Unethical Quote Of The Week, And Incompetent Elected Official: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

“My testosterone sometimes makes me want to feel like punching [Trump], which would be bad for this elderly, out-of-shape man that he is if I did that — a physically weak specimen.”

U.S. Senator—yes, that’s Senator, not “junior high locker room blow-hard”—Cory Booker, on “Late Night with Seth Meyers.”

How statesmanlike and dignified. How elevating to the public discourse. How respectful to our institutions. What a fine example of civility to pass on to the young. How substantive and intellectually edifying. And what a factually ridiculous assertion: Trump’s energy at 70+ is remarkable, as the seven day a week regimen of any President would floor many a younger man.

Booker might be able to beat up several of the women running against him for Congress, as well as ancient Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. I’m surprised he is boasting about that. It’s pretty much the extent of his claim to be any better candidates than they are, and they’re nothing to cheer about.

What a stunning dimwit this man is, to think that pandering to Seth Myers’ foolish audience by spewing ad hominem insults and posing as some kind of warrior by saying what he would like to do but never would [Blogger Jim Treacher: “Let’s take a moment to imagine any Republican going on national TV and saying something like this about a Democratic POTUS. And let’s take another moment to contemplate the amusing idea of Cory Booker possessing testosterone….”] enhances his status as a worthy candidate for the Presidency.

He’s not even an honorable member of the Senate.

42 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week, And Incompetent Elected Official: Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ)

  1. Since Trump is President and has an armed security detail, Senator Booker would be bringing a mouth to a gunfight.

  2. I mean…. Did we expect anything different?

    Booker is unhinged. I know I say that a lot, but usually it’s in jest, and I just want to be clear: I’m not being facetious here; I believe that Cory Booker is mentally unwell. He has that same… Intense way of diving headfirst into bullshit as Michael Avenatti (although, thinking about it, it might be the hair…I kid.). I share the opinion that Booker doesn’t have two iotas of testosterone to rub together, so I don’t think he’ll actually ever throw a punch, but if this is the craziest thing he says this election cycle, I’ll eat my shoes.

    This *should* be campaign kryptonite. I think this is worse than the Dean Scream by miles… But I don’t think this will peel off any of his, admittedly low, base of support. The Democrats today remind me of Republicans in 2016. You can think they’re wrong, but I think they’re so pissed off by Trump that they’ll accept this kind of behavior, just like Republicans were so pissed off by Obama, and then Hillary, that they held their noses for Trump.

    Which is a problem. I don’t think that some of the people actively cheer-leading Trump’s rhetoric have much room to lament the state of American discourse, just going to put that out there. So when Democrats break new ground… And I have every reason to think they’ll continue, and all of a sudden the people who’ve been standing up for Trump realize that, holy shit, they have principles, and this offends them, well… it just sounds tribal. As cathartic as it may be, I don’t think that changes any minds either.

    • I don’t think that some of the people actively cheer-leading Trump’s rhetoric have much room to lament the state of American discourse, just going to put that out there.

      The tribalism of non-Democrats was very much a response to the lock-step, principle-free disregard-for-fair-play of Democrats. It was a defensive tribalism for the sake of survival that coalesced naturally against a tyrannical tribalism de jure which had jammed its extrapolitical will into the faces of people with moral character for the sake of punishing them for their moral character.

      A proud centrist like Jack, a throne-and-altar integrist like me, any of the numerous Texan full-blooded red state Republicans, and a dispossessed former progressive like, I’ve taken, you – though there are others to choose from if I have that wrong- in times of political peace and mutual respect would have little to nothing to do with each other. We’re only in these trenches at all because transhumanist freaks banded together and took the seat of power by brainwashing our children and disregarding all decency.

      Indeed! Consider Obama’s placing critical reporters under government surveillance, the active deception involved in the passing that healthcare albatross, its being used to persecute organizations with non-conformist moral decency, its mendacious court defense penned by Supreme Court justices themselves, the weaponization of the IRS and FBI against political opponents, and on and on. Disparate factions have united under a single banner to vanquish a common enemy. The only tribe is that of the very same enemy. If the president elected by those factions so recently hunted by the government which is law-bound instead to protect them uses the rhetoric of a wartime president, one can hardly be surprised. A crucial moment in any man’s life is learning that, at certain times, criticism is well-deserved. When scofflaws raises by wolves (or, worse, public schooling) won’t hear criticism for criminal acts against the populace, something more potent is in order – following naturally and necessarily from the time and circumstances. My criticism of Trump, setting aside his lack of a polished bearing, is that he’s too polite. We’ve arrived at the state in which an order of nuns has to appear in court for not purchasing contraceptives. The idea that we’re not uprooting the last century of legal chicanery and tossing it into the fire along with everyone standing in the way is an offense I have to bear with grace daily as I go on acting like this is a polite society. What demons walk among us as we go about pretending not to see them? And we’re critical of someone for saying so?

      For these reasons among many more, I’m resistant to the idea that the rhetoric or “tribalism” of Republicans somehow justifies furtherance of the indecent, villainous politics which birthed it. It is the natural and necessary response to the conspiracy of evils threatening the existence of everyone else. Further tribalism by that evil conspiracy is not called-for, and wasn’t ever called-for to begin with. Its natural right is to recede into the past labeled as another mindless attempt by 20th century nihilists to overthrow the pursuit of the good by decent, faithful men. I will not endure ideas to the contrary silently.

