on the ‘pseudoscientific’ charge. If some other label won’t stick, that is another attack that in certain setting can bear results].

            Since the very early days I have made it clear that with just one word (from vested authority) that I’d leave and never come back. I know, I know very well, how radical are my ideas. And I am aware that this Blog has a definite standing within the intellectual community in the US. I am an embarrassment, but then so is all of the American New Right.

            However, I do not speak about nor do I advocate for anything unethical or immoral, and I remains quite strictly within the realm of ideas, their presentation and defense. I am not terribly rude and I keep my room and my desk in perfect order.

      • Chris emotes: “No, it isn’t scientifically true that different races are a “sub-species,” you stupid racist asshole.”

        There are just so many different aspects to all this. The whole thing, as it unravels, exposes dangers and tensions, and yet it really is super-interesting! Bizarre but interesting.

        Amazing title-lines in the NYTimes:

        Mr President Your Toga is Showing
        No One is Coming to Save Us From Trump’s Racism
        Maybe Trump Is Not Mentally Ill. Maybe He’s Just a Jerk
        Donald Trump Flushes Away America’s Reputation

        Here is I think my fave:

        The Secret of Love is Knowing How to Fight

        So, Trump makes some remarks in a closed meeting. The Democrat Establishment broadcasts them out into the world with the express purpose of denigrating him, of cementing a particular idea about him, and getting all the world involved in this — debate? conversation? flurry of attack? take-down? This is really important because the propaganda system/PR industry of the US is principally the directing power that put these narratives in motion in the aftermath of WW2. So, the war department propaganda office teams up with the government agencies, teams up with the intelligence agencies, involves the academics and the Cultural Marxists, to spin fabulous tales and false-narratives that were, more or less, presented to and sold to the entire world. This is one important aspect of mass social manipulation: it is a public opinion battle that is set up to occur within emotionalized terms. It has very little to do with ideas and less to do with truth or reality, and has everything to do with the manipulation of sentiments.

        The love-war is being conducted through the manipulation of sentiments. Once it is seen, once one gets the strength of idea to combat it, the false-narrative collapses in a smoking pile on the ground.

        What I find interesting and essential here is that it is the Democrat Establishment that has done this/is doing this. They are working to destroy ‘America’s reputation’ in the world. And the New York Intellectual Establishment is behind this with all its rhetorical forces. What is going on here? Charles [my beloved English teacher] says the media are serving the public not deceiving them. I would rather think that they are leading them around like an ox with a ring in his nose. Who and what do they serve? That is the important question. ‘The Media’ are a network of complex interests, a constellation of interconnected corporations who also have certain in-roads into government, the intelligence agencies, the ‘deep state’. In order to even speak of the media and their interests — the power they serve — one has to know who they are and why they do what they do.

        The Media serve fabulous stories around which a whole commercial world has been established, and which postwar world was constructed by the US after the War. The work that has been going on is the creation of a giant American Walmart Culture but on a world-scale. And to achieve that it is paramount to destroy resisting hierarchies. (And I will say as an aside that it is very important to destroy religious identification, to undermine it, to debilitate it, because a people can be strong only when they hold to their metaphysical identifications.) The American Walmart does not require pesky religion, it requires weak, diffused, faceless masses, and this is one of the principle objects of Americanism: the destruction of positive or powerful identifications.

        It just goes on and on and on and on! So many fascinating aspects to the huge changes in the works.

        In order to see one’s way through these terrifying changes one will definitely have to grab hold of some interpretive tools. If your entire viewstructure has been received through the propaganda/PR system, you are going to have to deliberately take it apart, piece by piece. That is called application of analytical intelligence. I suggest that for Chris, for Spartan, for Sylphide and those who come into argument from this system of idées reçues to be very patient with yourselfes. You will react, cuss, have tantrums, emote, ridicule, bite, snarl and snap (and I always wear protective arm-guards as I approach). But there will come a day when the false-edifice begins to collapse. It is going to be really hard. But I will be there for you. I promise not to abandon you!

        White America is waking up and it is going to be strange and also glorious.

        • Chris

          What the fuck does any of that have to do with your Nazi lie that it is “scientifically true” that different races are “sub-species,” you garrulous twit?

          • Am I mistaken in my perception that you are sliding into the excessive use of naughty words in place of good arguments?

