Comment Of The Day: “Ten Ethics Observations On The Nunes Memo”

I think this is the shortest Comment of the Day yet, a single sentence with an introduction, but it is a brilliant one. I am abashed that I didn’t think of it, but no one else has either, as far as I can determine. Circulate it widely, especially to your Facebook friends who are horrified that anyone would try to impugn a spotless American Institution like the FBI.

Here is Chris Marschner’s Comment of the Day on the post, Ten Ethics Observations On The Nunes Memo

You may have missed one glaring observation…

Comey, pundits, and Democats decry the Nunes memo as a smear on the FBI, attempts to sully the reputations of our premier agencies but have no problem casting doubt on our electoral process, smearing a bothersome but duly elected person to the high office of president, and telling the world of his transgressions.

50 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership

50 responses to “Comment Of The Day: “Ten Ethics Observations On The Nunes Memo”

  1. charlesgreen

    “…but have no problem casting doubt on our electoral process, smearing a bothersome but duly elected person to the high office of president, and telling the world of his transgressions.”

    1. “casting doubt on our electoral process.” I have no idea what this means. Does it mean claiming Trump wasn’t duly elected via our constitutional electoral college process? Show me where Comey, or some prominent Democrat, or some reasonable pundit, ever said this. I sure as hell never did.

    Or does it mean claiming that the Russians had undue influence? Damn right they did, and thank god Comey et al are making the case, because our duly elected President refuses to see it in anything but self-oriented terms, calling it a witch hunt.

    2. “Smearing a bothersome but duly elected person…” I have no idea what this means either. We already dealt with ‘duly elected.”

    Does it mean pointing out that he refuses to provided his taxes, paid a porn star to shut up about sex, gives ‘wink wink nod nod’ cover to racists? And on, and on, and on. Is that ‘smearing?’ It sure sounds accurate to me, and depressingly, it doesn’t seem to be working with a fact-oblivious chunk of the public, over-represented here.

    3. “Telling the world of his transgressions.” Are you kidding? SOMEONE has to be talking about this level of outrage. Fox News sure as hell isn’t. The President sure as hell isn’t.

    The fact that Comey, pundits and the Democrats decry Nunes memo a “smear on the FBI” is the only factually accurate statement in that sentence. And thank god they are.

    I am absolutely bonkered that you would stoop to calling this “Comment of the Day.” Inanity of the day, maybe. Zero-logic fawning rant of the day maybe.

    When 40% of the Law and Order party thinks the FBI and a bunch of Republican Justice Department career employees constitute a “Deep state” capable of hoodwinking a FISA judge – I do not know what to say.

    My opinion: this is hysteria; a fever. Insanity.

    I can’t tell the difference anymore between much of the talk on this blog and the front page of Fox News; maybe there’s a bit less snark on Fox.

    I no longer choose to follow the “no mention of Hitler” guideline. This is just how the Nazis came to power, in a rush to celebrate the rhetoric of a dictator in populist’s clothing.

    The most chilling part of Trumps SOTU speech the other night? The part where he urged Congress to let every Cabinet head join him in having the right to freely fire career civil servants. He didn’t even claim the fig leaf of ‘efficiency’ as a justification. He went right for the reason of being anti-American.

    Think about that. A demand for the right to hire and fire anyone in the government for putative disloyalty to the government.

    And who, pray tell, will be the arbiter of ‘loyalty’?

  2. Chris marschner

    Sometimes I surprise myself with moments of clarity.

  3. Rick M.

    I managed to waste another few minutes of life expectancy reading this memo. The ire seemed to circulate around state secrets – at least from the Democrats. I really didn’t see anything. Was I not paying attention? Is there something in code?

  4. Chris Marschner

    Charles, I must have hit a nerve.
    To your points:

    1. “casting doubt on our electoral process.” I have no idea what this means. Does it mean claiming Trump wasn’t duly elected via our constitutional electoral college process? Show me where Comey, or some prominent Democrat, or some reasonable pundit, ever said this. I sure as hell never did.

    One needs not make a claim of fact to cast doubt on the electoral process if one simply perpetuates a narrative that the Trump campaign actively colluded with agents of an adversarial power to deny the expected winner her crown. What is the point of an investigation of the Trump campaign if you believe he was elected fairly? Why were there calls for impeachment the day after the election? Why does virtually every news outlet contend that every move he makes is prima facie evidence that he is obstructing justice?

    2. “Smearing a bothersome but duly elected person…” I have no idea what this means either. We already dealt with ‘duly elected.”

    Trump is bothersome because he is not part of the ruling elite. He says what he means without weasel words and sticks with them. He is an uncouth bore in social circles because he speaks like the everyday man. He is not worthy to join the club of erudite lawyers who make their living obfuscating information to ensure duality of meanings so as to create plausible deniability when someone challenges them. In short, Trump does not play ball with the ruling class therefore he is bothersome. He was only valuable to the Democrats when he was doling out campaign funds.

    3. “Telling the world of his transgressions.” Are you kidding? SOMEONE has to be talking about this level of outrage. Fox News sure as hell isn’t. The President sure as hell isn’t.

    Trump’s entire life history has been well chronicled in the tabloids since the 70’s when he emerged as the dashing New York tycoon. His warts were fully exposed long before the election. As for his taxes, I don’t blame him for not making them public. His taxes are between him and the IRS no one else. Same for every other candidate. Tax information without context is meaningless but you want it to show something that lacks context to smear him and any other opposing candidate. He provided a financial disclosure form per FEC requirements which is all that is required.

    This statement is beneath you. “working with a fact-oblivious chunk of the public, over-represented here”. Based on what I have read from others on this blog – including Aliza – they seem to have a better handle on facts than the addle brained consumers of MSM.

    The entire last year was spent smearing everything he said or did. He is claimed to be racist because he said that some people coming over the border were rapists and drug dealers – “bad hombres”. That was distorted by many who claimed that he said ALL people illegally coming across the southern border were bad hombre’s. He is claimed to be a racist because he condemned the violence on both sides in Charlottesville. Not good enough for the righteous – he must condemn only the speech of the bad white people – who by the way had a permit to march, whereas the opposition did not.