      The construction of these quick and effective but logically unsound feedback loops has been a staple of nihilist movements for centuries. I’m not sure still if your intention was to use it or cite your certainty that it will be used. Regardless, there it stood on the countryside where any halfwit child or childish halfwit could happen upon it and be scandalized by the power of evil. The solemn knightly vows of my sainted noble ancestors rang loud in my ears. I strapped on a lot of rusted kitchenware, took up my broomstick sharpened to a point (the full measure of my inheritance), and slew the beast with my banner held high and a song in my heart.

      <Deus vult! I’m just putting that out there.

      • COTD worthy… this has been a theme I have harped about for years now. If the lawbreaker goes unpunished, there will be more of the same… and good people perish.

      • “and a dispossessed former progressive like, I’ve taken, you”

        Canadian conservative. Conservatism in Canada means something very different than it does in America, even though the two are related. I appreciate a lot of what American conservatism stands for, I just think that sometimes I would be hard pressed to imagine a worse way to go about it.

        Flowery language aside, I appreciate your comment, but it was kind of a non-sequitur to what I wrote, and deeply flawed. To recap: I said that Democrats were being tribal, and in response Republicans became tribal, and had therefore forfeited the moral ground to bitch about tribalism.

        My understanding of what you’ve said is that Republican Tribalism was a Response to Democratic tribalism, and being a response means that they can still push back on Democratic tribalism. I think. You weren’t particularly clear… You seemed to agree with me that both sides were tribal, and the order in which they became tribal, then produced a laundry list of Tribal things that Democrats have done, only to follow it up with “For these reasons among many more, I’m resistant to the idea that the rhetoric or “tribalism” of Republicans somehow justifies furtherance of the indecent, villainous politics which birthed it.”

        I don’t know how that is anything other than a self-reinforcing bias trap. “Our tribalism is different, so we absolutely have the ability to bitch when they get more tribal” is both weak and ineffective, because using history as our guide, I have no reason to think that the response to an increase in Democratic tribalism would be anything other than a proportionate, or even disproportionate, increase in Republican tribalism. I don’t know if there’s a plan here. I don’t think the participants are self-aware enough to realize they’re holding a mirror up to eachother in an effort to showcase how bad the other is, so I’m left assuming this is just a giant pile of raw-nerve emotion. I mean, you called it, you just didn’t self-apply it:

        “The construction of these quick and effective but logically unsound feedback loops has been a staple of nihilist movements for centuries.”

        It’s funny, I think, that you compare yourself to a knight while displaying a complete lack of awareness… Making Quixote proud, I suppose…. Take this for example:

        “The idea that we’re not uprooting the last century of legal chicanery and tossing it into the fire along with everyone standing in the way is an offense I have to bear with grace daily as I go on acting like this is a polite society. What demons walk among us as we go about pretending not to see them? And we’re critical of someone for saying so?”

        Those people… They’re wrong. They’re obviously wrong, They’re insanely wrong. Time after time after time, but instead of criticizing it, you emulate it. Instead of resisting it, you treat it like the new norm and perfect it. There’s a difference, and it isn’t flattering to you. You become your own demons and lament the increase of demonic influence, to use your own allusions. I would love it, just once, if instead of sling-shotting ourselves into the lead position in the race to the bottom of the barrel, we let democrats crash and burn on their own.

        • This is interesting. The contrast between American and Canadian Conservatism. I had not thought about it till now. Here is one of the first attempts at a distinctive definition I found on-line:

          Canadians, on the whole, are more pragmatic and less dogmatic. Most of us are centrists that vote by candidate and not by party. We like pendulum swings that keep us close to the middle.

          Canadians are much less politically engaged. We generally trust that the people running for office are reasonably competent. Federal elections are short and uneventful affairs. Media coverage is minimal and uncontroversial (except for the pseudo-partisan newspapers, but few take them seriously). We don’t amplify the voices of our politicians beyond what it necessary.

          The whole spectrum is shifted left in Canada. Our conservatives are fairly progressive by most standards. We all want a balance of socialism and libertarianism. We want our government to provide universal health-care and a strong safety-net, but we reject the idea of the government having much say over our private lives. We don’t begrudge taxes, provided that the money is spent prudently. We’re ok with regulations that serve a greater good, but prefer them enforced sensibly and with a soft hand. I live in possibly the most conservative region in Canada, and most here would identify as moderates (using the US scale) on all issues except business regulation. Most actually feel slightly uncomfortable about how conservative Harper is (hence his limited mandate for most of his tenure). There just wasn’t a viable Liberal candidate that offered a credible alternative.

          Conservatism isn’t married to evangelicalism in Canada. Most evangelicals are conservatives, but in a much more subdued way. It would be somewhat rare for someone within a church to publicly declare which party they voted for, and direct church support of a party or candidate would be frowned upon strongly. (There are exceptions in some small, rural communities, but they’re strongly in the numerical minority.) You’ll find a sizeable minority of evangelicals on the liberal side (though often with measured reservations on social issues like abortion and gay marriage). When they speak about liberalism, they’ll typically restrict their criticisms to those limited subjects. The number of people that would identify with the “hard right” is rapidly dwindling as the post-evangelical wave continues.

          • The myth that conservatism is “married to evangelicalism” is a lazy slur by progressives, who mostly don’t believe in God so the whole ideology can be dismissed as based on mythology. It isn’t. Conservative political philosophy is no more religion-based than liberalism.