            I might respond through clever trivium that you are a fishmonger in the Elizabethan sense! Touché.

            This is what I wrote, it is different from what you say I said:

            “I have yet to discover the ‘basic lie’, the fundamental lie, but I notice that one major aspect of this process is destroying hierarchies. You are not allowed to notice, and far less to say, that races of men are different, and even that some races almost seem like a sub-species. Yet it is true, and it is scientifically true. The evidence is there and it can be researched. Different groups of human beings — quite obviously — show different strengths and weaknesses. Intuitively, we all know this. But it has become illegal to even think in these categories.”

            Deal with the direct quote, respond to it. It is better: more honest.

            My view is that 1) race difference is too hot a topic for open, ‘scientific’ reasearch, 2) scientists and researchers therefor avoid it as one statement of idea that runs against PC ideas, attained through coercion, will result in the destruction of one’s career, 3) that the exponents of race-difference, and those who oppose the idea uniformly, often divide along political and ideological lines, 4) those who have counter-PC ideas (scientists such as William Schockly and J Philippe Ruston, are villified universally by the political Left and for political and sociological reasons. In that process the whole conversation gets terribly contaminated and rendered impossible. They used to show up at Schockly tals at the Uni saying ‘No free speech for fascists!’. Sound at all familiar, Chris?

            My view is that just as the Political Left distorts so many different ideas, and lies so openly in so many different areas, so that it can emotionally manipulate people through coercion to conform to its dictates, so too will a politically progressive and ideologically-driven ‘science’ distort the processes of research in order to support its a priori views.

            I was quite interested for a time in Schockly, Jenson and Rushton and read a great deal in this area. Here is one article by a Marxist paper that I include because, in my own view, you are basically operating from Marxist-driven predicates: https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-1a/nv-speech.htm

            The same struggles —- in the realm of ideas —- continue in newer octaves today. Therefor, the previous arguments (in this case of the Seventies) must be understood. But so too must all the work of previous intellectuals. And to understand the progressive resistance one must understand Cultural Marxism and its efforts.

            Your rebuttal, Chris?

            • Chris

              My rebuttal is the last century of science. I’m not spending one more second than that rebutting your 19th century phrenology, because that would be one more second than you deserve. .

              • There is no way, in this forum, for you to present evidence. Nor for me to do so either. The only thing that can be done is to make general references to, as in this case, the debate, the controversy, and then try to explain why that controvery exists, and why it is on-going.

                That is all that I hope to be able to do. And that is what should happen in an environment, as this, where ideas are discussed.

                And that is why I wrote what I wrote: to lay the situation open to view. How a person —- any person —- decides to approach these question: what reading they will do, how serious they will get, is left up to the individual.

                Therefor, what I wrote to you stands as a valid essay on the problem and the issue.

                Make any more sense?

    • La Sylphide

      “You are not allowed to notice, and far less to say, that races of men are different, and even that some races almost seem like a sub-species. Yet it is true, and it is scientifically true. ”

      “White America is waking up. That really is what is going on. 100% I support the waking up process. I serve it. Not for purposes of hate or cruelty, but to reestablish real and truthful categories.”

      – Says the brown haired, brown eyed chick with a seemingly swarthy skin tone (hard to tell from the photograph). –

      Where are you from, sweetheart? Seriously, I’m curious as to your ethnic background; as race seems to be so important you.

      – Asks the blonde, blue eyed Anglo-Saxon descendant of a signer of the Declaration of Independence and Daughter of the American Revolution, whose ancestors came to this country in 1630.

      Who do you think you are?

      • But that is an irrelevancy though I do notice, and appreciate, the attempt to undermine my discourse.

        I am an ex-Jew from Venezuela. I converted out of Judaism and became a Christian. I have revealed all this since the beginning. I am engaged to a Finn and I live with my sister, her husband and child, and a few others in Colombia. My parents have dual citizenship in the US along with almost everyone in my family and I spent a certain part of my youth in the US (Sacramento and the Bay Area). I am a naturalized citizen of the US. And there you have it. (My parents now live in Bogota and quite frankly don’t want much to do with me, except my mom of course, but mothers are like that…)

        I am aware of many levels of complexity given my Jewish background. But you see with my conversion to Christianity and Catholicism I have jumped the fence so to speak. I am ‘married to Europe’ and Europe is what I serve. That is to say the ‘European project’.