    You said:
    “When 40% of the Law and Order party thinks the FBI and a bunch of Republican Justice Department career employees constitute a “Deep state” capable of hoodwinking a FISA judge – I do not know what to say.”

    Pure BS and you know it. The only people in question is the leadership of the FBI. I don’t give a rat’s ass if the deep state is Republican or Democrat. It does not matter – the ruling elite want to protect their turf from undesirable interlopers.

    At issue is the leadership appears to have violated a trust by not disclosing exculpatory or beneficial information in order to obtain the FISA warrant. Exposing that is neither an obstruction of justice nor a smear on the FBI as a whole. No one has made the claim that the career rank and file agents are involved in this effort to undermine his presidency – other than you and the media who claiming that they have been. More lies on your part.

    ” no longer choose to follow the “no mention of Hitler” guideline. This is just how the Nazis came to power, in a rush to celebrate the rhetoric of a dictator in populist’s clothing. ”

    Is this a swipe at me because of my last name which is clearly a German one? I grew up with many that called me a Nazi because of it. Obama was a populist too and with better oratory skills. Get off the Nazi crap. My Grandfather battled the Nazis at Anzio, and my Uncle nearly froze to death at the Battle of the Bulge.

    Who is truly in control of the media? From my perspective the media is in the Joseph Goebbels of our time. Hitler was the great orator of his day. Trump is no orator, nor does he have the power in the media the Democrats have. Hitler’s speeches were tailored to the weak of mind. Trump’s are not tailored at all they simply reflect his belief in the American people. He makes no excuses for it. Furthermore, I can draw my own conclusions thank you without the need for any hack or politician telling me what I should believe. It is the left that demands what I should think, what I can say, how I must live, and who must be part of my social groups. Not Trump.

    Who is organizing marches in every city in America claiming Trump has no right to the office. Who supports Antifa and other organizations that are trying to smear our sacred institutions to which you speak? Who is engaged in organizing communities to rise up against the perceived injustice perpetrated by white society? He is building a wall around his new Georgetown home. Who relies on the smear that equates Trump with the atrocities committed by Hitler and his “minions”. The left and the MSM. The only people in a rush to celebrate the rhetoric without question were those who fell under the benevolent charm of or past president who unilaterally used his pen to circumvent law.

    Let’s be honest Charles. You, like many others want him banished from the presidency if not the planet itself. You cannot come to grips with the fact that the Democrats screwed the pooch by putting HRC up as the heir apparent to the White House. I would bet the ranch that you felt Trump did not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. So now that he has you and others feel it is your patriotic duty to find ways to expel him even if it means violating civil liberties.

    • Chris marschner

      I forgot to mention that many condemned the Electoral College process, sought to convince electors to change their votes, and when that failed ridiculed it as an outdated system that prevented the will of the popular vote to prevail. Yeah, I call that smearing a valued institution.

    • Chris

      I actually agree with some of what you said, Chris M., but I must take issue with this…

      He is an uncouth bore in social circles because he speaks like the everyday man.

      What does this mean? None of my male friends talk like Trump. Do yours? If so, maybe you need better friends.

      And this…

      He is building a wall around his new Georgetown home.

      If you think building a wall around a home while opposing building a wall around a country is hypocritical, I don’t know how to help you. You don’t know what hypocrisy is.

      • Chris marschner

        Chris

        Many in America speak plainly, profanely and often from a singular perspective. How often has the F word been used on this blog? Examine the lyrics of pop music. Talk to a coal miner, a prison inmate, a truck driver, a college professor or just about anyone and the linguistic style often mimics Trumps. I have worked in prisons teaching inmates college courses, I know many people who labor in dirt. I worked on the docks, and sat in on many private conversations among college faculty colleagues. So yes, he speaks as everyman. He is no different than good old Uncle Joe – big effn deal – Biden. The difference is he holds beliefs to which you take issue. You do not challenge his policy, you resort to focusing in on his personal shortcomings to support your arguments.

        By the way, I was speaking to an ICE agent last night and asked him if a wall was needed. He said yes, because sensors only tell them when someone violates the area. By the time units respond to the area the people are long gone. In his words, the wall will stop most and slow down the rest.

        The statement about the wall was not about hypocrisy, it was about a former president who has demeaned law enforcement, driven wedges between different socioeconomic groups because he believes the system is inherently unfair.

        You continue the trope that a wall is a 2000 mile project when he himself admits that a wall is not needed everywhere.

        Your smug response speaks volumes.

        • Chris

          Chris M.

          I fucking love profanity. That’s not the issue. Trump talks like an abject moron. I’d say that the statement “he speaks like everyday men” is an insult to everyday men, but the term “everyday men” itself is meaningless and stupid.

          You do not challenge his policy, you resort to focusing in on his personal shortcomings to support your arguments.

          I have consistently critiqued Trump on both policy AND his personal shortcomings.

          The statement about the wall was not about hypocrisy, it was about a former president who has demeaned law enforcement, driven wedges between different socioeconomic groups because he believes the system is inherently unfair.

          You literally just described Trump, and I’m at a loss as to what any of that has to do with a wall of any kind.

        • Chris cannot stand that the purveyors of light and truth- progressive Democrats- have acted exactly how he was taught only evil conservatives and Republicans would act.

          The wheels are coming off.

    • Chris Marschner wrote: ”Charles, I must have hit a nerve.”

      Hitting a nerve can be a sort of art. The more knowledge that one has of nerve-structure the better a sadistic acupunturist one can be!

    • William J. Majewski

      Bravo Sir!

      And THANK you to your family for their service and sacrifice on the battlefields of Europe.

  5. Mark Putnam

    “Or does it mean claiming that the Russians had undue influence? Damn right they did,…”

    I have read this a few times since last November, but am genuinely interested in how influence was measured. Charles, could you comment? I know about the supposed Facebook ads, but who really believes junk on Facebook? How was the influence of the Russian presence measured?

    • Chris

      Lots of people believe junk on Facebook. If they didn’t, why would the Russians use it to spread fake news? Do you think they’re just…stupid?

      • Mark Putnam

        No the Russians are not stupid, maybe culturally ignorant… But I am interested in how the amount of influence was calculated.

