Can You Hear It?

thethepeople2by Glenn Fairman   12/30/16
2016 will go down in history as the time when the West’s inexorable march towards oblivion halted in its tracks.  It was the year that the tyrant’s mask slipped and showed the world that its Global City was really a poisoned ant hill. It was a year when the glory of the hive was stripped bare. A year when cowardice and whoredom were checkmated. A year when men exchanged the safety and security of the rendering plant for a new breath of liberty. Indeed, the Brexit and Trump elections were the modern day shots heard around the world. By the grace of God, we have been offered another opportunity, perhaps our last, to redeem the day. Can you not hear the pillars tumble? Can you not feel the static in the air?

And lord, what a bullet America dodged! We have been given an opportunity to strengthen what yet remains, and to bottle up the secularists who would scrub the public square clean of any hope for a moral-political regeneration. Just think: The libs had control of every institutionalized avenue of power, and still they lost! And if you don’t think this is a miracle, then you are not seeing things clearly. In hating the Constitution and its understanding of liberty, should we then be surprised that Progressives despise our miracle – just as they do we who take refuge in it?

As Progressivism is merely the contemporary “Happy Face of Marxism,” it should come as no surprise that an aversion to the sacred is the movement’s default judgment. Yet, this crowning deformity, one that scorns the transcendent, harbors a poverty of soul that embraces the untethered purpose and its joyless world. For such as these, the pursuit of personal redemption can find no traction in a heart intent on remaking the earth out of vapor, and of the zealot’s lust for the power to do so.

Having slain the personal for the sake of the political, have they not wrung the charm from life by reviling the precious and common virtues that once moved good men to good deeds? Having traded grace and humility for the curse of perpetual dissatisfaction, have they not sacrificed themselves to a distant and unloving idol – becoming as cold and loveless as their egalitarian god while toiling incessantly to spin affluence into straw? Wracked with guilt and self-loathing because they were heirs to giants, have they not become the most miserable souls on the face of the earth for disdaining their fathers’ house, and thus warranting the curse?

Liberalism is the world’s moral-political Peter Pan complex. It is narcissism arrayed in utopian longings. It believes that the wisdom that once fueled our civilization was merely a shattered stepping stone to its own bloodless ideal of perfection. It believes without question the perennial delusion of the Serpent in the Garden:  that once we had rebelled we would achieve our own homogenized Valhalla. Having gone back to their tents under the delusion of their own cruel wisdom and dynamited their bridge to the past, have they not abhorred nature’s foundations to fly recklessly as demi-gods without a net? In truth, the collectivist monstrosity could never give birth to eagles – only pitiful flies of a season circling the corpse of its decaying state.

And as for Obama, the lord of those flies: We knew from the beginning that he was a Wrecker. Was he not sent out among us to tear down our Framer’s strongholds while sapping our strengths and re-casting us into some perverse and effeminate image of humanity? A friend to our enemies and an enemy to our friends, he hated what was best and unique in us and wished nothing more than to set fire to America as he danced around in her ashes. Yet mark me: His judgment is forthcoming, and his legacy will be as a burnt offering in Hell. He was never of us, for we were made for far better things than the devil can offer.

Listen. For a while it could not be heard or felt, but eventually it began singing through the wires of our shared unspoken desire – a reemergence of a mature patriotic ardor – a welling up of love for resurgent liberties. Awakened from the nightmare, we found that noble principles had not perished in our exile.  A manly fire is now burning fiercely and it will soon be unstoppable. If we allow it, its spirit will cleanse the land of leaders who had broken faith, and made common cause with the lowest among us. Let their names be stricken: men tentative in their masculine virtues and unwavering in their resolve to dishonor the patrimony of America.

These years have been brutally long, but not long enough to forget the proud and singular spirit that stirs in the best of us; and if given time, will cauterize the wounds self-inflicted by the treacherous, the self-serving, and the panderer.