            • This list of books might interest you. I thought it was quite interesting. Only a couple have I read. I have one quibble with you though, and that is that if conservatism comes out of political philosophy, and if the political theorist is philosophically trained, then there must be some basic metaphysical grounding for the defined conservatism. Richard Weaver — said to be a ‘real conservative’ — grounds his political philosophy in Platonism. Thus: the conservative may not be religious as a Christian is religious, but he is referring to the stuff that underpins a (true) religious outlook: structural definitions about what life is and why. All conservatism has a philosophical and thus a metaphysical base.

              The question is: does liberalism and ‘hyper-liberalism?’ And if so, what is its metaphysics?

              Top Ten Conservative Books 1924-1954

        • Ah, I wasn’t terribly clear, was I? It’s hard to compose a manifesto before work.

          I opposed the use of “tribalism” to describe American Republicans, but only implicitly. I should have declared that clearly at some point. It’s formed into a loose affiliation of otherwise disaffected parties. It’s not a tribe at all. This being the case, I have no lack of moral high ground at all in criticizing a nakedly self-serving, abusive tribe for its tribalism.

          Without this premise, the thrust of your thesis is nullified. Treating people who abandoned the foundational legal precepts in making laws which criminalized things which deserve laud as though they have done just that is not in any way similar to being just like them. Such actions deserve active opposition. Playing the fold-our-hands-and-hope-everyone-sees-how-mean-they-are game while they continue unabated to brainwash the masses with slanted media and education is the tactic by which we arrived at this point. Passivity is inaction, tautologically.

          • I don’t think you’re describing reality. Whether you decide deep down that Republicans aren’t actively tribal doesn’t nullify the reality of their tribal reactions… Let’s take a step back and go to something a little less controversial and raw:

            “Treating people who abandoned the foundational legal precepts in making laws which criminalized things which deserve laud as though they have done just that is not in any way similar to being just like them.”

            When Harry Reid first used the Nuclear Option in the senate, republicans were angry, Mitch McConnell stood up and said that it set a horrible precedent, that Democrats did not want to go down this path. Warnings were made, sabers were rattled, and the moment… Literally the moment Cocaine Mitch got a senate majority, he started pushing that big red button like it was actively giving him orgasms to do so. Democrats did something shitty, Republicans took that, and perfected the shittiness, and blamed the Democrats for opening the door…. This has the benefit of being true, but I’ll eat my underwear if the next time Democrats have a senate majority they don’t use the nuclear option, or when they do the Republicans won’t be crying about it.

            It is absolutely tribal, and it is absolutely tribal is a responsive way, but at no point do I see a reasonable course to return to what was normalcy. This is the new normal, and it is shit.

            • Yes, it IS the new normal.

              I agree that it is , er, deplorable, yet there is no other way to stop the Democrats from doing these things without showing them how they will pay for their crime. They have to be either held accountable, or punished.

              This is an existential issue for the right. Playing nice has not worked. Time to spit on our hands, hoist the Jolly Roger, and start slitting throats.

              • I think this is closer to reality, but short sighted. Right now it feels like “be assholes” is working because a Republican is in office. Eventually a Democrat is going to be in office, and we’ll get to see in real time how they take “be assholes” and run with it.

                • You really believe that bridge is not long crossed, burned and the river diverted?

                  They were already being as bad as they could get away with. Every inch being stretched into miles.

                  What could possess you to think that if we only stay nice, they will respond in kind… eventually?

                  We ‘stayed nice’ for the first 5 decades of my LIFE, with no result but being taken advantage of by those without principle or ethics.

                  This is a shit show, no doubt, and it will get uglier before it gets better. That is a fact. Wishing it away won’t make it better.

                  • I don’t know what you think you’re responding to, but it’s not me.

                    It’s…. Frustrating. The rolling theme of my last few comment interactions here is that I think that Republicans are sinking to the level of Democrats. No one seems to deny this. No, what I hear is “Yeah, but…” “It’s the right thing to do in these circumstances,” “it’s necessary,” “it’s effective,” or “they were asking for it.” Any or all of which might be true, but none of which is a rebuttal to what I’ve said: Things that you held as principles just four years ago, you are willing to cast aside, set on fire, and salt for good measure, all in the pursuit of political power. You know who else I say that about?

                    But when I say that, you take offense, even while agreeing with the functionality of what I’m saying. It’s like you’re simultaneously ceding the moral argument, and defending having ceded the moral argument, but take great offense at being told you’ve ceded the moral argument. I don’t know what to make of it.

                    • A serious question: HT; Isn’t it inevitable, if the tribalism obsessed, group identity committed Left makes it clear that it intends to denigrate, marginalize, and promote prejudice and bias against such groups as males, whites, the devout, the patriotic, etc., etc, for those groups to organize, circle the wagons, and behave exactly as the “oppressed” tribes did at the point where they were being persecuted or made the victim of prejudice? Not only isn’t it inevitable, but reasonable? As I’ve pointed out here before, a major fork in my career road came when I lost an Asst. US attorney job that I had been told was almost certainly mine because of an affirmative action quota. OK, I wasn’t bitter—I had other interests and options. But at some point, not every white male is going to be so undersatnding, and some might say, “Screw this, I’m organizing.” Then that becomes a racist movement? I don’t think so.

                    • All of that is possibly, even probably, true, but that’s not really the thrust of my argument.