  6. Charles wrote: “Does it mean pointing out that he refuses to provided his taxes, paid a porn star to shut up about sex, gives ‘wink wink nod nod’ cover to racists? And on, and on, and on. Is that ‘smearing?’ It sure sounds accurate to me, and depressingly, it doesn’t seem to be working with a fact-oblivious chunk of the public, over-represented here.”

    I am certain that I can well understand your concern about and loathing (if it is such) of Donald Trump as well as your sense that the nation is at a dangerous juncture. My larger interest, though of course you have noted certain sympathies of mine which are none-too-popular and are, in your book, immoral, is to be able to step back far enough to gain a picture of the present that is accurate. I find this excruciatingly difficult. But I sympathize with your efforts and understand why you would resort to the historical analysis that hinges on an interpretation of the Nazi-era fascism of Europe and why you would seek to apply it to the present in America. I have the sense that this is a mistaken project on the whole and hermeneutically will yield little of value and use. It seems to me that overall that type of analysis is aprioristic and misleading.

    As you can suppose I am only really interested in your comment about ‘racists’. Yet I have to point out, because it is true, that though I get branded with that term —- when I truly make an effort to think in ‘race-realist’ terms which is related but distinct, there is no one here who shares my views or my orientation. My honest interpretation is that most or all here hold to the the general and American view of race that developed in the postwar era and specifically that of the Civil Rights Movement. That idea is that any person, and any people, have a right to participate in American and to be Americans irregardless of their race-background. The fact is that all I encounter are (literally) appalled by some of the ideas I put forward. For example my main one: that America needs to be re-whitened through a specific and selective admissions policy. It was far more white some years back; this was the policy of the nation; it was deliberately modified by activists; and we now live in the consequences of the newer policy; and that policy and its demographic result is now producing the race-problem.

    The question I have is: Am I right or am I wrong here? Or, is the statement I make in and of itself ‘racist’? I have noticed that when I ask direct questions I do not receive answers. For example when I say: If my ideas are wrong, show me, domonstrate to me, why they are wrong. I have said this in relation to various issues and no one takes it up. (And the reason is because they do not have good arguments).

    Yet what I wish to suggest is that you, me, and everyone, need to actually take more time to consider the large gray area between the two opposed poles. For example the pole (I place Chris in this pole) that any consideration of race and culture, and any opposition to excessive influx of another and non-white one, is by definition racist and also, quite literally and with no qualification, evil. And the other side of that polarity would be, for example, a bona fide racist advocate, and they certainly exist. But there really is a ‘gray area’. That is, normal, decent people who lament the dillution of their own culture and race through the inflow of ‘others’. Or, as is the case at least among some of the white demographic, the recognition that soon, very soon, they will become a minority ‘in their own country’.

    Naturally, you can make no such possessive statements (‘mine’ ‘my own’ ‘our own’) and nor can Chris (nor can many here). America really is *an idea* and *an experiment*. You could, according to these definitions, slowly replace all the original stock like different coloered water flowing into a pool, and eventually replace the stock and (according to this view) there would be no difference. In this view it is the ‘software’ that determines all, the hardware is irrelevant, and it is morally reprehensible to see and to think differently.

    I suggest that this view is changing and that it must change. And I place myself on the vanguard, ideologically, of that change. And there are hundreds and thousands like me —- millions I suppose —- and we are here just like you. And I do not think we are so different and distinct, and we very certainly are not ‘Nazis’.

    Now, I fully recognize that even were I to influence you to speak to me as if I were a normal person that you would fear that you are ‘validating’ my presence and my discourse. So, it is really better not to say anything, to remain silent. But this will not work. The people that think like me are influencing public opinion and having effect. Our discourse is not rabid and has little to do with Nazi-like objectives. But here again I am making the case and ‘insinuating’ myself. To be consistent you must utterly reject the entire platform that I represent. I understand this. But it will not work, not in the long run.

    “My opinion: this is hysteria; a fever. Insanity.”

    Ah yes, the psychological analysis! I really think you are onto something myself. I think that under the stress of our present, at a juncture in a nation that does not know who it is nor what it should be, and which does not have any sort of national objective or raison d’etre that is genuine and non-mediated by public relations campaigns and government propaganda, is a nation on the verge of a catastrophe. I think that you and I, insofar as I have read a great deal of what is called left-leaning critical analysis of America as an imperial power (that destroyed its Republican self), have some positions that are similar. Thus, I notice that ‘the nation has gone crazy’ but it has gone crazy because of ‘Americanism’; because corporate propaganda (PR) is way too vastly powerful and influential. Because ‘America’ has lost its soul but also that ‘America’ is too large and too diverse to have a soul. A ‘soul’ can only be real at a local level. The original regions of America could be said to have ‘soul’. The Nation of America? Can it have a ‘soul’? I do not think it can. But if it did it would be a machine like, industrial-military soul, a perversion of soul.

    At this juncture though there is a high degree of social and psychological sickness though. I think this is a fair observation. But it is not an easy one because it places great demands on the individual.

    “I can’t tell the difference anymore between much of the talk on this blog and the front page of Fox News; maybe there’s a bit less snark on Fox.”

    This is, I think, a largely untenable statement. I mean, just in respect to Jack’s writing. His position is intellectual and American through-and-through. It seems a Constitutional position based in constitutional and legal concerns with the ethics-questions overlayed. I have nooooo idea what Fox News serves …

    “I no longer choose to follow the “no mention of Hitler” guideline. This is just how the Nazis came to power, in a rush to celebrate the rhetoric of a dictator in populist’s clothing.”

    This is why I think that analysis-platform will not yield the result you hope for. If you keep trying to force it though, it itself will show itself as as much of a problem as you hope to address with the analysis, if you catch my meaning. And this is part of the problem in our present: people do not seem to be able to grasp what is really going on in our present, and why!

    I beg you, I implore eveyone, to devote more time to study and consideration, and to avoid easy *overlays*. I suggest that we are approaching a time when, perhaps even by Providential design, we are going to have to face and come to grip with huge, structural questions and problems. It seems to be beginning, to be happening, and whatever is going on has to be faced.

