Saturday Ethics Warm-Up, 11/16/2019: Plan T?

Great. I’m sick again.

It’s psychological, I’m sure of it. I dread the Whitewaters of Life period from November 17 through New Years, encompassing the anxiety of Thanksgiving, the anniversary of my father’s perverse decision to kick-off on my birthday, the annual 10-hour prickle-fest of decorating an eight-foot live tree to meet family traditions, maneuvering around the Christmas season while trying to make it special and feeling deep inside that those days are long gone, struggling with the rotten timing of wanting to spend without penny-pinching on thrilling loved ones while one’s own small ethics business is at its cash-flow nadir, and fighting off the ghosts of more carefree times with the missing, including my dad and especially my mother, who was a Christmas fanatic, and now Rugby, whose trick of sniffing out his presents and unwrapping them, and only them, with typical elan was always a Christmas morning highlight. This year, I have the extra burden of not one but two multi-day ethics road trips, one to carry musical ethics down the metaphorical chimney in Las Vegas, and to by car to New Jersey, where Paul Morella, alias Clarence Darrow, and I have two dates. Both trips are guaranteed to leave me feeling like I have been run over by a reindeer.


Shut up, Perry.

1. Plan T watch. Note that the ethics Alarms home page finally has a link directly to the growing list of 19 attempted removal plans that have been launched to various degrees by the Democratic Party/ “resistance”/mainstream media soft coup alliance against President Trump. This version is slightly revised, including a reference to a consist statement of what is going on that echoes what I have written, but is nicely turned: “Donald Trump daring to serve as President is itself impeachable.”


Meanwhile, Plan T might be imminent. The tortured logic of Plan S, the basis of the current inquiry, is convincing no one, in part because the average American doesn’t know impeachment from a pear tree, and mostly because Plan S is dishonest and bats. To their shame if they had any, the impeachment mob has been  polling and using focus groups to determine which accusation will stick.

The Washington Post reports  that Democrats are easing out the term ‘quid pro quo,’ instead using “bribery” as the favored term to describe Trump’s alleged impeachable conduct:

“The shift came after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee conducted focus groups in key House battlegrounds in recent weeks, testing messages related to impeachment. Among the questions put to participants was whether ‘quid pro quo,’ ‘extortion’ or ‘bribery’ was a more compelling description of Trump’s conduct. According to two people familiar with the results, which circulated among Democrats this week, the focus groups found ‘bribery’ to be most damning.”

Great idea, except that what occurred can’t credibly be described as bribery, and if it was, every time the government or a President linked cooperation with U.S. goals to foreign aid, weapons sales, or other benefits, that was “bribery” too.

I think they should poll on “cannibalism.”

2. There must be something unethical about this representation, but nobody appears to have flagged it. The ABA Journal tells the weird saga of Frank Carson of Modesto, California, who sought dismissal of the charges  against his client, former California Highway Patrol officer Walter Wells. Wells was also his co-defendant before Carson was found not-guilty of murder.  Prosecutors had alleged Carson , the lawyer, was the ringleader of a conspiracy including Wells to kill  Korey Kauffman, whom Carson believed to have stolen scrap metal and scrap from Carson’s property. A Modesto Bee editorial called Carson  a prominent defense attorney “who dared to oppose [the district attorney’s] underlings in court, too often with an irritating smirk and smug arrogance, and then had the audacity to run against her in 2014.”

Usually a lawyer would be banned from such a representation because he would be a necessary witness in his own client’s case.

3.  Res Ipsa Loquitur Corner. From yesterday’s impeachment hearing…

Rep. Chris Stewart : “Do you have any information regarding POTUS accepting bribes?”

Former Ambassador Yovanovitch:  No.

Rep. Chris Stewart : Do you have any evidence of any criminal activity from POTUS?”

Former Ambassador Yovanovitch: No.

 4. Return to Plan H! Plan H on the list is “Tweeting stupid stuff is impeachable.” While the bitter ex-ambassador was whining under oath, President Trump couldn’t restrain himself from tweeting,

Stipulated, this is idiotic, petty, and self-destructive. Anyone who calls it “witness tampering,” or “witness intimidation,” however, is making an ass out of himself or herself.