With the new year comes new hope. I can hear it now as it builds, and it will continue to crescendo until it sweeps down like a star and scours away the venomous rabble that truly believed they had poisoned us forever. Hear the rumble in the wire? It turns out they were wrong. It is nothing less than revolution.

Glenn Fairman returns from the wilderness and writes from Highland, Ca.
About Author  Author Archive  Email • (2144 views)

Glenn Fairman

About Glenn Fairman

This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Can You Hear It?

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    You do have a nice feel for imagery in your writing. As for whether 2017 is the turning point away from the death of Western civilization — we shall see if the West grasps the opportunity that Brexit and the defeat of the Wicked Witch of the West created. The problem is that it’s unclear how much either defeat was brought about by popular realization of the iniquity of liberalism. After all, Barry Screwtape Obama’s approval ratings have improved through the year, though no doubt much of this was comparison with the main candidates to succeed him.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      The key point is whether social liberalism can ever be compatible with limited government, liberty, and virtue. And there is no reason to believe it can be.

      The primary “value” (as opposed to virtue) of liberal-Progressive culture is that you can do whatever you want and someone else will pay the consequences. Another “value” is that we (except white people) are all victims which is a new sort of Indulgence that forgives every personal sin.

      Finally, to finish off the decrepit Progressive trinity, there is the eternal juvenelism which scoffs at the notion of needing to make choices. They believe, like children, that they can simply have something because they want it. And wanting is the final and only justification needed.

      Where in the egomaniacal, mercurial Trump do we see an antidote for any of this? He simply promises, to a different set of people, that he can “fix it all.” I’ll remain a skeptic for the time being. I’ll try to neither be unnecessarily unfair to the man or one of the legions of leg-humpers. I’m not saying that Glenn is. But I just don’t share his optimism.

      • David Ray says:

        My huge thankfulness is that this nation dodged a nuke, so I drank a toast to Trump’s upset election.
        I’m hoping Trump doesn’t make a royal [blank] up of his time in office, but let’s face it; one of Bill Clinton’s escapees from the petting zoo would’ve ran this place better than Hillary.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          I can’t remember where I read it, but some conservative writer was giving another conservative writer heat for stating what I think is obvious: Trump will be judged by a different “At least he’s not Hillary” standard. It likely will often feel like stubbing your toe on the door: Well, at least I didn’t cut my arm off.

          I’m finding many parallels between Obama and Trump. One of them is that they are both affirmative-action office-holders.

          • David Ray says:

            I fear that that conservative writer you cited coined a witful observation. However, I wanna hope for more – much more for once.

            His list of Supreme Court nominees won my vote alone. Need we even guess Hillary’s future list or Bush’s past pick of Harriet Myers. Let us hope for the love of God that Trump actually fights for them; because if he doesn’t . . . well, um . . .

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    We have yet to be able to judge just what our not-Hillary vote has wrought. One of the ironies is that had Trump run as a Democrat, the right would be vilifying him and the Left would be defending his every wart.

    Given that the institutions of Progressive indoctrination are still fully in power (the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, government education), I’m not optimistic the the end is near for Progressivism. My view of Trump isn’t as a repudiation of Progressivism but as a consolidation of the several clicks that have been ratcheted left. (He’s helped to normalize gender dysfunction, for instance.) That he may undo or moderate some of the more extreme Leftist policies is a good thing. But his elevation is the ratification of many more.

    Trump is Daniel. Hillary is the Devil. This truly polarized view of things has made most of us lose some good sense and sense of proportion. The top-down strong statist tendencies of Trump are not likely to usher in anything other than “same shit, different day.”

    The day belongs to those for whom rainbows, not red-white-and-blue, are the guiding colors. Even if Trump proves not to be a total jackass, he is a brief aberration on the way to Snowflakeville.

