This column has often drawn attention to the ignorance of our supposedly educated classes. A remarkable instance of the phenomenon was provided by Tim Kaine, J.D., Harvard, in his speech on the day following the defeat of his campaign for vice president. The performance was elaborately worked up, loaded with dreadful foreboding (about Republicans), light-hearted optimism (about Democrats), and a heavy-footed quest for applause lines that suggested he had already formed seven Voluntary Committees for his own attempt to seize the White House.
Kaine, who had trouble getting even 75 people at rallies during the climax of this year’s campaign, obviously needed some way to work up emotions about himself. He chose the Happy Warrior, Chin Up, We Won After All approach:
I’ll just say this: Hillary and I know well the wisdom and the words of William Faulkner, he said, “They kilt us, but they ain’t whupped us yet.” They kilt us, but they ain’t whupped us yet.
Because we know that the work remains. We know that the dreams of empowering families and children remain. And in that work, that important work that we have to do as a nation, it is so comforting, even in a tough time, to know that Hillary Clinton is somebody who, until her very last breath, is going to be battling for the values that make this nation great and the values we care so deeply about.
Everything is wrong about that — and wrong in a way that anyone of any intelligence should be able to see.
What in the hell would it mean to “empower” children? Or “families,” for that matter? Who in the world pictures Hillary Clinton as a battler for “values”? And by the way, what exactly are those values that Kaine believes are implicit in our nation? I’m sure there are some — tell us what they are.
. . . . .
One is that the Times is still one of the nation’s most dependable sources of bad writing. Look at the first sentence:
When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.
Turned on a dime? What Harvard seminar teaches you to write like that? Probably all of them, but this is no excuse. There doesn’t need to be a New York Times Book of Clichés; the content appears in every issue. But let’s follow up on this particular cliché. Turned on a dime — from what? From bad reporting and bad writing? No, no; that’s impossible. The Times never could have published anything it had to turn away from, and in fact, nothing of the kind is mentioned. What we are supposed to picture is the Times turning on a dime and also doing what it had done for nearly two years. I give up; I can’t picture that.
I also give up on what it means to report the news with creativity, unless it means making stuff up, a charge that the Times always haughtily ignores.
. . . . .
The Times was not alone in its unmerited self-esteem; the ability to criticize oneself was in remarkably short supply almost everywhere this year. Republicans seemed incapable of reflecting on the huge majority that Trump might have had if he’d hesitated to make an absolute fool of himself on countless occasions.
Democrats could not really imagine that anyone not a bigot or a dumbass tool of bigots could possibly have voted for Trump. In this delicate moral situation, I find the Republicans less guilty than the Democrats, who not only refused to consider their own failures but violently projected them onto others.
. . . . .
The entertainment personalities who vowed to combat the haters by moving out of the country — they were funny.
I’m not sure they were funny because, as someone aptly remarked, they all promised to move to Canada, Australia, and other such places, never manifesting their anti-racism by contemplating a move to Mexico.
But it was hilarious to find such deep thinkers as TV actress Lena Dunham denouncing people who noticed that promisers like her weren’t keeping their promises.
. . . . .
I cancelled today’s meeting with the failing @nytimes when the terms and conditions of the meeting were changed at the last moment. Not nice
This bluntness is refreshing.
Who else would say “the failing @nytimes” as if it were the formal name of the publication?
Or add the childish “Not nice,” which somehow manages to suggest that it’s the Times, not Trump, that is childish? That’s an effective combination, but it’s hard to say why. As an analyst, you have to do more work on Trump than you do on Clinton, who was never an effective communicator in any way.
So what had happened? Surprisingly, Fox News commentator Monica Crowley got it right. “This,” she said, “is a revolt of the unprotected class against the protected.”
Her comment is worth thinking about, particularly by libertarians upset about Gary Johnson’s poor showing. (But what else can you expect, when you choose a presidential candidate who is a nice guy, nothing less and nothing more, and a VP candidate who campaigns for the Democratic nominee?) It is a very libertarian comment.