5.  More from “The Best People” files. The New York Times headline is “Before Joining White House, Stephen Miller Pushed White Nationalist Theories,” and a more convoluted mess of disreputable participants it would be hard to find in a news story, beginning with the Times, which refers here and in other articles to the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center as a “watchdog.” That is false: the SPLC long ago morphed into an untrustworthy, McCarthy-style partisan hit group that tars organizations good and bad as “hate groups” to raise money and intimidate opposition.

Miller, now an influential White House advisor, arguably has enough email skeletons in his closet to put on a Halloween spectacular. 900 messages  Miller sent to Breitbart News from March 2015 to June 2016 show Miller passing along material he found on at least one website that espouses white nationalist viewpoints, including fringe theories that people of color are trying to engage in “white genocide.” The SPLC says it will turn the emails into a series to prove how how  Miller brought anti-immigrant beliefs to the White House and turned them into policy.

Here is the list of people and entities that are untrustworthy here:

  • Miller, who certainly hangs out with some fanatics and has been careless about his coziness with white nationalists.

The President would be well-served by finding advisors with less questionable public positions. That goals isn’t helped by the Axis of Unethical Conduct  making sure that anyone agreeing to join the President’s team is likely to be harassed, smeared and possible indicted.

  • SPLC, for all the usual reasons.

Like a cornered animal, it is fighting hard to maintain its influence despite having to fire its founder and having its abusive methods exposed.

  •  Katie McHugh, a fired editor at the extreme right wing website Breitbartwho leaked the emails but now says that she said she renounces far-right views.

No, I don’t trust anyone who has such a mid-career ideological conversion, be it David Brock or Dennis Miller.

  • The Times, which in the article describes show that Mr. Miller tried to shape news coverage with The law center’s investigation, which the group says it will turn into a series, seeks to illustrate how Mr. Miller brought anti-immigrant beliefs to the White House and turned them into policy. Among the exchanges it cites as showing Miller’s white nationalist sympathies was one from June 2015 in which Miller appeared concerned about the removal of Confederate merchandise from e-commerce websites like Amazon as a reaction to the Charleston church shooting by Dylann Roof.

Gee, that’s funny—I expressed the exact same concern here when the National Park Service started censoring images of the Confederate flag as well as Confederate merchandise as a foolish over-reaction to a killer who flaunted them. I don’t think I’m a white nationalist, but I’m sure the SPLC would be happy to brand me as one for daring to criticize it.

  • The White House, which resorted to ad hominem tactics,  dismissing the report because it said the SPLC is “a far-left smear organization.” Of course it is, but the emails are the emails whether they are revealed by “a far-left smear organization.” or the American Red Cross.


Sources (#5): Fox News, New York Times

39 thoughts on “Saturday Ethics Warm-Up, 11/16/2019: Plan T?

  1. I can see why this might be a touchy season for you, but Perry was never the top holiday draw, even at his peak. He was a singer who was a craftsman and worked hard and rehearsed more even for his balliwick of the holiday music in his later years. He was always third after Bing and Frank, but had a lot of hits ballads to novelty outside the enduring “Ave Maria” that have been lost the the era between the height of Big Band and the domination of Rock.

    I wish more of the newer Christmas singles worked half as hard on making their music a clean performance, their professionalism, and exemplifying the ideals of the season. No one person, who’s played so rarely even on holiday channels as older music is replaced with unintelligible lyrics as well as bad behavior “holiday” songs. At least scapegoat things that damaged your enjoyment, not an admirable performer.

  2. RE: Stephen Miller

    Classifying the many emails as hate by hate watch is to me a bit of a stretch. I read through most and found that if these statements qualify as hate then so too would be many writings of Black, Hispanic, LGBT, and other advocacy group activists.

    Many of the threads discuss policy issues that have been discussed here. One that stood out was the SLPC condemnation of Miller calling the poem on the Statue of Liberty a public policy myth. That is hardly a hateful syatement; it is fact.