                      I’ve never said that this wasn’t the right thing to do, or denied the efficacy of it, but I think that we need to take a step back and realized that principles are being sacrificed. That if we want to argue that we’re in a rough and tumble fight for survival and that the ends justify the means, then at the very least perhaps we shouldn’t pretend like we aren’t forsaking a lot of what we previously stood for.

                      I don’t like this kabuki theater where everyone pretends that this is business as normal, as if we weren’t part of the polarization problem, or the tribalism problem, as if we weren’t accepting what was previously unacceptable or defending what was previously indefensible.

                      We are in a bad place right now, and if you want to argue that’s necessary, I won’t push back against that too hard, but let’s not bury our heads in the sand and pretend it’s good.

                    • It’s never good when race and ethnicity are used as the basis for policy of any kind. But the nation accepted it for utilitarian reasons, and now have allowed that precedent to falsely justify legal bias, discrimination and persecution. Fact: that is either accepted, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, what are the options? Much ethics involves choosing the least unethical alternative.

                    • Let me be clearer, HT.

                      Things that you held as principles just four years ago, you are willing to cast aside, set on fire, and salt for good measure, all in the pursuit of political power.

                      Exactly. This is a survival situation. Ethics are not a suicide pact. Reread about ethics during war.

                      You know who else I say that about?

                      Yup. Irrelevant comment.

                      But when I say that, you take offense…

                      No offense on my part, at all. Simply stating the facts.

                      …even while agreeing with the functionality of what I’m saying.

                      Because you are right.

                      It’s like you’re simultaneously ceding the moral argument, and defending having ceded the moral argument, but take great offense at being told you’ve ceded the moral argument. I don’t know what to make of it.

                      Again, we are into what makes morality work. Letting your way of life, your livelihood, and your very life be taken is immoral. Full stop. No moral code I have ever heard of requires this. We have an innate right to defend ourselves.

                      The progressives have broken civil society. Now they will reap the whirlwind. We are JUST in reacting this way, HT. Your ivory tower principals and ethics matter little if my lily white kids are taken from me, and/or murdered before my eyes.

                      And that is where socialism always ends.

                    • I think we, collectively, represent four different groups labeled with one label. I agree with much of what Jack and Slickwilly say, and disagree with certain nuances. My only disagreement with you is nuanced as well. I would not support unjust prosecution of Democrats. That would be sinking to their level. Full-throated rhetoric to the effect that they have abandoned the principles of our republic isn’t. To turn one’s rhetoric on people who’ve turned their guns (by prosecution – this is martial force) on the innocent cannot, even to the coarsest degree, become equivalent. I advocate something more severe, more just, because it would clearly and correctly label that evil as being what it is. No demon advocates for proportionate justice.

                    • I think this article agrees with what you are saying HT… it is a valid point.

                      the partisan interpretation of the standard creates an incentive for opponents to violate their own commitment to the standard. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma: The person who actually abides by a common moral standard and speaks out against bad behavior on all sides ends up the sucker. Only a fool would call out his own side to the cheers of opponents while his opponents defend their own degenerates.

                      https://www.dailywire.com/news/49860/shapiro-why-left-reconsidering-al-franken-ben-shapiro?utm_source=shapironewsletter-ae&utm_medium=email&utm_content=072519-news&utm_campaign=modelnames

                      The rest of the article is good, but this section I have partially quoted sums up my understanding of our discussion. You are right. We also have little choice.

                      The position we are in is not ideal, but we can choose to be destroyed or make our persecutors understand we will not go quietly into the good night.

                  • SW,
                    I am reminded of “those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who still have their swords.”

        • Canadian conservative. Conservatism in Canada means something very different than it does in America, even though the two are related. I appreciate a lot of what American conservatism stands for, I just think that sometimes I would be hard pressed to imagine a worse way to go about it.

          This is also interesting. I think that Canada must have an advantaged and fortunate position because it does not run an empire as does the US. There is a terrible conflict between the republican core values, which could be said to be glorious, and how profoundly these are affected and challenged by a nation-state that has neo-imperial dominions and interests to manage.

          What does American conservatism ‘stand for’? Does American Conservatism stand for the state, the region, the municipality, the upstanding individual, and the Constitution?

          Or, is the American conservative an apologist for economic enterprises that have become global and, in some ways at least, a subverted of Constitution?

          Two very different strains of focus.

          American Neo-Conservatism . . . really is a very different and a substantially dangerous and untrustworthy variation on ‘proper conservatism’ in my view.

          These differences must be distinguished.

          Is there even a Canadian neo-conservatism? I doubt it . . . for obvious reasons.

        • Canadian conservative. Conservatism in Canada means something very different than it does in America, even though the two are related. I appreciate a lot of what American conservatism stands for, I just think that sometimes I would be hard pressed to imagine a worse way to go about it.

          In fact — based on my research and reading the discourse of dissident right-leaning Canadians, Canadian *conservatism* is a far more extreme version of non-conservative, right-of-center liberalism, caught in the current of general Progressivism. From what I have read the Canadian immigration policies, and the intense policing of political ideas and discourse, and the marginalization of those who think and see differently, is more advanced in Canada. The ‘liberal establishment’ is possibly even more entrenched than the American variety. So, if there are Canadian Conservatives it would be interesting to examine their platform of ideas.

          I have read Humble Talent’s posts for some years now and I can find nothing in any one of them that expresses ‘conservatism’ in the true sense of the word. In the Orwellian sense of the word, yes, I suppose that HT might be considered conservative.