Libertarians have always maintained that there are two classes: those who are advantaged by government and those who are not. The ones advantaged are a protected class, and will demand further protection.
They range from the crony capitalists who fund Democratic foundations and campaigns, to persons who are taught they have a “right” to welfare, to children of prosperous families who think they have a “right” to a free college education, to “refugees” who cannot be kicked out of the country no matter what they do, to the multitude of public “servants” whose major purpose is to increase the number of creatures like themselves. The unprotected are the people who are forced to pay for all of this — not just with money but also with self-esteem and dignity.
. . . . .
Donald Trump and I have a different view of who belongs in which class. For instance, he is a protectionist when it comes to trade. But Crowley’s idea still holds.
When you look at the alleged appeal of Hillary Clinton, it was all to people who want protection — protection from work (welfarism), protection from meaningful competition (CEOism), protection from disagreement (political correctness), protection from truth (the disinformation that has become a major American industry).
This kind of protectionism is basically what voters were rebelling against, and their rebellion was strengthened mightily by every invasion — “petty” to the protected class — of their actual rights: rights to information, rights to guns, rights to the expression of opinion, rights to taxation that is not confiscatory.
. . . . .
Almost as smart as Bush maestro Karl Rove, who until minutes before the election was sure that Trump could not win, and who amused the late hours of Fox election coverage by discussing the need for humility on the part of the winner, because he would have gained less than 50% of the vote. MSNBC made much of this too.
But I count 17 presidential elections since 1828, when the modern party system was solidifying and the popular vote started to mean something decisive, in which the winning candidate received less than 50% of the vote. The lowest percentages were those of Abraham Lincoln (40), Woodrow Wilson (42), and guess who?, Bill Clinton (43). How soon these experts forget.
Faceborg’s Mark Cuckersperg, smarting like a bruised betabuttboy from leftoid legacy media criticism that his platform aids in the dissemination of “fake news” (i.e., real news that doesn’t recapitulate the anti-White narrative), announced that the Winklevoss’s company would team up with a selection of “fact-checking” outfits to curate news feeds on Facedork and identify those deemed “fake” for immediate relocation to the gulag of criminal thoughts.
The reaction from the reactoshitsphere was pointed: but who will check the fact-checkers?
It’s a valid question. A working familiarity with fact-check websites reveals a decided leftoid slant. The owners of those sites will never admit to this bias, of course, but the facts (heh) bear it out. Media-darling “fact-checkers” are almost all leftoids.
Pre-rational men have this inner peace unknowingly, by virtue of their blissfully primal approach to life. Rational men learn too much, about women and about themselves, and waste time and opportunities second-guessing their value to women.
But the man who uses his reason to integrate the emotional filter of the pre-rational man into his mindset is a force of pussy-parting power without equal.
The scene reminded me of a truth about women and pickup that guests of the Chateau should know by heart. For all the talk of tactics and logistics and hurdling last minute resistance, indubitably all of it a valuable store of knowledge to the aspiring womanizer, one rule governs them all: the man who says something will always get further with women than the man who says nothing.
The world of women will only open to men brave enough to trek it. If you never invade a woman’s safe space, she’ll never post hoc rationalize your invasion as her invitation.
Women’s safe spaces are essentially self-fulfilling until a man with a set of steel ones decides they aren’t.
Revenge, especially publicly exhibited revenge, is a targeted form of social shaming, and those who are high in the Dark Triad traits — Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy — are particularly vulnerable to the threat of suffering the vengeful wrath of one of their victims. The narcissist especially fears nothing like a public humiliation that exposes the dimness of his glowing self-conception to the jeers of the crowd.
As a NYC real estate magnate, Trump has had to deal with a condensed collection of the world’s worst high-functioning psychos. The political world must have felt like more of the same bullshit to him, and his familiarity handling backstabbers and sniveling cunts like Romney prepared him to 1. crush the GOPe 2. crush the media and finally 3. crush the clinton corruption machine.