    The white replacement theory is often a staple here via Aliza. Such ideas may be wrong but being incorrect does not make them anymore hateful than going through life believing white oppression is the reason for minority problems. Further, calling attention to the lack of progress in minority communities by non- minorities when it exposes the many broken promises made by the constuent’s elected leadership is also not hateful.

    I have no idea if Stephen Miller is any better or worse than Van Jones, Eric Holder, Michael Bloomberg or any of those in Schiff’s parade of patriots If it is an indictment of character to hold ideas that advocate for one’s race when that race is in the majority but not if one is a minority then diversity of thought cannot occur. People like Stephen Miller have as much right to be included in public policy formation as were/are the likes of Van Jones, the wise Latina Soteomeyor, and other purveyors of ethnocentric perspectives.

    The leaker, Mchugh , was said to have been terminated by Breitbart after posting anti-Muslim tweets. That seems odd if Breitbart is an Alt-right anti- Muslim publication.

    • I didn’t bother to read the emails—the examples were plenty to know that as usual, the SPLC’s definition of hate was broad enough to cover anyone right of BLM, and and that the Times was inclined to go along.

      • I read through the published threads to be sure that I was not going to defend the indefensible. As I thought, the article finds any white ethnocentric ideas as belonging to racist white nationalists. If the tables were turned and all writings of those advocating for advancing their own ethno/gender specific goals were deemed racist or misandristic they too would feel being treated unfairly.

        The ironic thing about the SLPC is that it believes that portraying people and ideas they disagree with as hateful as righteous as they engage in hateful ridicule of the opposition instead of offering an alternative perspective.

        The SPLC stock and trade is in ad hominem attacks.

        Note: I referenced Aliza in the original post. I want to be clear, I think she is wrong about white replacement theory but that does not mean I know that I am correct.

    • Chris M. Writes:

      The white replacement theory is often a staple here via Aliza. Such ideas may be wrong but being incorrect does not make them anymore hateful than going through life believing white oppression is the reason for minority problems. Further, calling attention to the lack of progress in minority communities by non-minorities when it exposes the many broken promises made by the constuent’s elected leadership is also not hateful.

      The position I have here — one that I have selected and honed but also one given to me as a kind of acceptance of dysfunction — has become to continue to insist that there are things to be looked at and talked about that are kept in a repressed state. My first response to what you said about the idea being wrong is simple: in 1965 Whites comprised 90% of the American demographic. Now they comprise less that 65%. And it is predicted that in a few years more Whites will no longer be the ‘supermajority’ of the American demographic. Now, if you tell me that Whites are not in fact being replaced, I will want to ask some direct questions about how your perception-system works.

      What amazes me is the degree to which so many whose ideas I read seem so *mystified*! Mystification is a term that means to be under a spell. Or to be confused about essential things and to the degree that one must force erroneous perception on others through insistence that what they see — what they see right in front of them! — is not actually happening. You are involved in and you seem to be committed to a kind of doublethink. Officially, yes I agree, 2 + 2 = 5. But privately, and within the walls of my own cranium, I can at least begin to whisper the truth to myself.

      Multiculturalism is a social experiment imposed by international elites on unwilling nations. That experiment has failed. Diversity is not a source of strength, but of alienation, hatred, and violence. But even those problems pale before the fact that the white race in all its historical homelands is on the road to biological extinction—unless there is radical political change.

      That quote there is by someone who writes on Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance. And it indicates, in my view, that when given the opportunity to engage in bona fide argumentation, and with the true facts of the case, we win every argument. So, let us put out on the table what is really going on here, and separate it from the *myths & lies borne out of mystification*.

      1) Multiculturalism is indeed a social experiment imposed on unwilling populations. Check!

      2) The experiment has failed, or better stated that it is in the process of failing. The *failure* is obvious to *anyone with two eyes to see*. (Now that is an interesting way to put it because it means that you can *look* but fail to *see*; that you can describe surface but fail to understand depth; and that one can ‘insist’ against the actual truth of things that what is happening is not happening! That is the definition, too, of ‘spiritual blindness’ but also of objective obstinacy). Check!

      3) ‘Diversity’ is certainly not strength. The term ‘diversity’ and the way that it is used is a coercive term designed expressly to trick, confuse, coerce and to mystify. It is an *imposition* and describes exactly what is meant with the reference to ‘elites’ who impose their social policy on the unwilling. Check!