          Flowery language aside, I appreciate your comment, but it was kind of a non-sequitur to what I wrote, and deeply flawed. To recap: I said that Democrats were being tribal, and in response Republicans became tribal, and had therefore forfeited the moral ground to bitch about tribalism.

          I am very interested when people reveal what they imagine is ‘flawed’ and ‘wrong’. I start from a general premise that no one has any real idea about what is ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or ‘flawed’, or are deeply confused about these categories, for the simple reason that we live in intellectual environments that are ruled and determined by politically correct-dominated thinking. That is, we cannot really think freely about the important topics. There are gate-keepers and guards who patrol all thought and when they, like antibodies, encounter a wrongthought they attack it and envelop it and smother it. Fact.

          If one begins from this premise, and if one begins to communicate with others from that premise, one quickly notices from the reaction one gets — guilt-slinging and shutting-down — that our thinking (speaking in society-wide terms, even universally) is highly constrained.

          Just like in the US, as well as Europe, one only has to turn one’s attention to the university: the thought-forming and thought-controlling institution. I submit an interesting — though 50 minute long — discussion between two dissident Canadian academics who speak of the high (ridiculously high) level of thought-control and idea-control operative in Canadian universities. It is worth watching if you wish to gain a sense of the developing oppositional counter-current to the sickness of liberal idea-control. The New Right and the developing Right work within the realm of ideas not sickly, ill-formed emotions.

          My understanding of what you’ve said is that Republican Tribalism was a Response to Democratic tribalism, and being a response means that they can still push back on Democratic tribalism. I think. You weren’t particularly clear… You seemed to agree with me that both sides were tribal, and the order in which they became tribal, then produced a laundry list of Tribal things that Democrats have done, only to follow it up with “For these reasons among many more, I’m resistant to the idea that the rhetoric or “tribalism” of Republicans somehow justifies furtherance of the indecent, villainous politics which birthed it.”

          The word ‘tribalism’ should arouse suspicion. These are trick words and laden words that are used as substitutes for clear exposition. By inserting this *naughty* term it immediately closes down the sort of thought and analysis needed to understand what is really going on and why. So, ‘tribalism’ is made a bad thing and is labeled as such, but as a result no more thought needs to be expended. I suggest that this is an example of lazy thinking, not critical and strong thinking, and it demonstrates how so-called *conservatives* get infected with the emotionalism common (more common) on the political progressive-left. This is what they do all the time.

          So, what is the opposite and the desired polarity to this ‘tribalism’? Hmmmm? To condemn tribalism means that the one who is *tribal* cannot think about his or her own interests in a frank and honorable way and those who do are ‘immoral’ and condemnable. That is the way this word and other *naughty* words like it are used. When you examine them, they reveal a great deal of ideological undercurrent. And I propose that it requires *proper conservatism* if that is defined as rigorous intellectualism to break into the term and expose it.

          In both Canada and the US there is an active on-going process of dispossession of the original demographics of each country. The root of many different problems and conflicts are found in this. My assertion is that the larger part of social problems arise from these dispossessing trends, but that no one wishes to point this out because to do so, in this present, is to commit thoughtcrime.

          I don’t know how that is anything other than a self-reinforcing bias trap. “Our tribalism is different, so we absolutely have the ability to bitch when they get more tribal” is both weak and ineffective, because using history as our guide, I have no reason to think that the response to an increase in Democratic tribalism would be anything other than a proportionate, or even disproportionate, increase in Republican tribalism. I don’t know if there’s a plan here. I don’t think the participants are self-aware enough to realize they’re holding a mirror up to each other in an effort to showcase how bad the other is, so I’m left assuming this is just a giant pile of raw-nerve emotion.

          Notice that you are now stuck within your own ‘faulty premise’. Which is to say that you are stuck within a self-reinforcing bias trap. It requires clarifying thought to sort through the muddle that you are steeped in, though I hope you will forgive me for stating it so boldly. We are duty-bound to do so though.

          Once one has gotten clear — as I think that we should and must — that a giant cultural engineering process has been perpetrated, and once one recognizes that its name is ‘dispossession’, then one can begin to face the ramifications of this process, start to see into what ideologies and powers have been working to bring it about and (note especially) that they have to inhibit or destroy people’s capacity to accurately assess their world and to make decisions about it. Thus they wind up in the same ‘muddle’ that you find yourself in and which you speak and reason from.

          The premises that you start from are in no sense of the word ‘conservative’ and they are largely Progressive and left-oriented. Now, with that said, what is happening in Canada is similar to what is happening in the US and in other Europe-derived countries and colonies: it is an ‘awakening’ which comes about because of existential threat. And the first ones to crawl out of the woodwork are, as is often the case, those who have been most deformed by these twisted, left-oriented, progressive-idealist policies.

          Those people… They’re wrong. They’re obviously wrong, They’re insanely wrong. Time after time after time, but instead of criticizing it, you emulate it. Instead of resisting it, you treat it like the new norm and perfect it. There’s a difference, and it isn’t flattering to you. You become your own demons and lament the increase of demonic influence, to use your own allusions. I would love it, just once, if instead of sling-shotting ourselves into the lead position in the race to the bottom of the barrel, we let democrats crash and burn on their own.

          Again, you are locked within the logics of your own faulty premise which you have elevated — obviously! — into a moral imperative. By bringing you feet down on the necks of those you now get exaggeratingly hysterical about (those horrifying Lefties!) what you actually are doing is showing yourself as an assistant to them and to the processes they serve because you cannot defend your own. You cannot even define your own. By negating the possibility, necessity and genuineness of identity as a moral imperative, you show that you have abandoned such for yourself.