    • Chris marschner

      Aliza, Nazis hated the corporatists just as you do. Propaganda is espoused by those who cannot offer viable, supportable and debatable ideas.

      The color of America is not a determinant of our value structure and when people inject race into the discussion of what America is or should be then I tell them I roundly reject the premise that we should/must consider race or gender in our choices. I freely associate with those who share my belief in self determination. Those who feel that external forces are the root cause of their problems are part of the problem that results in division and loss of common identity. We are Americans first, last, and always. Our ethnic heritage is something we can value but should not impose on others. We should openly share that heritage to show commonality as well as differences and freely make available those differences to others should they choose them without license or restrictions.

      • Certainly I respect your opinions. I also feel that I understand them; where they come from, and why you have them. Your statement has meaning to me because it is a statement that you make, and obviously you believe in what you say.

        A few things I will say: One is simply to repeat a refrain (so to speak): ‘Race is real, race matters’. There are many things one can further say about that. But only in an intellectual environment where the broaching of the conversation, and all its elements, is allowed. I suggest to you that today, in America, in all platforms, in any platform unless it is s fringe-platform and one of thoughtcrime, these ideas cannot be broached.

        Thus it is a ‘forbidden topic’. However, that does not mean that it is not a worthy and a considerable one. But it is a topic that really tends to make people uncomfortable, so they avoid it roundly.

        I have written, somewhat extensively, on the topic of ‘social engineering’ carried out by governmental forces in collusion (in conjunction is more neutral a term) with progressive and also revolutionary groups in the postwar era. The shift in immigration policy (1964-65) came about in this time and through these machinations and these policies have changed and will further change, radically, the composition of the US. Make of that what you will. I suggest that this policy, and this eventuality, can be examined, should be examined. And at the very least you know where I stake my position: America must be re-whitened. Just as it was browned, deliberately, it can be deliberately re-writened. If browning was ethical and moral, whitening is ethical and moral.

        There is a larger picture to be considered. That is termed ‘the meta-political’. The meta-political is larger than America. It touches on far larger issues and questions. To understand what these are they have to be carefully revealed, unfolded, laid out. This is intellectual work.

        In the course of time, I assume, and in the changing fortune of circumstances, the ideas which I am familar with and which inform me and and my understanding of things (and those who think as I do), will become better known. Only very recently has this more vanguardist and conservative politics come to the attention of the American generality. Ideas are powerful, and powerful ideas shape and reshape the political and social landscape.

        This is why I say: Get used to us. We are here and we will remain. We are not going away.

  7. Bless their hearts…  I love all the hate coming from the Media-crats, Millennial’s and Progressives…talk about “losers” in this country. Everyday I have to pinch myself and say “President Trump” I do love the left’s pain and suffering. Their rage is awesome, it’s wonderful to return the favors of the Obama error after eight years. We too suffered under black rule. The lesson liberals need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter current reality. In keeping with all their fears, insecurities, desperation, and desires to change the outcome of the election; they’re still losers. Now they condone the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ.
    Perhaps someday, Progressives will realize that they are guilty of everything they accuse the right of being. Speaking as an American from the fifties, we do NOT love each other anymore and we never will. Here, try to understand this factoid. I (and millions of others) refuse to help any Blue State Americans during or after their next disaster. Nor do we want or need their help. These people have called us every pejorative in the book and accused us of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and the list goes on.
    I served in the military, I was brought up in a military family. My contempt for your kind, has grown over the last seven years. I attended UT, and USC, and I volunteered thousands of days to charity. I know exactly where I stand and you’ve lost me as a loyal American. I am NOT alone in my thoughts or feelings.
    I now want a Civil War, I PRAY for a civil war. I want this crap to end and to the victor go the spoils. I want MY country back. I was even hoping that the North Koreans would use a ship from a foreign country to deliver a Nuke into the San Francisco Bay and touch it off.
    This would solve the cultural breakdown (Liberal,illegals,gay agenda) issues in California. While they are at it, they might as well do the same to L.A. That would solve first strike issue, it would be on the N. Koreans. Trump could then decide if he wanted to strike NOKO; they’d be doing us a favor. Does this statement qualify me to be a CNN News anchor or reporter? I want NOKO to hit San Francisco, that’s how much I hate your tribe.
    We might share the same continent…but we are not united anymore as a country.
    Aghast? BTW, My experience in life trumps yours…you won’t be changing any hearts or minds here. Your feelings are not my concern. “Let’s roll” I am still Praying for a street fight to end all street fights.

    • Chris

      I was going to reply specifically to “We too have suffered under black rule,” but somehow it got worse from there. Holy fuck. Seek emotional therapy.

      • Like watching the MSM these days right? Holy fuck!

      • To understand any people, and any people’s conflict with their existential situation, one has to enter into it and see it as they see it. I think that this is something that comes very very hard for you Chris: you cannot. To understand Black America one has to understand, and listen to, Angela Davis and Eldridge Cleaver. The perspective of ‘rage’, or what rage induces a person to say, can be examined ‘without prejudice’. Russel Means, John Trudeau, Corky Gonzales, Augusto Sandino, Jose Marti: these are all people who had rage and channeled their rage.

        It is I think easy(er) for me to place myself in my oppontent’s perspective because I have crossed so many cultural lines already. I spent spme years examining Black Liberation issues, Liberation Theology, and it was easy for me to understand and anti-American perspective because I come originally from Venezuela, and Latin America has surely had to deal with The Colossus of the North …

        But then I have also crossed that line, became American, had to look at it from the other side. Same with Jewishness to Christianity.

        What you seem unable to understand is ‘white rage’ as a result of social engineering projects and influenced by radical Marxian praxis. You seem to have no historical perspective and little comprehension of the radical changes in the American postwar. It seems to me that you are —- fairly literally —- the example and the outcome of that Marxian praxis. You are a Marxist Operative in motion! You do not seem to have any alternative perspective.

        And that is why you cannot consider and take seriously the anger, the sense of betrayal, of one like Trent. Because you cannot even consider it, and because ‘white rage’ can have no real meaning for you, you quite literally cannot *see* a signficant part of America. That will definitely not work to your advantage because you are, thus, blinded. Your particular zealousness renders you blind.