      4) Now, let us examine the sources of ‘alienation, hatred, and violence’. First let us admit that they exist. And then let us begin to ask why they are so prevalent. At this point *you* just can’t go along now can you? The inner territory, that sticky non-truth territory that you’d have to cross to get to the possibility of being able to state the facts & the truth . . . is simply too sticky. And it is there that you reveal your commitment to un-truth, and there is the link to acceptance, at an ideological level, of the general Progressive narrative. Check!

      5) If you needed an example about the problem of being ‘on the road to biological extinction’ I present to you modern Sweden. Now, modern Sweden because of top-down policies by the ‘elites’ I mentioned is 1/5 immigrant and there are severe social problems as a result of this. Therefore ‘alienation, hatred and violence’. When you take a nation of 9 million people and introduce 1.5 million (or thereabout) immigrants from the Middle East (i.e. non-Swedes) you will quickly find out that ‘diversity is not our strength’ but is part of the process of being replaced. Check!

      Though I think it more wise to see it as ‘displacement’: what is yours is seen as not being yours. And *someone* contrives to take it from you. That is the basis of the Marxian plot, that is if I am seeing correctly. You see, in a Multi-cultural nation you do not have a right to your identity as the creator of that Nation. You have been supplanted by a new twist of ideology. The Nation no longer serves you — the ones who created it and the purpose of which was to serve you — the nation now has an abstract existence, and the people who are brought into it are just cogs or cells that can be switched, mixed and matched to create a Walmart Culture. You have a right to purchase goods in those aisles, but you do not have a right to say that it is *your* nation! I went over this — in detail — in a thread with Monsieur Humble Talons, the intellectual terror of French Canada! There, I utterly slaughtered him and I think he is still there, a mass of noodle-like ribbons, crying for maman.

      As I said: given the chance to engage in fair argument in the setting where fair argument can take place, *we* devastate *you*. This is so upsetting to *you* that *we* must be silenced. And that describes, in a ‘nut-shell’, what is now happening all around us. There is the *key* to make sense of it.

      Now, the connection to Miller and Bannon is that there are people in this world, and they are numerous, who are beginning to think things though with greater commitment to intellectual uprightness than the predominant dispensation allows. This is simply a fact. Bannon is definitely one of those. Miller is one to a degree. And these people have a) a public persona that they must present, publicly, and b) an inner, intellectual world of their genuine perception which — obviously — must be kept hidden. But as you move more to the fringe of those duplicitous persons (duplicitous by necessity) you very quickly find yourself among people who will state the truth. So, there is definitely a connection: a gradient.

      • Aliza, my rationale for thinking white replacement theory is wrong is that while whites are becoming a smaller demographic segment if any replacement is occurring it is because of our own choosing.

        It can be argued that such choices are not true choices because of the myriad external influences affecting our decisions. However, to accept that argument would require whites to be less critical thinkers than other demographic groups. Were all those other groups not subject to all those white western cultural influences for years? How did they escape the mysticism?

        I will not argue that western cultural standards are being supplanted by others who may have not proven themselves capable of developing working governmental democratic systems. Many rely on the concept of might makes right or that cheating is to be expected.

        I suppose my point is that I care less about what race someone is than I do about whether the new entrant’s ideals are an anethema to our own in which they infect our society in a manner that breeds disharmony, corruption and violence. Having a white Russian oligarch immigrate to the US is not necessarily better than a Savadoran refugee.

          • I suggest that this is where your own position is weak only because you choose not to look more deeply into the issue. To do so requires an investment of time and energy.

            But the more important thing is to (respectfully of course!) examine and think about the predicates on which your position and opinion (and it is an opinion) is based. That is what my angle is. It is a position that has a ‘casual history’ and that causal history can be examined.

            It is a misnomer to reduce the issue of vast social and cultural shift to ‘color shade’. It is infinitely more than that, and the use of such a term is obfuscatory.

            But this then circles back around to the need to examine the issues that are being brought out now with more seriousness. This means reading what has been written and considering it. It starts in America with Madison Grant … and is carried forward to the discourse of Bannon & Miller who, as you have noted, read & consider the discourse of Jared Taylor et al.