        So, I have freely given a good deal of information. How will you now use it? Do you have any sort of comment about what I wrote (write)? Or will it always be this sort of let-me-get-you-down-on-the-mat stuff?

      • La Sylphide asks: “Who do you think you are?”

        On one level the Princess of Pretention, this I admit (and I always have). Cheeky, irreverant, prolixic. I have been in trouble with my surroundings, my culture, my family, perhaps myself, since my earliest day. Controversy follows me like a shadow.

        But I am seriously interested in the very fundamental question of how we organize our perception and understanding. I want to know why people believe what they believe and how they explain it to themselves. My basic interest is metaphysical.

        How about you? Have you ever had an idea? 😉

        • Chris marschner

          Those who seek answers pose questions to those she seeks to understand. Those who postulate truths using others work to support the thesis are generally practicing pedantic sophistry.

        • La Sylphide

          Jumped the fence? Oh honey, you know as well as I do that your born-a-Jew status would have had you slaughtered in 1940’s Hitler Germany – speaking of an idea. You are only European by injection. You haven’t jumped any fence. You can’t even manage to get off your little island nation. White America? I am white America. Using your own criteria, you can have all the ideas you want; you will always be beneath me.

          (You see how this works?)

          • I have already spoken of this in other places. ::: sigh ::: I will make some effort again since you do not know my ideas and you are really so very green and unstudied. The reason I do this is because I believe that truth needs to be stated within all categories. If I am to be of service I have to be of service to truth. My object is to serve truth. If you think I am mistaken it should be your object to correct me, to teach me the right way to look at things. If you have something to communicate, please do so. I am very interested in understanding what you and others think. But I refuse to play games with you. Your communications, each of them, are game-laden. Cut it out if you want me to continue with you.

            The German experience, for Jewry, was factually just one more expulsion in a centuries-long series of expulsions. You have likely done no research in the area and do not care. But I have. The Germans desired to expulse the Jews who had, for various historical reasons, become highly concentrated there. I have done my research, and I have spiritually struggled with the issue, and I have concluded that Germany was justified at a basic level in expulsing the Jews. And this is how the project, their project began: applying pressure to get the Jews to move on. It is unquestionable that the entire ‘project’ got complicated by the war. It is also true that millions of Jews were murdered in Eastern Europe by death-squads. Criminal murder. (I reject the gas-chamber narrative and it has been proven —- to my satisfaction —- to have been a Soviet propaganda story. There were crematoria: for the disposal of dead bodies on a smallish scale. There were no ‘gas chambers’. There were concentration camps. That is to say, mass prisons.

            This happened once, and since Jewish history is not over, will likely happen again. This is an aspect of Jewish fate. It is part-and-parcel of Jewish identity and selfness. I am only trying to tell you the truth. To understand ‘reality’ is what we are called to do. I do not invent this reality nor these truths. I report them to you. I will not discuss this topic on this blog any further. It is not the place for it. But I wish to give you a sense of where I stand. Take it or leave it ‘honey’.

            Yes, I see how games work, but since you are not taking seriously the terms of my discourse, and your object is to defeat me by any method you can, it is not worthwhile to converse with you until you start to deal strictly in ideas.

            My commitments and my ideals are incomprehensible to you. I hope that you will opt to change your tactics. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but only if you stop the game-playing. I have no other way to speak to you but directly. Take it or leave it!

            • La Sylphide

              My little Latino jewess, you are nothing more than a holocaust denier desperately trying to rise above her station by riding the ethnic coattails of her Finnish husband. Your self-hatred is palpable. Be well. We are done here.

              • Did Alizia really write that? She’s getting into Chimpmania territory with that crap…

                • ”Did Alizia really write that?”

                  Yup.

                  Have you ever seen the Smithsonian Channel “Treblinka” documentary? It’s one of the most horrifying things I’ve ever watched.

                  Another is the based-on-true-events “In Darkness,” IMHO a “must see” despite subtitles.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Darkness_(2011_film)

                  • My Dad liberated a concentration camp. I don’t understand Holocaust deniers. Someone please alert me the next time she writes that or it’s equivlent. As with the flat out racists, I have a one bite rule on this topic.