          And this is the root of the problem, you see. You are a Progressive activist! But you do this under elaborate and complexly-constructed cloaks!

          It is not exactly true that minorities who advocate for their ‘identity-concerns’ are wrong or bad for doing so. People have the innate and sovereign right to be concerned for themselves, their people, their well-being, their growth and survival. The real effort is to see into and expose the fault premises on which multi-culturalism has been constructed, and the extremely destructive process of establishing dispossession as a norm. These connect with economic sytems that have been developed that require social indoctrination to succeed. To the degree that you participate, ideologically, in these processes you cannot be considered a ‘Conservative’ but rather as a right-leaning progressive just a wee bit to the right of the established center, which in Canada is open progressivism.

          The false-claims about *diversity* are absolutely false and Orwellian because this *diversity* actually destroys diversity. And the social conflict that arises from it destroys the possibility of social harmony. Just read your own paragraph. I suggest that when you deconstruct it you see that it is really a complex, and tainted, ideological position that is fundamentally reprehensible.

        • A definition of what *real conservatism* should understand and talk about:

          Words of Greg Johnson: “The purpose of Counter-Currents is to provide a forum for writers who are broadly compatible with the project of creating a New Right in North America, and by a New Right I mean a metapolitical approach to changing politics. We wish to change people’s ideas about identity and morality to lay the foundations for actual political change.

          The political order we envision is ethnonationalist. We want to create a white homeland in North America for people of European descent, and the reason for that is very simple. We don’t think that multiculturalism is working out very well for white people. We look around the world, and in every white society, birth rates are below replacement. There are many causes for this, but the principal cause, in our view, is that we’ve lost sovereign control of our homelands. There are no white societies that make the preservation of their people and our race as a whole a political priority. They’re chasing other dreams instead. And that has instituted really alarming demographic trends.

          Due to a culture of consumerism and selfishness, people are not reproducing. There are all kinds of economic and cultural incentives to not reproduce. There are also incentives to reproduce outside the race (miscegenation), and we’re finding that our living spaces are being invaded by non-whites who are highly fertile.

          So we’re losing control of our homelands, and we think that that has to be reversed both in Europe, where our race comes from, and also in the European colonial societies like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or places in South America like Argentina or Uruguay, which are still largely of European descent.”

      • A proud centrist like Jack, a throne-and-altar integrist like me, any of the numerous Texan full-blooded red state Republicans, and a dispossessed former progressive like, I’ve taken, you – though there are others to choose from if I have that wrong — in times of political peace and mutual respect would have little to nothing to do with each other. We’re only in these trenches at all because transhumanist freaks banded together and took the seat of power by brainwashing our children and disregarding all decency.

        As you have certainly noticed, and I am compelled to include almost like a ‘disclaimer’, I seem to rub everyone the wrong way. (Why Jack tolerates me I am not certain as I do represent an extreme within the sphere of political discourse, one that is held in suspicion by both political poles). I don’t really mean to irritate though. That ‘by the way’.

        But you bring out something here that interests me. Just what you say: if there were not a crisis of sorts upon us we would possibly have no reason to interact.

        (I use the ‘us’ in the sense that you mean it since it would be very inaccurate to include myself because, well, there is no one here who accepts the tenets of white nationalism or ‘reverse dispossession’ as I might call it. In fact I established myself as profoundly radical in the eyes of most way back when I first signed on here.)

        What I notice is that there is an attempt at ‘interpretation’ in what you write. That is what often mostly interests me: that we try to interpret, that we must interpret, that we strive to arrive at an interpretation that serves us. I got interested in this notion of *interpretation* through Frank Kermode’s essay on exegesis (The Genesis of Secrecy). My basic sense, the idea I work with most, is that we are all working with different, and often competing and incommensurate, interpretation-systems. I’d be curious to know what you think of this.

        Also, I did not understand “throne-and-altar integrist”. Integrationist? Or someone with (I gather Catholic) holistic vision of society?

        • I’d agree that interpretation is a key issue. Meaning and its pursuit are what distinguishes human existence from that of all other physical things. Something that clings to my interpretation of the problem of interpretation is a concept that comes up in debates with various Protestants: the distinction between exegesis and eisegesis. Determination of grand sociological meaning is an exercise which requires rigorous intellectual integrity, and those with an axe to grind have a way of forcing a desired interpretation into a dataset rather than using a dataset to arrive at valid interpretations. This, as I like to say, is what’s wrong with everything. Democracies die by this mechanism. Eventually, the majority starts to play the game in bad faith.

          Also, I did not understand “throne-and-altar integrist”.

          Yes, “Integrism” or “Integralism” is the political philosophy which sees Catholicism as the fundamental ingredient of all society. It’s been slandered as “fascist” to such a degree that people shied away from the term for a few decades (maybe I should be providing the disclaimers at the start of my posts). Feser had an article about it a few months back. There’s a definite resurgence of the term among the more reactionary Catholics.

          The idea that political laws ought to follow naturally from ultimate truths is an uncontroversial idea amongst the sane. I’ve always been an Integralist but had no knowledge of the term until a year or so ago. If generalized to the idea that laws must necessarily serve the good, without specific reference to Catholicism per se, everyone but the most wretched Positivists would be Integralist.