        • Alizia…Wow, I am glad that you understand our “rage”. Blessings to you for your understanding…spot on the mark. I have lived all over the world…he thinks I need “emotional” therapy for speaking MY truth, LOL. That is just his fear and anger speaking out for what he (and many others) has created. His thinking, is why Trump won. Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America… because eventually you may convince them that you’re right. There are consequences for supporting a radical movement that is determined to redefine your culture, marriage, gender, and ultimately, the First Amendment.
          He just can’t believe someone would put it all on the line honestly and openly. When you have been pushed into a corner; you fight. Furthermore he can’t accept that responsibility for creating our hatred. Again Alizia, thanks for your honesty and sincere comment. Stay out of the Bay area.

          • claude

            This is everything one needs to know about how this blog has gone in the last year or so.

            • What the hell is THAT supposed to mean? You get 24 hours to put up or shut up. I don’t put up with slimy innuendo like that here. 24 hours.

              • Never mind. I just checked. That’s the SECOND time you’ve made that comment, never specifying anything. It’s a gratuitous insult, unfair, and and can’t even be addressed, because you don’t have the wit or decency to back up your complaint. You’ve had five comments ranging from trivial to nit-picking to obnoxious. You haven’t contributed anything here, and based on what I’ve seen, couldn’t if you tried. You are banned, and as a special treat, I’m deleting all of your previous pointless comments.

                • Chris

                  Jack,

                  I won’t question your banning of Claude, but I am mystified as to why you have said nothing about the new commenter Claude was responding to; you know, the racist who said he hopes liberals die.

                  • Because I don’t ban commenters based on viewpoint censorship. Moreover, his comment was so incoherent I’m not sure what he was saying, or even if it was tongue in cheek. He’s on the watch list, though.

                    • Chris

                      Jesus.

                      Claude was right, then.

                    • I have never banned a commenter for the kind of simgle comment Trent offered. Outright racist, anti-Semitic or misogynist rants, as from the “Chimpmania” crowd, yes.

                      (Your own comment to Trent demonstrated how incoherent his rhetoric was.)

                      Your comment here is unfair, insulting and out of line. You have one hour to retract that insult, or I’ll see you in a month.

                    • Chris

                      I should clarify.

                      I understood Claude’s comment immediately. The “white rage” which Alizia describes in Trent’s comment, as well as the Civil War-baiting, have been common features among many of the commenters on this blog over the past year; Trent simply took them to an extreme. While I think many here are in denial about racism and privilege in this country, no one else has said “We too have suffered under black rule,” and while I think the Civil War-baiting is gross and irresponsible, no one else here has said they wish for liberals to die in a Civil War, or that red states should refuse to help blue states who suffer from natural disasters, or that they wish that North Korea would nuke San Francisco.

                      To say you won’t ban him because you don’t ban people for “viewpoint discrimination” is to say that you don’t think it’s a big deal to allow a commenter who opened by wishing some of the other commenters dead.

                      To ban Claude and not Trent is to say you will tolerate commenters opening by wishing some of the other commenters dead, but will not tolerate any personal slights against you.

                      That’s a shitty standard.

                    • I’ll be generous, and accept that (dumb) explanation as a retraction. I also don’t ban commenters who make absurd and incompetent leaps and assumptions and get hysterical about them, like you did. First, Claude’s “this” was not clear. You do not “know” what he meant—you think you do. I couldn’t tell if “this” was Trent’s comment itself, or or “this” was intended to second what Trent was complaining about. I still don’t.

                      In the comment Claude was referring to, Trent wrote:

                      Alizia…Wow, I am glad that you understand our “rage”. Blessings to you for your understanding…spot on the mark. I have lived all over the world…he thinks I need “emotional” therapy for speaking MY truth, LOL. That is just his fear and anger speaking out for what he (and many others) has created. His thinking, is why Trump won. Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America… because eventually you may convince them that you’re right. There are consequences for supporting a radical movement that is determined to redefine your culture, marriage, gender, and ultimately, the First Amendment.
                      He just can’t believe someone would put it all on the line honestly and openly. When you have been pushed into a corner; you fight. Furthermore he can’t accept that responsibility for creating our hatred. Again Alizia, thanks for your honesty and sincere comment. Stay out of the Bay area.

                      That covers none of the issues you just cited as justification for Claude’s cheap shot.

                      His other comment, this..

                      Bless their hearts…  I love all the hate coming from the Media-crats, Millennial’s and Progressives…talk about “losers” in this country. Everyday I have to pinch myself and say “President Trump” I do love the left’s pain and suffering. Their rage is awesome, it’s wonderful to return the favors of the Obama error after eight years. We too suffered under black rule. The lesson liberals need to learn is that despite their arrogance, they do not have the power to alter current reality. In keeping with all their fears, insecurities, desperation, and desires to change the outcome of the election; they’re still losers. Now they condone the corruption of the FBI and the DOJ.
                      Perhaps someday, Progressives will realize that they are guilty of everything they accuse the right of being. Speaking as an American from the fifties, we do NOT love each other anymore and we never will. Here, try to understand this factoid. I (and millions of others) refuse to help any Blue State Americans during or after their next disaster. Nor do we want or need their help. These people have called us every pejorative in the book and accused us of racism, homophobia, misogyny, and the list goes on.
                      I served in the military, I was brought up in a military family. My contempt for your kind, has grown over the last seven years. I attended UT, and USC, and I volunteered thousands of days to charity. I know exactly where I stand and you’ve lost me as a loyal American. I am NOT alone in my thoughts or feelings.
                      I now want a Civil War, I PRAY for a civil war. I want this crap to end and to the victor go the spoils. I want MY country back. I was even hoping that the North Koreans would use a ship from a foreign country to deliver a Nuke into the San Francisco Bay and touch it off.
                      This would solve the cultural breakdown (Liberal,illegals,gay agenda) issues in California. While they are at it, they might as well do the same to L.A. That would solve first strike issue, it would be on the N. Koreans. Trump could then decide if he wanted to strike NOKO; they’d be doing us a favor. Does this statement qualify me to be a CNN News anchor or reporter? I want NOKO to hit San Francisco, that’s how much I hate your tribe.
                      We might share the same continent…but we are not united anymore as a country. Aghast? BTW, My experience in life trumps yours…you won’t be changing any hearts or minds here. Your feelings are not my concern. “Let’s roll” I am still Praying for a street fight to end all street fights.