                    • Let me clarify in my own words and then, if you so wish, just tell me to get lost. As I have said I will respect your choice with no reservations or complaints. But I will not, not now, not ever, be told by anyone nor any authority what I can and cannot think, what I can and cannot talk about. (And please note that I made a sncere effort to explain to Sylphide who I was, what my background was, so to help her to get clearer about me. And I noted that ‘this is not the place for in-depth discussions on these issues).

                      I am now being set up and this I fully understand.

                      There were no gas chambers used in mass-killing operations. There were crematoria used for limited disposal of bodies (as would be expected).

                      The ‘documentaries’ (I did review the intro video) appear to me to be false-narratives. In fact, they offer no evidence at all and are totally anecdotal. They present a few suggestive elements that they describe as ‘evidence’ and then launch into a complete and I think bogus ‘interpretation’. It is really quite transparent.

                      Millions of Jews were killed by conventional means in Eastern Europe.

                      No Holocaust denial here. I am a revisionist of the received histories. My argument is that it is crucial to revise these specific histories (and I have often stated my reasons). But I also believe that all histories are susceptible to revisionism. Revisionsim is a necessary undertaking if it is carried out honestly and in good-faith.

                      I have set my path as one where truth is defined and where the admixture of lies is separated out so that the actual and factual truth can be seen and better understood.

                      My entire endeavor as a thinker and philosopher is within that project. As I have written dozens of times I understand our present to be one where lies have been mixed with truths for devious and nefarious reasons (or there would be no reason to lie). I see these and I describe them as ‘systems of interconnected lies’.

                      Concentration camps certainly existed, and they were certainly liberated. No argument or denial of any sort there.

                      If understanding what I inderstand, based on my research into these issues, is to be seen as a crime or an offense then I have to accept this and it is best not to pretend that I do not see and do not understand what I do see and understand to be truthful (that is, approaching truth since it is often very hard to arrive at perfected historical truth).

                      There you have it!

                    • Fine: you can think what you want, and if you want to be ignorant AND offensive on that particular topic, be my guest.
                      You are wrong. Simple as that. I have reviewed the Nuremberg trial evidence on the topic, and trustwrthy researchers and historians worldwide are virtually unanimous in their findings, which the German government does not dispute. I don’t know why anyone as intelligent as you are would be inclined to accept this particular lie, but I don’t care. It is a lie, though in your case I accept that it is a tragic misconception. Since the assertion of that lie is not essential or relevant to any topic likely to be discussed by me, you have wide, wide discretion to expound on a wide range of topics. I don’t allow Ethics Alarms to be part of disinformation campaigns, whether intentional or negligent. So that’s the last time I expect to read the gallactically stupid argument that there were no gas chambers, just as I will not tolerate posts about how Noah rounded up T-Rex couples, that the world is flat and that Bush leveled the Twin Towers.

                    • I don’t wish to appear obsequious in any way shape or form. But I can say and very sincerely so that I appreciate your toleration. I mean of me and my views generally. I think there is really something quite noble in your attitude and I emulate it. If I may say so I would attempt to be the sort of moderator that you are if I had the role.

                      I fully understand what you are saying to me. And I also think it makes sense. I mean, to prohibit certain very very hot topics. While I can say that I am in integrity with myself when I assert any idea or belief that runs counter to the reigning concepts, and that means I am not lying to myself nor attempting to deceive and trick anyone, the specific topics you just mentioned (the one we are just now talking about and certainly 9/11) are not really discussable in a forum like this.

                      So I agree: they should not be talked about. Please do notice that I only wished to help Sylphide to better identify me so that she could better condemn me (as she desires to do and did do). Sorry even to have mentioned it.

                      I will not ever bring up the topic again.
                      ______________

                      PS: Thanks a whole bunch Mr. Schlecht! And I thought you were my friend! 😉

                    • “I will not tolerate posts about how Noah rounded up T-Rex couples, that the world is flat and that Bush leveled the Twin Towers.”

                      C’mon, everyone knows the Trilateral-Bilderberg-Illuminati-Freemason Commission was behind 9-11.

                      “Thanks a whole bunch Mr. Schlecht!”

                      Mr. Schlecht is my Dear 92 1/2 year Father, please call me Paul.

                      “And I thought you were my friend!”

                      Still am. Gloria Delgado-Pritchett (Sofia Vergara in Modern Family) has shown me the downside of crossing a Colombian…

                    • Except I am a Venezuelan.