            • I don’t need to research further to know that culture matters, while color and race should not and do not, except to those trapped in a prehistoric mindset. The Invasion of the Body Snatchers made the point nicely in the 1950s—someone can look exactly like me, and not be anything like me at all. The culture of this nation is built on individualism, not group identity; when the culture is strong and healthy, individuals will be guided by it whatever their color, and whatever culture they came from.

              • The culture of this nation is now in a decadent cycle where the effects of an imposed ‘multi-culturalism’, in combination with numerous other factors, dissolves the integrity of that culture.

                You say ‘should not’ and ‘do not’ and each has to be considered separately. To say ‘should’ implies that when people do care, or when they notice the negative effects of imposed contact, that they are morally defective. They should not feel the way they do in fact feel. They should not have an issue when in fact they do have an issue. Here, the ‘moral shaming’ begins and you indicate the blame-aspect with a reference to ‘prehistoric mindset’.

                I assert, and *we* assert, that every people naturally desires to be among their own, be it at the level of a community or neighborhood, or in the composition of a city or a state/nation. It is not correct to say — it does not jive with ‘reality’ to say — that people who do feel better among their own are of a prehistorical mindset. One only has to refer to the extreme examples to note that tension and alienation increase when unalike people are forced to share a space. That is of course why civil conflict arises, and one need only refer to the most dramatic examples to illustrate this.

                The culture of this nation was built by people who saw with crystal clarity that it required a person like them to make that nation, and to maintain it. I think that they recognized that it required people who were generally united and similar — perhaps in all the senses that could be named — in order for the overall design of the nation — its larger objectives perhaps — to be able to function and to continue to function. It is quite probable that those who brought the nation into being had ideas more similar to those I express here than to the novel idea that you express and are committed to.

                I think you are significantly wrong if you deny ‘group identity’ in favor of an identity that has an abstract or idealistic grounding. I would not say that idealistic grounding does not have cohesive potential, it does, but neither would I say that the more tangible and commonly recognized identity features are not similarly important.

                If the object — in any community and nation — is to be ‘strong and healthy’ then it seems to me, and here I again will say *to us*, that a whole range of factors needs to be considered as valid when one realistically considers a national project and national cohesion.

                This is why I regard your general stance as lacking or as ‘weak’. But the better word is perhaps ill-informed or incomplete. And I think it has surely become clear by now that I — and we — tend to make an interpretation about the breakdown in national social cohesion that, obviously, runs counter to the interpretation that you favor. I think the core of your idea about nationshood is based in the Lincolnian proposition and therefore a Propositional Nation in many other senses.

                I am sure though, from our side of the fence, that we understand that a nation and a people come to exist and come to be strong & healthy, because there is a harmony of many other and related factors. Therefore, I would not deny what you propose and what most seems to motivate you, I would amend it and expand it.

          • Exactly, we could apply the one drop rule and any white blood makes them white and therefore the the whites will grow as a percentage.

        • Alizia, my rationale for thinking white replacement theory is wrong is that while whites are becoming a smaller demographic segment if any replacement is occurring it is because of our own choosing.

          By definition it was not by ‘our own choosing’ but because of definitive shift in policy dated 1965. I want to draw to your attention that in that series of interviews done by Frontline if many of the figures who have played a part in the election of Trump and his president’s administration, that some of these people have spoke directly of the 1965 Hart-Celler Immigration Reform Act:

          The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 also known as the Hart–Celler Act, is a federal law passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law abolished the National Origins Formula, which had been the basis of U.S. immigration policy since the 1920s.

          Now, when these facts of history are examined, various people, with various orientations, come to different interpretations of why and how this happened, and if indeed it was *good* for the nation, or not. I wish to suggest that the range of ideas — speculations, interpretations — is very wide. When people look around and try to interpret the events of their world, and try to assign agency to *who* has done thus-and-such to them, their community, their life and their world, they seek to assign agency. Yet they do not know, because of their limited perspective(s) how to carry this out. So, there is on one pole ‘paranoid phantasy’ … and on the other pole ‘rational discourse’ based on clear-headed analysis.