                      …was informative and directly relevant to the discussion about “the civil war” screed. It’s ugly, but readers, especially you, need to know that there are many citizens who agree with Trent, and that there are substantive reasons they think that way. “Shut up” is not a useful response. I probably should have made it a Comment of the day.

                      An that’s right: being rude and disrespectful to me as I do this job absolutely is a banning offense, while inflammatory positions are not. I know the partisan group you see yourself as aligned with supports censorship and the stifling of free thought and expression, but that is unethical. You argue with commenters like Trent; you don’t ban them.

                      I wouldn’t throw a student who made that speech out of my ethics class, either.

                    • Chris

                      I retract “Claude was right.” Claude’s comment was unfair; while Trent’s comment bears some similarities to sentiments that have been expressed here in the past, it was so extreme that to say they represent the blog as a whole is wrong.

                      Trent said North Korea should murder Californians. That part was coherent enough to earn a banning.

                    • Chris

                      You wouldn’t kick a student out of class for saying he hopes some of the other students get murdered?

                      I would.

                    • Your students are children, and the context wouldn’t be ethics. If you would do your job as a commenter, see if you can rationally rebut Trent’s conclusions—not his choice of words, but his conclusions. “Black Rule,” for example, is a needlessly inflammatory short-hand way of saying that for 8 years an administration has been encouraging racial animus towards whites in the culture, academia, the news media, public policy, law enforcement and the courts. The rise of white nationalism was a predictable backlash, and it did not come out of thin air. It was in part seeded by irresponsible and unethical, and in some cases intentional, racially divisive rhetoric and policies. We have to deal with the ethical issues involved, which are not as clear cut as you appear to want to believe.

                    • Chris

                      No, Jack, I’m fairly confident saying that if one of your students stands up and says he hopes some of the other students get murdered, the ethical thing to do is kick them out of the class, regardless of the age of your students.

                      Someone who delivers a rant like Trent’s is clearly too stupid and ethically challenged to have anything of value to add to an ethics blog.

                      I am also certain that if a progressive first-time commenter had delivered a similar rant about “white rule” and wished for Alabama to be nuked out of existence, he’d be banned in an instant. No question.

                    • 1. That’s not a fair representation of his comment at all.
                      2. You completely shifted goalposts. If the topic was an ideological civil war, a parallel comment would be worthy of argument.
                      3. You are inexcusably ignoring context. Trent’s comment comes from a context where professors in major institutions have tweeted about killing white people and eliminating men. Senator Paul was beaten up in his front yard; Steve Scalise was shot under an ambush by a Bernie Sanders supporter. Kathy Griffin assumed her fans would appreciate seeing Trump decapitated. Stephen King tweeted out satisfaction over the train accident involving GOP legislators. Trump was shown being assassinated in a Central Park play. The culture has many, many markers, often with mainstream news media support, advocating violence against whites or conservatives. An academy award nominated film represents all whites as monsters trying to turn blacks into submissive servants. That’s what triggers Trent. His reaction has to be listened to be understood. Again, “Shut up!” is an irresponsible position.

                    • Chris

                      1. That’s not a fair representation of his comment at all.
                      2. You completely shifted goalposts. If the topic was an ideological civil war, a parallel comment would be worthy of argument.

                      At this point I can only assume you didn’t even read all of Trent’s comment.

                      This is the part of his comment I’m referring to:

                      I was even hoping that the North Koreans would use a ship from a foreign country to deliver a Nuke into the San Francisco Bay and touch it off.
                      This would solve the cultural breakdown (Liberal,illegals,gay agenda) issues in California. While they are at it, they might as well do the same to L.A. That would solve first strike issue, it would be on the N. Koreans. Trump could then decide if he wanted to strike NOKO; they’d be doing us a favor. Does this statement qualify me to be a CNN News anchor or reporter? I want NOKO to hit San Francisco, that’s how much I hate your tribe.

          • Chris

            Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America…

            Sure. That’s exactly what “We too have suffered under black rule” means. It means you believe in a color-blind America.

            • Trent: Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America…

              Chris: Sure. That’s exactly what “We too have suffered under black rule” means. It means you believe in a color-blind America.

              In the spirit of civil discourse and productive and respectful conversation (which is what any forum and blog needs and benefits from), I think it a good idea to ‘unpack’ what is said so to better understand it.

              My understanding of the postwar era and the post-Sixties era is that white people and white culture was asked to see, act and live in accord with a new standard: not to see things through racialist eyes. I think it is fair to say that white America made enormously substantial modifications in its attitude.

              I think that you (Chris) do not fully understand the sense of betrayal felt by people who really did internalize these (newer) values and who really made the effort to live and see differently. Many of them (in my impression) write on this blog. Now, as it seems, there has risen up a culture-wide movement which, blindly and rather visciously, attacks ‘whiteness’ in very extremist ways. The rhetoric is not only outrageous it is literally off the charts. It is so extreme and so bizarre, so accusatory, and also so very destructive, that it should only be seen and in my opinion can only be seen as grotesque. It goes beyond rudeness into another dimension. To define what that dimension is, and what motivates this critical animus, is difficult to say.

              To say we ‘have suffered under black rule’ is obviously an exaggeration. But like all exaggerations it does contain a kernal of truth. If I could resort to a Nietzschean analysis I would say that the culture of POC, to indulge in a generalization, has become possessed by ressentiment (a French term related to our ‘resentment’ but different, more complex, more psychological).

              The result of 8 years of the Obama presidency, it would appear to be the case, has resulted in a destructive rupture within the culture. This cannot be denied. Seen from this angle-of-view, it unleashed a tide of ressentiment and radical activism which is now peaking in the present.

              If this is so, it is then understandable for someone to say ‘we have suffered under black rule’. The statement would need to be carefully qualified, expanded on, better developed, but the gist of it is not incomprehensible.

              That is my attempt to create a bridge between two perspectives. (The reason I attempt this is because it is the best strategy I can come up with to be able to participate productively on this blog).