          • Yes, “Integrism” or “Integralism” is the political philosophy which sees Catholicism as the fundamental ingredient of all society. It’s been slandered as “fascist” to such a degree that people shied away from the term for a few decades (maybe I should be providing the disclaimers at the start of my posts). Feser had an article about it a few months back. There’s a definite resurgence of the term among the more reactionary Catholics.

            It has a Wiki page, and there is also a page on the Brasilian movement which, like many similar reactionary movements in Europe, in America and in South America, did have a rather ‘fashy’ element. And in Brasil now there is a manifestation of religious-inspired right-leaning conservatism. Not connected, but perhaps a similar manifestation?)

            My idea is that a spiritual discipline, if you really think about it, is a sort of self-imposed fascism or self-fascism to employ those colorful terms. It requires an ideology to give discipline and power to a spiritual or religious vision, and carrying this out demands sacrifice, commitment and a kind of ruthlessness toward the self. As I studied — it was not that much study, but some — the Interwar reactionary ideologies in Europe — they all seemed to have a religious root or base. And they all sensed that radical Marxism and Communism were the enemy. You would understand and perhaps appreciate Julius Evola who could only be described in such a way. A very interesting man.

            We seem to be in a similar phase now. The traditionalists and the conservatives on one side, holding to their various metaphysical mandates, and the radical progressives on the other pole holding to ideals and goals which often, in some degree, also derive from metaphysical predicates, or perhaps which separated from them relatively recently. But now it all seems so loopy and hard to sort through. People are going crazy and it is manifest everywhere.

            It is strange though: once things get too far out of control, too perverse, too extreme, too disconnected from the ‘sane social core’, it seems to require a crack-down. An intervention. Or, the individual her or himself reaches a ‘bottom’ and must then confront her or his own self, and this is always through strictness and discipline and ‘hard reasoning’.

            I think this might be the article you referenced.

            The essence is here:

            The relevance to Catholic integralism is this. Many people seem to think that the debate over integralism is a debate over whether religion, in general, ought to have an influence in politics, and it seems to me that the definition provided by The Josias might reinforce this impression. Many people also seem to think that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty abandoned the idea that religion should have any influence on politics. But all of that is incorrect. From the natural law point of view, and from the point of view of both traditional and post-Vatican II Catholic social doctrine, there is no question that natural theology and natural law must inform politics, whatever one says about specifically Catholic theology.

            That means that even a non-integralist Catholic could and should hold that at least a generic theism should be affirmed by the state and that government policy should be consistent with the principles of natural law. For these are matters of philosophy, not divine revelation. They can all be established by rational arguments that make no reference to scripture or the magisterium of the Church. You could be a purely philosophical theist – a Neoplatonist, say, or an Aristotelian, or a Leibnizian – who completely rejects the very idea of divine revelation, and still hold that the state ought to honor God, that abortion should be outlawed, and so on. The atheist state is contra naturam, not merely contrary to divine revelation.

            • I’ve thought a lot about this divide – where the battle lines are drawn. I think it comes down to the acceptance or rejection of the idea that there are natural laws (economic, moral, etc.). The Communist, at his most extreme, sees human nature and even mathematics as raw materials in an endless sandbox. The Integralist represents the absolute antithesis – a complete acceptance of the natural order as observable fact from which all meaning must be derived. A Communist can only be Communist by degree, though. A rejection of all nature leaves no room even for arbitrary meanings. There has to be something to be labeled incorrectly; even the incorrect label is something. It makes the battle lines seem totally arbitrary, then. Absolute Good is the Ground and Sustainer of all existence, but evil is shades of gray which approaches blackness only asymptotically. What makes a compromiser who accepts the fluidity of marital vows but not gender decide to switch sides? Why is one absurdity workaday while the next is beyond-the-pale? It’s only natural that vice wouldn’t make an ounce of philosophical sense, I suppose. Or, perhaps, the subject is acclimatized to a particular shade of gray, but looking at the continuing march into the darkening shade is too much like looking into the Abyss. But it remains, why stop there? Is each case a moral miracle?

              • Specters of Fascism

                When I first came to Ethics Alarms I expressed an interest in the reactionary movements of the Interwar Period in Europe. That is, pre-fascist ideology.

                One reason was because everyone — that is, many in the media and especially the NYTs (a specific NY intellectual establishment) — were comparing the reactionary populism of the day to Hitlerian fascism. So, they pulled out all the specters and goblins and symbols and those pre-fabricated narratives that are used to define people and certain moments and events.

                The second obvious reason is because notable figures — such as Richard Spencer who was strongly influenced by Jonathan Bowden (an English reactionary and Nietzschean, now dead) — had gained some ground in the so-called ‘national discourse’. It must be understood that Spencer, deliberately and consciously, took the role of mining in the forbidden zones of American reaction and in this sense into the *heart* of an intolerant, xenophobic (and they might be called today), nationalistic and indeed even somewhat jingoist Americanism. There is a whole group of ‘outcasts’ whose names cannot be mentioned who were of this sort: George Lincoln Rockwell, Revilo P. Oliver, William Luther Pierce, and of course David Duke and many other disreputable figures who now have their echoes in our present in the form of Spencer, Greg Johnson, Lana Lokteff and dozens — hundreds — of others.

                My contention is that these people must be 1) recognized, 2) understood, and 3) contextualized. My further contention is that it will not be possible to understand the phenomenon of Donald Trump if reactionary Americanism (for want of a better term) is not recognized and understood.