          Presently, if you happen to be one who opines that it might not or was not a good thing, you will be ‘cast into the outer darkness’. If you happen to distribute information on this topic — say if you have a YouTube channel and suppose that you have it monetized or if you sell merch that requires a payment-system like Visa — you will have your YouTube channel shut down and you will no longer be able to process payments.

          Now, what is the *meaning* of this? This is what interests me: a) the essential meaning of this shift, and b) how it is that people either support it and justify it (i.e. are ‘complicit’ with it), or who seek to oppose it by holding to and defining another possibility and posture.

          But this goes further, much further. Because if you start to ask question about what is going on, what has happened, in your world in one area, it leads to questions about and examination in a wider range.

          And that ‘larger range’ is DEFINITELY NOT ALLOWED. It is crimethink. Now, whether it is wrongthink or rightthink — that has yet to be decided! 🙂

          • Exactly, we could apply the one drop rule and any white blood makes them white and therefore the the whites will grow as a percentage.

            • Exactly, we could apply the one drop rule and any white blood makes them white and therefore the the whites will grow as a percentage.

              You are doing and you will continue to do everything in your power to stop yourself from seeing, in fair and accurate terms, what the real question is, and what its ramifications are. I have to point out to you, Chris, that *we* (the more pointed Dissident Right) sees you, sees what you do, and notices that your idea-structures as idea-structures are weak and caved-in: you do not serve conservative purposes, because you can conceive of nothing substantial to be conserved, and therefore, in the end, your views are servants of Progressive Liberalism. This is my essential point: simply to point this out so that it can be seen.

              But, if you have ‘conservative tendencies’ — and you share this with Jack — it is to certain abstract principles. This seems admirable, on the face, but my view is that when one investigates it and probes it more thoroughly on discovers that it is a *weak* position. It does not have strength and solidity because it is falsely-predicated. And all that I write, and all my counter-propositions and couner-predicates, attempt to a) expose the weak foundation of your predicates and b) attempt to reestablish proper and strong predicates.

              We are in ideological battle-zones, this much is clear. But for *us* the game has become a bit more serious. Because our ideas are being battled by the State which has a defined interest in the *ideology of the status-quo*.

              You sort of have a bit of a taste of this when you cannot post an Ethics Alarm link on FaceBook, or in Jack’s case when the normal traffic he would normally receive is reduced a great deal by AI processes. But you have not really been hurt yet. Why do I bring this up? Only to clarify that we are in the midst of ideological wars.

              Therefore: the examination of predicates — the more thorough examination of them, even when it *hurts* — is a necessary activity. Therefore: I am not immoral nor unethical in my fundamental intentions by continuing to *push*.

          • Aliza, tell me again how all those non-white immigrants back in 1965 forced the white majority to passed the immigration law abandoning national origin. That was a choice! Further, by that time, the U.S. became less necessary as a place for European to escape. You can blame George Marshall for making Europe rise from the ashes of desolation caused by a war just 20 years earlier.

            Had it not been for famines and other persecutions within Europe in the mid 19th century we have no idea what the color of this nation might be.

            If you want to argue that western history, ideals, values etc are at risk by all means go for it but to equate race with preferred values is unprovable no matter how many writers you cite. None, and I mean none of those writers can scientifically prove that race A is superior to race B simply due to their racial origin.

            • I wrote: “The culture of this nation is now in a decadent cycle where the effects of an imposed ‘multi-culturalism’, in combination with numerous other factors, dissolves the integrity of that culture.”

              In any case, you have a sense of what my thinking is on this matter. I don’t have anything further to say having already said it . . .

            • I think Alizia, in a very broad sense, uses “race” to designate a (general) marker, rather than a determinant. If so, she may be more right than wrong in many cases, and possibly more in line with what Jack means when he refers to “…when the culture is strong and healthy.” than he realizes. That’s why I once asked the seemingly contradictory question of whether she thought a black person could be a white European. Of course, I’m generally too lazy to parse, with any great precision, much of what she writes, so not at all certain of this 😉

              • If I refer to *race* I do so, for one reason, because it is a *forbidden topic* and I have a natural attraction to forbidden topics. Put very simply, my recent interlocutors Chris and Jack cannot and do not think in any depth about the issue. Both have reasons why they can’t, and both persons, and their reasons, I respect. (But: these are forbidden zones of thought.)