  8. Trent writes: ”Alizia…Wow, I am glad that you understand our “rage”. Blessings to you for your understanding…spot on the mark. I have lived all over the world…he thinks I need “emotional” therapy for speaking MY truth, LOL. That is just his fear and anger speaking out for what he (and many others) has created. His thinking, is why Trump won. Liberals should never forget that it is dangerous to mock people who believe in a color-blind America… because eventually you may convince them that you’re right. There are consequences for supporting a radical movement that is determined to redefine your culture, marriage, gender, and ultimately, the First Amendment. He just can’t believe someone would put it all on the line honestly and openly. When you have been pushed into a corner; you fight. Furthermore he can’t accept that responsibility for creating our hatred. Again Alizia, thanks for your honesty and sincere comment. Stay out of the Bay area.

    I maintain that we cannot remove ourself from our situation enough to accurately a) see the situation and b) see ourselveves in the situation. We always seem to end up describing things from a subjective position which is, by its nature, partial.

    Because I admire John Trudell, and really like that poem (he is a poet but he made an album in which his spoken poems were given a music soundtrack), I listened to more of his talks today on YouTube. He is the ‘angry voice’ that I think is fair to say is the voice of ‘the resistance’ of the Sixties and post-Sixties. It is that animus that now inspires BLM and an entire range of people and movements that are now rising up in our present. So, it seems that we are living in the fruition of Sixties activism and this leads to the question: What is being attacked through that activism? It is interesting to consider. He is attacking ‘predator’, a metaphor for a certain kind of human being and a range of activities. He would say that, motivated by this ‘spirit’, that our ‘ancestors’, the lineage of souls we serve as we move through time, are mechanical monsters. I am very inclined to see through the poetic image to a certain truth: the war-machine ‘thinking of always war’, and these industrial-plutocratic systems which have perverted ‘our republic’ and which, also perversely, demand our allegiance.

    I have often mentioned the world of E Michael Jones (especially his ‘Slaughter of Cities’) in order to gain a picture of *what happened* and what happens when a plutocratic clique asserts itself and ‘socially engineers’ a culture. Part of that analysis will, I submit, result in gaining a clearer picture of ‘what happened to us’ and why. We all look for, and we certainly need, a meta-political perspective, yet we all seem to cobble it together differently. We all seek a ‘critical perspective’ but each perspective, at least as I see things, is partial and incomplete. For example if you ask those who write on this blog to ‘name the problem that confronts the United States’ you will certainly get a reply. It is worthwhile, even a little fun, to attempt to encapsulate it. It is basically that

    America offers a platform for all races and peoples and that, legally and constitutionally, the platform for the good life has been established. Its a ‘done deal’ as they say. All the legal and Constitutional protections have been established. The previous errors (racism, racist policy, et cetera) have been overcome and rectified. Now, take advantage of what has been attained for you and for all people. Create, live, excel, but do not become an activist against the system that has given all this.

    Conservatism here is defined as holding to this statement. Radicalism as deviating from it. The ‘conservative’ complains that people are not playing by the established rules, that is the equalizing system of laws which have been established at considerable cost. But they also define a conservatism which is actually a form of American Radicalism: that is to say the vision that ‘all men are created equal’ and that the American experiment, certainly a radical one, is a worthy one.

    I believe you when you say that you are ‘color-blind’ and that you live/lived out of that value. So then, what has gone wrong? Why is there now arising a radical and undermining movement which, I would suggest hysterically, is taking possession of people and funcioning like a social contagion? What is really going on there? What is desired? What do they wish to achieve? Where is all this going?

    I am interested in this:

    “There are consequences for supporting a radical movement that is determined to redefine your culture, marriage, gender, and ultimately, the First Amendment.”

    First, one has to recognize radicalism. I mean that radicalism has to be compared to some other state of mind and being. It posits a polarity. And what would that be? That is why (I suggest) it is very difficult to get a handle on what American Conservatism is. There is really not such a thing as American Conservatism, at least in a certain sense, because America originated as a ‘radical project’. In order to give energy back to American Conservatism, American Conservatism has to be willing to examine far more right-leaning roots. Indeed those of radical traditionalism.

    It also (that is the American Republic) has gone through definite transformative phases which require some analysis. Some have written of the various Republics that have arisen in America, like First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, et cetera. I think this is a fruitful way of looking at things. I think we are in a radical phase within a Late American Republic where the idea of the Republic has become intensely ‘infected’ with radical Marxian ideas, except that these are not so much thought as felt. That is they have taken on their own radical movement, have gained a sort of visceral-emotional momentum and there is nothing that can act to stop them. One also has to take into consideration that the present Rebulic (the term Deep State is useful) is run by plutocrats and is hardly ‘democratic’ in any meaningful sense of the word!

    The conservative desires a return to a sensible and agreed-upon ‘civic nationalism’. But there is another movement which sees political and social Balkanization as a necessary step. What that means in effect, and it is difficult, strange and dangerous, is a kind of undoing of what has been created in the postwar era. A reversal. Indeed it could even become more serious and result in actual political separations.

    So, here you have some ideas that pertain to ‘gaining a meta-political perspective’ and a position from an elevation in order to be able to *see* what is going on. I think this is one of the best things we can do: make an attempt to describe the situation and then our relationship to it.

    • William J. Majewski

      Greetings,

      I’m very new to this forum. Though I find this forum to be quite entertaining. I do not posses the verbiage that most of you that I’ve read posses. For that I humbly apologize. Please bear with me, as I’m simple and of common folk stock.

      Trent, I completely agree with you, for exactley the same reasons. Though I’d fall a bit short on the nuke ideation. I certainly wouldn’t mind the San Andreas fault consuming all of San Francisco, L.A. et al. And personally as a former paratrooper from “America’s Guard of Honor”, I am simply out of tolerance for anyone slightly left of my position. And agree that perhaps it is time for the bell to have its toll. With that said, after a glorious civil unrest and leftist purged, I’d rather enjoy a new conservative view of the Pacific Ocean and the great weather there, without the troublesome burden of decontaminating the place.