                      Please emulate, then get back to me! I can help.

            • Chris

              My Dad liberated a concentration camp. I don’t understand Holocaust deniers. Someone please alert me the next time she writes that or it’s equivlent. As with the flat out racists, I have a one bite rule on this topic.

              Go fuck yourself, you stupid Nazi bitch.

              • Chris

                Completely wrong quote there. I was responding to Alizia’s statement that Jews deserved to be expelled from Germany.

                For the record, Jack, Alizia has denied the gas chambers more than once in the past.

                • I’ve only read it once. She has pledged that we won’t see that again.

                  • Chris

                    Did she pledge that she’d never call people of color a “subspecies” of humanity again? That she’d never proclaim America a “white country” that only whites have a right to? That she’d never call you and every other conservative here a “cuck?”

                    Your readers should not be subjected to Nazi propaganda when we visit this comment section. I for one am tired of it. Believing that she won’t continue to subject us to Nazi propaganda is naive; that is her entire purpose for being here. It is her “project,” as she calls it.

                  • This is a very interesting juncture, in my opinion. I will do my best to use it, to exploit it, to clarify my own position and my meta-political understanding.

                    1) Christ operates, essentially, through distorting restatement. It is important in my view to see how he is a microcosm of what is noticed in the larger world, and for example in present political/ideological struggles. He takes a statement, twists it wildely, presents it as ‘evidence’, and attempts to rally others to *feel* what he feels, so adamantly! It is, quite obviously (IMO) emotional manipulation. But these methods, and these tools, are so prevalent that people tend not to notice that they are really free of intellectual rigor. They are non-intellectual. They are also anti-intellectual.

                    2) If one wishes to understand how the ‘Soft Left’ is able to influence and dominate the Conservative Right, one will gain advantage from studying Chris’ method. Again, Chris is a microcosmic example of what goes on in the larger sphere. The Left has successfully dominated the Conservative through these means. Not through strong and articulate ideas, overall, but through sentimental and emotional manipulations. In my view, the American Right (the so-called ‘Conservative’) is not really conservative, but a Liberal Progressive who stands just a few feet to the right of the Progressive social-justice-warrior type. Since Chris openly describes himself as a ‘social justice warrior’ this is a fair label.

                    3) Chris is now using the rhetorical and emotional tools at his disposal in an open attempt to influence the blog ownner to remove me from the platform of discussion of ideas. He does this through presenting a distorting recapitulation not of what was actually said but of his own interpretation of it. Then, he lays on layer after layer of additional interpretation-commentary to paint a picture, quite literally, of an idea-villain. Again he demonstrates in wonderfully clear symmetry just what the distorting press and the distorting intellectual class is doing out there in the larger sphere. The use of no tool is beneath them. Any means and any methods are validated by the ‘nobility’ of their aims. When Chris makes an appeal to ‘ethics’, and attempts to convince that my ideas, ore one idea, os some ideas I have, are ‘unethical’, he is using rhetorical and sophistic trickery to win his object: elimination of my voice from the public forum.

                    It is so wonderfully simple, so neat, so perfect.

                    This is why I always say that Chris is a very useful Adversary. He shows the emptiness of the Progressive Left that really seems to have no ideas. He also shows how devious and dangerous they are intellectually, ethically and morally. He shows that they will quite literally stop at nothing to eliminate from the conversation, from presence, in the public sphere. Thus he illustrates, quite openly, his deliberate anti-democratic stance. He will, if left to himself, destroy yet another ideal of the Repiblican vision.

                    Therefor I argue that I am fundamentally and quite obviously taking and occupying —- and expressing and demonstrating —- a higher ethical and moral ground. Not only that: I am far better grounded in clear Constitutional principles! I call for the renovation of those principles and for their renewed understanding, and that they be respected</I.

                    If some —- anyone! I will take on the whole wide world! 😉 —- thinks that my ideas are unsound, let them demonstrate it through clear, fair, diplomatic articulation. Not swearing. Not mistatement. Not slander and calumny, but clear articulation of ideas

                    Chris? Your rebuttal?

      • Chris

        La Sylphide,

        Liberals perhaps throw around the “self-hating” label too often, but Alizia is as classic and example as there is. She is a Jew who has nothing but contempt for Jews. She is a woman who has nothing but contempt for women. She is a Latin American who has nothing but contempt for Latin Americans.