                I try to bring out more into the open the *forbidden topics*. I do get something out of it, and this is one reason why I do it. When I am confronted by people who deal in sheer fallacy, or who won’t allow the topic to come out in the open for conversation, it shows me how *we* contribute to and are complicit with the regimes-of-thought that control and direct us. Exposing complicity is one of my focuses.

                Anyone who bothers to read what I write — there must be one or two! — understands that a great deal of what I (try to) do is to dismantle predicates, and to see how they came to be. I do at times get very frustrated that *many people* will not even allow the conversation to be develop (dynamic silence is the term for the laden silences that follow…) but then I get over it and resolve to go forward.

                Despite how people take what I write — the ideas I present or the *forbidden topics* that I broach (by intellectual necessity) which terrifies them and alarms them (for which the term *Hitler Youth* gets applied!) — my own position is that America as a nation would be wise to try to recover its white demographic supermajority position. Is that so very radical? Moreover what I am pointing out is that it should not ever have been lost or surrendered. And that it did so because of ethical and moral failures, not because it *did good*. That is a radical proposition I guess. It inverts and *transvalues* an asserted value: the value that undergirds the Multi-Cultural Project. How *that* happened is the topic of my interest.

                Any conversation that I will have and any time I am given a chance to explain my (*our*) views will always result in discomfiting controversy. I propose that there are a whole range of forbidden topic, forbidden because we exist under a regime-of-thought (even as we label ourselves ‘free’), but that these are the topics that must be talked about. If we can’t I think we will lose precisely that thing which we most value. What is that *thing*? Well, that’s the question. The *thing* is the capacity to value in specific ways, which means to see the world accurately, not through false, imposing, ideological lenses.

                Now, that I do this on a forum dedicated to the discussion of Ethics: is this wrong? I know that I am allowed and am tolerated and this is appreciated. But the real question is: Is what I (we) do ethical or is it not ethical?

                That’s why I once asked the seemingly contradictory question of whether she thought a black person could be a white European.

                The question is improperly couched it seems to me. Let us try it differently: Can the multitude of Algerians who practice a different religious faith who now live in France ever become *European* and French? Or what about the entire Muslim population of England? What about the Somali population in Minnesota that, if the videos and the photographs are an indicator, are carrying forward religious imperatives and *cultural mission* which (again if the visuals are accurate and if I read them correctly) have nothing at all to do with ‘America’ and ‘American Traditions’? What about the 1.5 Million (this is the number I have read) of North African or Middle Eastern immigrants that now are establishing their communities in Sweden (a nation of 9 million)?

                You do — I hope — clearly see, with no great problem of perception or interpretation, where I am going with this. Can you see what is right in front of your eyes? is still the essential question for me.

          • “Presently, if you happen to be one who opines that it might not or was not a good thing, you will be ‘cast into the outer darkness’. A very medieval situation. Only those with nothing to lose (or willing to risk a loss) can even dare a little poking around the edges of heresy. Some are partially immune by reason of being removed from the necessity of employment or reliance on the support from particular types of social acceptance. The internet and social media have at least driven into hiding, if not diminished, the heretics.

  3. “the impeachment mob has been pllong and using focus groups”


    “Miller, who certainly hands out with some fanatics”

    What was he handing out?

  4. #1 Now that someone in the main stream media complex has started mentioning bribery I expect it to go viral, take flight across the US and go nation wide. Why are they shifting their rhetoric; because quid pro quo is not in the Constitution as a reason to impeach a sitting President but bribery is. Sneaky Democrats.

    I’ve been hearing this rhetorical shift of quid pro quo to bribery from friends for a couple of weeks.

    • After I thought more about this “rhetorical shift” phrase I’ve been using for a week or so, I think it’s more than that. The Democrats are dragging the goalposts from the playing field into the back forty parking lot.

      • Doesn’t promising specific benefits like free college, or $ 1000 / month basic income or free daycare constitute a bribe in exchange for their vote?