                One thing I notice as a primary salient feature of the day is that we seem not to allow ourselves to see *the full picture* and we end up referring to misleading labels and ‘narratives’ about, well, everything.

                An example would be a failure to see that the political and social figure of Donald Trump really does share features that had been found in historical fascist movements. And I do not mean to say this or to use the word ‘fascistic’ as a bad word necessarily. Fascism and the ideas that inform it (see the article I submitted, above) is as valid as any strain of political philosophy. What this means is that the strains of reactionary ideology have to be studied and understood, and additionally that we must stop approaching the world of ideas through pre-fabricated descriptions which always end up obscuring things, and certainly truth.

                That recognition about Trump and the present populism which is sweeping people along, and which is likely part of the process of mass movement psychology, could be placed right alongside the understanding that the present American Democratic Left is showing rather dramatically a strain of neo-fascism. All the evidence is there.

                But what is the purpose of pointing this out? Well, there is a purpose. One aspect is to indicate that we are in a descending and dangerously decadent cycle. It seems to me that this must be understood by all thinking people. This cannot be brushed aside. So I can say (if my assertion is true) that we must be suspicious of ‘power and power’s machinations’ as we see them unfold in this bizarre present.

                We all seem to recognize and to react against ‘degeneration’ and yet we all are well within the processes of degeneration. And within that degeneration-process, or out of it, arise reactions against it that see the need for radical solutions and radical action. This is certainly true of the Right — that is, the traditional or dissident right. But it is also true for the Progressive democratic Left. They are also ‘swept up’ in processes of reaction and social hysteria.

                A term I often refer to and think relevant is ‘desperation’. I would capitalize it to Desperation and would present it as a special term to define or explain the ideological chaos in our present. It has to do with the circumstance of when people lose their ground and their foundation in certainty; in confidence indeed in the *very platform* of existence. The ground is lost under their feet and they ‘drift’ without anchor. Anything can happen in such circumstances because desperate people are compelled to find their ground, to stake it out. In that atmosphere political and perhaps I could say metaphysical desperation takes hold of people. You see what I mean as does anyone reading. These are dangerous times. The reason I am critical of ‘Americanism’ and why I use the annoying term the Americanopolis is to indicate simply that we should not and we cannot trust the powers that surround us. They are more mechanisms now than they are conscious ideologies with social concerns. And we cannot trust — and should not trust — mechanisms.

                But if that is true, in what can we place trust? This leads to profound philosophical questions, to issues of interpretation and hermeneutics, and ultimately (in my view) into the very essence of metaphysical concerns.

    • Dammit! I just squandered the best opportunity I might ever have to use “fustigation” in a sentence that is contextually appropriate.

      -Jut

  3. The junior senator from NJ seems to have lost half his IQ since entering the Senate. There’s never been anyone so in love with the sound of his own voice, but that seems to generally be a prerequisite to be mayor of Newark, since Sharpe James also had a big mouth and Ras Baraka thinks so highly of himself that he felt the need to do a 2-minute reply to the SOTU, in which he swore that the Newark police would not “become modern day slave catchers” by working with ICE. Booker couldn’t even go up to his office in an elevator without telling (actually talking at) the ten or so people in it about an astronomical anomaly happening that day. I know, I was there. He loathed Chris Christie, but he never said he’d like to go down to Trenton and knock him on his fat ass (of course Christie would have probably told him to “bring it on”). He was pissed when the municipal council wouldn’t let him dissolve the Newark Water Department and create a new Municipal Utilities Authority with new borrowing and bond-issuing authority, and he threatened not to buy toilet paper for City Hall to make up the shortfall, but he never said he was going down to the council chambers to kick a few asses and bring them around to his way of thinking by force.

    Since he got into the Senate, he’s accomplished very little. Harry Reid was unimpressed with him and essentially said “we’ll get to you when we get to you. In the meantime, your desk is back there. No, no, further…further…yup right there closest to the door.” Then the Democrats lost the majority, then Trump got elected. Since then all he’s done is make a fool of himself in the Kavanaugh hearings and glower at the President like he wants to rush the dais and beat him up. Then again, political turncoat, former porn writer and two-time divorce’ turned one-term former Senator Jim Webb wanted to attack GWB for having the temerity to dare ask him how his son was doing. GWB was weak sauce enough to allow Webb to set up a private talk between himself, his son, and the president to bury the hatchet. I’d have told him not only would I not grant the meeting, but that as long as I was president he not only wasn’t welcome in the White House, he was BARRED and not allowed to speak to me or any of my staff on the phone, maybe punctuated by telling him “fuck you, fuck your son, and fuck the horse you both rode in on.” So there is a precedent for Democrats threatening to fight those they don’t agree with. Then again, occasionally they might run into someone like Greg Gianforte, who body-slammed an annoying reporter, or Michael Grimm, who might throw someone over a balcony. It’s dangerous to start down the path of threats and violence, because you never know whether the other guy might not just decide to go for you first.

    • “The junior senator from NJ seems to have lost half his IQ since entering the Senate. There’s never been anyone so in love with the sound of his own voice”

      To be fair, Booker was always crazy, he’s just had more opportunity to show it. And no one loves Jim Acosta the way Jim Acosta loves Jim Acosta, find someone in your life that looks at you the way that Jim Acosta looks in the mirror and you’ll be happy for life.

  4. The would be thug Cory Booker whose current poll rating is down there with Beto O’Rourke really needs some mandatory anger management training. Perhaps he could attend some classes while working on his Spanish.

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.