        She desperately wishes she were a white European and believes that if she just works hard enough to spread the Nazi message, she’ll be accepted into their club.

        It’ll never happen. She’ll never be “pure.” This is why so many of her comments are written like those of an obsessive; because that’s what she is.

        I hope she will some day learn to love herself for who she is, but it will require her to realize that her entire worldview is a lie.

        • This is an example of ‘distorting misstament’. It really does work, but it requires a *hearer* who has already been prepared and primed to receive what is ‘an invitation to channel contempt’. (And toward me! Oh the indignity!) In Sylphide’s case, my Dear Sophist, you have already won. She has already stated what you have iterated.

          Yet none of this is true. It is a pet-understanding, a ‘shared lie’, a dirty deed of rephrasing.

          The most interesting aspect of it, and the trickiest to get around, is that it takes the conversation out of the intellectual realm and places it in the iner-personal. It takes some ideas that should be dealt with with some abstraction and makes it a very very personal matter. And then those persons set to tearing each other to (personal) shreds. This is really best avoided on a forum like this.

          I am an ex-Jew who converted to Christianity because Christianity is a stronger and more real set of ideas and predicates. I oppose, basically, Talmudic Judaism or ‘pharisaism’. My conversion came about through inner, spiritual processes that had a great deal to do with grappling with ideas. The term ‘self-hating’ is really meaningless unless it is really and truly defined. It is a term used within Jewish culture and between Jews and usually when someone steps out of groupthink.

          I opt to ‘serve Europe’ in the sense that I opt to serve the Savior of Man, that is, because I am linked to a metaphysical principle. I could be am Eskimo or (to quote Jack) an aardvark (or a Pileated Woodpecker) and still set it as my task to defend the ideal of Europe. I came to see that one must, one should, have a Grand Idea that one serves. Tex has written about the Great Ideas or the Grand Conversation. This is what must be recovered. And this is what I do, and this is essentially what I write about, you goofy one!

          What you do, now that is really interesting! You distort. You project. You invent narratives out of your own dark imagination, and you send them up in pure maliciousness in order to do harm. If you would only see this you will have made a huge leap forward! This is how projection works: one projects one’s own dark material, the stuff one can’t look at about oneself, onto another. It is quite transparent.

          Avoid this. Come back into integrity. Be fair. Be just. Argue fairly.

          If we are going to fairly and honestly talk about ‘worldviews’ and also ‘lies’, I am all up for that! It is the best conversation going! But it has to be done fairly and using all the proper etiquette rules.

          Your rebuttal, Chris?

          • Chris

            I opt to ‘serve Europe’ in the sense that I opt to serve the Savior of Man, that is, because I am linked to a metaphysical principle.

            Jesus never set foot in Europe, you absolute moron.

            • I see and sympathize how you struggle with any difficult idea. Let me try again:

              If I say ‘I serve Europe’ I serve Europe in the same sense that I serve ‘the Savior of Man’, that is, as a metaphysical principle. (It has nothing to do where Jesus ‘set foot’ or did not set foot!).

              To speak of ‘Europe’ (the quotes are to indicate that I am speaking both to Europe as a physical locale, and to ‘Europe’ as an ideal, as a series of set of ideas, and thus ‘metaphysically’) is to speak of a Grand Idea, and this Idea has been established at the very base of Europe for 1500 years. What was done and said in relation to that idea, what was constructed, the definition of morals and ethics, the formation of living souls.

              This is what paideia refers to: it is the European structures of ideation that are bequethed to the young. In relation to this paideia, and from these elements (which you have no understanding at all of) the civilization of Europe was created. This glorious and amazing creation, a blending of physical attainment and lofty idea.

              Over this 1500 year period, and through transubstantial presence, which is ‘operational metaphysics’, the angelic kingdom (if you will permit the turn of phrase!) has quite certainly ‘set foot’ in Europe.

              These ideas, though so elemental, so very simple really, cannot register within your grey material, this I understand.

              What Sphinx of cement & aluminum bashed open their skulls & ate up their brains & imagination?

              This is a quintessential question, having to do with important quintessences.

              This is why I describe *you* as part of a problem, part of degeneracy, and decadence. In you Idea has been killed. Yet you are filled with ‘passionate intensity’ and you, as Marxist Operative, storm forth into the world, really and truly believing that you are ‘doing good’ and ‘bringing liberation, freedom and goodness’.