        The Democrats are simply projecting their own behavior once again.

    • Here’s Althouse, who also wrote about this yesterday, I just discovered:

      If the focus group found “bribery” the strongest word, I suspect it was because the definition they had in their head was a narrow one, in which some private citizen hands the accused politician X amount of dollars in exchange for a specific act of government power. If you change the definition of the word so that the accused politician is the one paying the money — and the money is the government’s money — and the recipient is another government — which is supposed to do something with its governmental power — then you’re not talking about the same thing the people were thinking about when they were asked about the word.

      People may continue to think bribery is terrible, but the central question becomes is this bribery? The risk is, once you’ve said it’s a question of bribery, you’re focusing us on the definition of bribery, and when it looks like you’re trying to stretch the definition so it fits whatever it is Trump did, it seems dishonest. I mean, look at Schiff, selling his expansive definition of “bribery”:

      “Well, bribery, first of all, as the Founders understood bribery, it was not as we understand it in law today. It was much broader. It connoted the breach of the public trust in a way where you’re offering official acts for some personal or political reason, not in the nation’s interest….”

      Seen in that light, is there anything politicians do that is not bribery?

      The answer to Ann’s question is “No.”

      • I’m truly wondering if the progressives are actively trying to portray everything President Trump has ever done and therefore everything the government has ever done as being the equivalent to “evil” so they can get the people up in arms to bring the whole damn thing down. The only way the progressives can push the pendulum that’s they’ve shoved left and is dangling over the extreme left precipice into totalitarianism is to get the people to want to destroy the government as it currently is. What the extreme political left is doing is dangerous.

  5. The cross-examination of the weeping ex-ambassador certainly demonstrated that she, like all of the other witnesses so far, had no first-hand knowledge of anything related to the investigation and than even the hearsay that she was testifying about didn’t evidence any crimes by the President. But did any of the Republicans ask these questions:

    Q. Are you aware that when you were ambassador, the chief prosecutor of Ukraine stated several times publicly that he possessed evidence that Ukrainians had colluded with high-level Democrats to interfere in the 2016 election and that Joe Biden had interfered with a criminal investigation of corruption at a firm that was paying hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to his son?

    Q. When you heard that the prosecutor had made these statements, do you undertake any investigation to determine if they were true?

    Q. Are you aware that the prosecutor stated that he had tried to come to the United States to present his evidence to American criminal investigators but that you personally had prevented him from doing so?

    If the Republicans didn’t ask these questions, why on earth not?

      • Of course they’re relevant.

        Question 1 demonstrates that Trump was fully justified in asking the president of the Ukraine to find out whether the prosecutor actually possessed any such evidence. Those are exactly the two things that Trump asked him to investigate.

        Questions 2 and 3 demonstrate that Trump was fully justified in firing the ambassador, since she not only failed to investigate whether there was any truth to the prosecutor’s statements but also acted affirmatively to prevent him from presenting his evidence to proper authorities in the United States.

        • #1: He doesn’t have to be “justified” in anyone’s judgment but his own. Asking the question concede’s the validity of the AUC’s false “impeachment for policy” canard.
          #2: Nor does a President have to ever have justify firing an ambassador, which is entirely in his power to do. Same thing.

      • And even if the questions hadn’t been relevant, none of the questions that the Democrats have asked have been relevant either. The Democrats are treating this as an open-air forum to smear Trump on every pretense under the son. The Republicans are answering by focusing on legalisms. That is a doomed strategy. If they want to win, they need to take their limited opportunities to air their case against the Democrats. They need to change the dialogue from “Wasn’t it awful of Trump to ask the Ukrainians to investigate?” to “Wasn’t it awful of the Democrats to collude with foreign interference in the election?” and “Wasn’t it awful of Joe Biden to take bribes indirectly through his son?”

  6. It’s Trump making you sick! Yeah, that’s it, it has to be Trump, because it’s well known that every bad thing that has happened in the world for the last 3 years is his fault.

    Isn’t it lucky we have good, honest people like Hilary and Elizabeth Warren to bring us the occasional good thing that happens in this horrible, miserable world.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.