      To the left. You’ve created this nest of tribalism. You may have to defend your position. Fingerprints, play-do, and safe spaces aren’t going to work much longer. You’ve bantered people with you isms and phobias. Eventually those do become fighting words.

      Dare I say, some of us bible clutchers do have skills other than grammar.

      With due respect.
      J.

      • Chris

        Trent, I completely agree with you, for exactley the same reasons. Though I’d fall a bit short on the nuke ideation. I certainly wouldn’t mind the San Andreas fault consuming all of San Francisco, L.A. et al. And personally as a former paratrooper from “America’s Guard of Honor”, I am simply out of tolerance for anyone slightly left of my position. And agree that perhaps it is time for the bell to have its toll. With that said, after a glorious civil unrest and leftist purged, I’d rather enjoy a new conservative view of the Pacific Ocean and the great weather there, without the troublesome burden of decontaminating the place.

        You are disgusting.

        I still don’t want you to die, though.

        • William J. Majewski

          Chris said

          “You are disgusting”

          Perhaps I am. Though I’d certainly agree that I am disgusted. The leftist have chosen identity politics, that is self evident. While my argument is extreme. I dare to say. The left’s is far more extreme and dangerous.

          While I’ve read that the modern times reflect closely to the history of third Reich and Hitler. I can also draw a parallel where the left’s identity politics and cultural Marxism reflect closely to the rise of Stalin and communism. Perhaps the left should shelve some of their extreme nonsense. Leftist loose, they always have, just how many people suffer while they try to create their utopia.

          Chris, I don’t wish you dead either. I’d prefer you to be right.

          Respectfully,
          J.

          • Chris writes: “You are disgusting”

            William J Majewski responds: “Perhaps I am. Though I’d certainly agree that I am disgusted. The leftist have chosen identity politics, that is self evident. While my argument is extreme. I dare to say. The left’s is far more extreme and dangerous.”

            The ‘real and present danger’ in our present is not the threat of a leftist coup or putsch but rather that the State, the American state, has largely already been ‘infliltrated’ by constellations of power which seem to be quite comfortable with a socialistic, left-oriented, operative system.

            The Left seems to exert great control, and various clusters of power within the nation —- say industry, and certainly the academic world, but also Hollywood and the media-systems —- seem largely allied with this amalgamation of state power, industrial power that operates through ‘progressive ideology’. This is in fact the System we are living in now. We are the *subjects* of it.

            The revelations about the NSA and the frightening level of government survelliance, and the rising demand in our present for a silencing of idea and opinion which turn against the general social, governmental and industrial orientation, and their projects,and toward a species of progressivism which is now expressed in a T-Mobile ad (the one of the babies) —- all this done in the name of and in service to ‘the good’ —- this indicates not an approaching threat but a real menace that now has power and is using its power. It seems to me that with each passing day we get to see, that is if we have ‘eyes to see’, that we live already in the dangerous world we feared.

            I wish to suggest that if we are to understand our present, what is happening today, we need to trace things back in time. It is not quite right to say the Left is the author of the present conflict, or the present deviations, when (I propose) that we need to carry things back to the American Civil War. What I mean is that ‘identity politcs’ began substantially at that time. But what else I mean is that one Section of the United States took it upon itself to crush another Section, to decimate it, to render it no longer a viable opponent, and through this movement give tremendous power to the governmental power of the industrial North. That Power in relatively short order consolidated itself economically and militarily and soon afterward began its notorious neo-imperial projects which, rather obviously, have not stopped and continue right up till today.

            I suggest that this consolidation of power and energy into a National government, and an industrial and war-power, marked the end of one Republic and the beginning of another Rebublic. The destruction of the South was, if I am correct, the destruction not only of a rival economic power that controlled access to the Misssissippi, but the destruction of an ‘identity’ more closely linked to the original Republic. In this sense then I am describing an ‘identity battle’, or perhaps a sort of national schizophrenia, or a war between two identities sharing the same physical body.

            I wish to propose that if we are going to speak of ‘identity politics’ we have to hold to this identity-battle and, I further suggest, that this battle has not ended. Rather it is the continuation of the battle and the identity struggle which mirrors the historical event I name and represents an ever-recurring octave.

            The northern power, like all powers I suppose, is a wily and clever but also cynical power. These men, these clusters of northern power, chose a path to achieve an unimaginable wealth and supremacy, and they did this through manipulation and chicanery. In just a few short decades after the Civil War the US launched on its neo-imperial projects and these, as I have said, were not in any sense in harmony with the principles of consitutional government. They represented in fact the beginning of the destruction, or the cynical tranformation, of those principles. You cannot invade and occupy other polities while still desiring to hold fast to high ideals of constitutional government.

            Thus, and I think obviously, you have to trick people and lie to people and deceive people in order to get them to assent to your projects. Which are not their projects.

            The original plan of the United States, I thought, was to allow for the existence of autonomous regions which could hold to their character and to their traditions and identity. Independent sections with autonomous governing power. But with the destruction through aggresive struggle of one Section by another Section, there began a transformative war to establish a national identity, and out of that arose ‘Americanism’. And with that Americanism ‘the tenets of the American civil religion’. But to create a national identity is in a real sense to destroy regional identities. Yet in order to create this national identity it is necessary to set various sections against themselves, and people against people. It is, I suggest. The national project that creates conflict between different identities

            Now, it seems to me, the Nation approaches an identity crisis. It is larger than mere individuals because it has to do with massive social and economic systems which have been constructed into a global system. And those larger social and economic and industrial systems have no real interest in the sovereignty of the individual, nor any concern about Republican values, nor even the Constitution. They likely do not really care about America. But they do seem to care a great deal about their mercantile system.

            It seems to me therefor that there is an on-going war. It is a top-down war carried on by and through these elite systems. I don’t know how else to express it. And it is the war to shape culture and economics to accomodate a global system which serves powers that are not really community or regional powers, and far less individual power, but vast systems of power which use PR and propaganda, cynically, to deceive people.

            The ‘Left’ in this sense is the reigning powers-that-be and whatever is the system that they control.

            Some of this (what I have attempted to describe) must be understood as the backdrop for ‘what is going on in our present’.

  9. Well done Chris Marschner!

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 )

w

Connecting to %s

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