              You are the most perfect foil for what I do (the ideas I seek to present), and though no part of this gets through to you, if just one person captures what I mean to say, my work is a success!

        • Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Joannes. Hic venit in testimonium, ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine, ut omnes crederent per illum. Non erat ille lux, sed ut testimonium perhiberet de lumine. Erat lux vera quae illuminat omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum. In mundo erat, et mundus per ipsum factus est, et mundus eum non cognovit. In propria venit, et sui eum non receperunt. Quotquot autem receperunt eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, his qui credunt in nomine ejus. Qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt. (Here all genuflect) et verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis.

        • La Sylphide

          Thank you Chris. My very first reaction to her knuckle spraining (having to scroll past) posts was that there was a deep level of self-hatred, a desperate need to be something she would never be. Yes, I am an Anglo-Saxon, Pilgrim descendant, Jew-by-choice, adopted daughter of a Lutheran minister and his organist wife, theater geek, stay-at-home-mom with three children – one of whom is gay – woman. And I was so shaken, naive as I may be, by the likes of the self-hating, Holocaust denying Alizia, that I vowed I would never come back here.

          I need to trust my own gut instincts, and not let the Alizia’s of the world scare me into being silent.

          I’m glad I came back to read the responses.

          • It’s vital that people learn to distinguish the Alizias of the world from those who argue that the US has a distinctive, healthy, unique culture that is essential to the national success and identity, and wanting to make sure that those who come here are determined to participate in, contribute to, respect and accept that culture is not the same as opposing racial, ethnic or religious diversity.

            In my observations, an awful lot of people can’t make that distinction, or choose not to.

  10. To take a different path from the same story, has anyone else noticed that the media has really started pushing the fear angle? Every time Trump tweets, says something off color at a meeting, or chews with his mouth open, the headline says “Legislators frightened”, “Activists terrified” or “Opponents fear”.

    I’d say that this language started about a week ago, but it’s been pushed for a while, I’m just seeing it a whole lot more recently. Either the snowflake brigade got a little more fragile and they’re about to literally shake themselves into an adult onset version of intraparenchymal bleeding or they need to tone down the rhetoric just a smidge because their bollocks are showing.

    • Joe Fowler

      I find that appending the following to most headlines, “…Circus Clowns disagree!”, especially those referencing a vague, but impressive universal reach (Scientists Say! Studies Prove!), is helpful. By keeping in mind that even a well respected community of deep thinkers, such as circus clowns, may well disagree with the conclusions of the meticulously well researched and sourced article that I’m about to read, I’m able to give the article all of the consideration it inevitably deserves.

  11. bexhrob

    No, it’s not new, it’s because some of us do literally worry this idiot will get us blown up. I was old enough in the ’80s to pay attention that maybe we were gonna get nuked. But no, we lived, and the world got better, and Communism fell! Yay! Except now, we have looney tunes morons with actual access to buttons that could snuff us all out. Butg they’re dummies, and vidictive, and are actually bragging about the SIZE OF THE NUKE BUTTON. And many of us have kids. I wasn’t alone when I worried not only about American insitutions with the election results, but would THIS GUY, who has the self-control of a toddler, trigger nuclear war? I have almost always lived near a primary target, like in War Games, with the “millisecond of brilliant light” idea of not living through the horror. But dangit, I do want my kids to actually grow up. https://youtu.be/1vmnp7ghGPk

    • Isaac

      Call me a crazy optimist, but I think you and your kids are going to survive this.

    • As Ronald Reagan proved, but many refused to acknowledge, nuclear war has always been better avoided with strength than weakness. The Obama Administration, we learned last weak, completely botched its intelligence and had no idea that NK was as close to nuclear capacity as it was. So the question is whether threats from a crazy nuclear pipsqueak will be enough to get another round of ransom from the West, or whether we behave responsibly.

      Really, Becky, the nuclear button fears are hysteria, Democratic propaganda, and simply not rational. Obama’s Iran deal was far more dangerous and created a greater threat of nuclear war than anything Trump is likely to do.

      And you do know there is no button, right? And that it’s never a bad idea to let some one threatening you that you can crush him like a bug, right?

      • Chris

        As Ronald Reagan proved, but many refused to acknowledge, nuclear war has always been better avoided with strength than weakness.

        This is completely unsupportable, since…you know…nuclear war has never happened under any president.

        Obama’s Iran deal was far more dangerous and created a greater threat of nuclear war than anything Trump is likely to do.

        Anti-Obama hysteria.

        • Your position is untenable. The Iran deal trades off—theoretically, wishfully and recklessly–a short term window of non-nuclear Iran (if a country that never keeps its promises and agreements miraculously does) for long term certainty of nuclear Iran with the West and Israel having no options at all. The US got nothing but a promise from an untrustworthy government that received billions in blocked assets in return. What a deal.

    • bexhrob: “I have almost always lived near a primary target…”

      If you’re really that worried, wouldn’t you move to a place less likely to be a target? Norway and Haiti are possibilities; which would you choose?

    • “But they’re dummies, and vindictive, and are actually bragging about the SIZE OF THE NUKE BUTTON.”

      Well, it might do your heart well to learn that there is no actual “nuke button” on Trump’s desk. That button turns on the video of gorillas fighting. Trump’s ability to launch nukes comes from the “nuke phone” in his office, and God help us if he ever orders KFC.

      No, look. When the late night talk show hosts all paraded out Trump’s button tweet, the studio audiences laughed. They didn’t gasp, recoil in horror and jeer, they didn’t ‘boo’ or call for immediate intervention, they laughed. They laughed because they knew it was a joke. Perhaps the kind of joke that a president ought not make, but a joke all the same.

      Pretending, upon reflection, that this wasn’t a joke, that he was serious, and that the button tweet is a danger to society, to our children, oh won’t somebody think of the children, is disingenuous. I don’t know you well enough to say what you really believe, so it’s possible that you’re as deluded as you affect, but for the average person, this fear is an affectation.

  12. Isaac

    Just a drive-by observation:

    I agree with anyone who says that these comments are crude and unkind, but it’s noteworthy that most of the people harrumphing over Donald Trump right now wanted HILLARY CLINTON to be president. The lack of self-awareness is staggering.

    (To paraphrase The Office…if the average Haitian was in a room with Hillary Clinton, Adolf Hitler, and Osama Bin Laden, and had a gun with just two bullets…they’d shoot Hillary twice.)

  13. Greg

    In the spirit of research, I googled “shithole” for the two-year period ended December 31, 2017 to see what the word connoted before Trump used it. The first sixteen headlines that referred to actual cities or countries as shitholes were:

    1. North America “A Shit Hole”

    2. Derby is not a shithole, it’s the glorious epicenter of the UK

    3. Spokane Is Such a Shithole, College Basketball Is the Only Thing Keeping Everyone There from Committing Suicide

    4. Phuket is a Shit-Hole

    5. Wrexham, what a shithole

    6. Alabama is such a shithole

    7. Is Brussels really a shithole

    8. Lonely Planet Basically Called Edmonton A Frozen Shithole

    9. Is Dublin the biggest shithole in the entire world

    10. Melbourne is not a “shithole”

    11. Canada is a Shit Hole

    12. Morocco is a total Islamist shithole

    13. Why do people say India is a shithole?

    14. If I had to live in a shit hole like Alabama I’d kill myself

    15. Phuket – overrun shit-hole

    16. Why is Poland such a shithole on Europe?

    Other than Phuket (in Indonesia — mentioned twice), Morocco and India, all of these places are predominantly populated by white people. None of them is predominantly black. Other than Alabama (also mentioned twice) and North America taken as a whole, none of them even has a significant black population. Many, if not most, of these places are economically disadvantaged.

    I conclude that “shithole” is a racist, anti-white term that particularly targets poor whites, and I unreservedly condemn President Trump for using it.

  14. Other Bill

    Anybody who’s alarmed by the term shithole needs to travel more. Go to India, go to South Africa, go to Mexico. And these are relatively nice places.

    I first heard the term used by my German/Bavarian former petroleum engineer who’d done exploratory work in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I asked Josef if Kashmir was as beautiful a place as the Pakistanis and Indians seemed to think it was. “Nah,” Josef snorted, “it’s a shithole, just like the rest of all those countries.”

    And has anyone answered the President’s question? Why are we taking in people from all these shithole countries? Anyone? Beuhler?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.