    • Maddox says:

      On Trump we agree. At least we dodged with his defeat of Hillary and the continuation of what we have suffered under Obama’s rule.
      I seriously doubt Trump’s ability to deliver what those who elected him hope. If he chooses his advisers wisely and they do what we need, as permitted by our laws, we can see improvement. It will take swift and vicious removal of the corrupt leftists entrenched in every facet of our government or we will continue to decline. This is what Trump seems to be capable of, unlike others who bow to the media and political correctness. This is the hope for the future I believe Mr. Fairman and many others saw in him. It is a battle that will take strength and commitment for a long time.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        He certainly has made a lot of good cabinet choices, many of whom the Left implacably hates (but can do little to block), such as Betsty DeVos at Education and Ron Pruitt at the EPA. But regarding the need to root out the liberal tentacles, Trump is a bit like Tom Bombadil. The tentacles, like the One Ring of Power, may have no power over him — but that doesn’t mean he’s the one to dispose of it any more than Bombadil could have been trusted to keep the Ring out of Sauron’s hands.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Timothy, with the stipulation (no small thing) that he hasn’t been sworn in as president, this is one cynical way (perhaps realistic way) to view his cabinet:

          Trump’s cabinet actually resides in Trump Tower with his family and few trusted advisors. I expect that these cabinet appointments are mere figureheads, the result of marketing decisions, not ideological ones.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Unfortunately, that is a possibility. Certainly the Trump inner circle (especially his family, who are inclined to liberalism) will influence him more, so the key is how much control the secretaries will have over their departments. One assumes they wouldn’t give up influential positions without some assurances. But only time will tell how those assurances work out.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Maddox, I’m heartened (but not quite optimistic) that Trump has surrounded himself with Establishment Republican advisors. It has been my opinion since before his election that Trump was an entity who must be “managed,” and that’s surely what Kellyanne Conway was able to do, although I, of course, have little idea of the full inside story.

        But I’m sure of one thing: His presidency will be successful to the extent that he enacts conservative reforms. Let’s hope he doesn’t do 90% of the things he said he would do, other than building a wall, halting Islamic immigration, and nominating a strict constructionist Supreme Court Justice.

        But his views on economics are horrible. He sounds worse than a first-year economics student. But because he is not Hillary and because he has all the right enemies, he will likely be lionized whatever he does. As I’ve said, he is the right’s “hope-and-change” candidate for this election cycle. We must squint and try to see something other than what is. “Make America Great Again” is our replacement for “lowering the oceans and healing the planet.”

        And if Trump actually institutes real reforms, then great. I’m all for it. Let’s “drill, baby drill.” Let’s put a complete kibosh on illegal immigration and handing out any benefits to these lawbreakers. Let’s overturn and scrap every single one of Obama’s executive orders and issue some new ones. Let’s take a realistic look at Islam and that it’s a horrible idea to allow any Muslim immigrants, at least for the time being (“the time being” perhaps being a thousand years or more). Let’s fix the rampant Stalinism that is occurring in higher eduction, by withholding funds a firing people where possible.

        And it goes without saying that you withhold every Federal dollar from the “sanctuary cities.” Libertarians may hate Lincoln, but Lincoln would have understood rebellion when he saw it.

        I hope and pray that President Trump institutes conservative reforms, for it is these type of reforms that are needed. But if he turns out to be a sort of FDR character, throwing various alphabet-soup policies against the wall to see what will stick, then it will just be more economic and social chaos.

        But I’ll say this, and I speak for some others here as well: I have no part of my identity invested in Mr. Trump. I hope he does well and will praise him when he does. But I’ve drunk absolutely no pro-Trump kool-aid. Let the man be judged on his merits and may his merits be many.

  3. Glenn Fairman says:

    I was not a Trump fan, nor was I a Nevertrumper. I opted to keep my powder dry and voted for the lesser of two evils. In truth, it is not so much the personality, although Trumps personality resonates with the common sense populists, but it is the men and philosophy that animates the regime. I believe that Trump is more conducive to liberty, as understood by the founders. He is no social conservative — but in a wicked world we must sometimes compromise or be damned in our ideological purity. Like all political men, he may stumble or make us smile. He could be the right agent of Providence for a time such as this, however fantastic that may sound. Plato understood the impossibility of the Philosopher King, and so he aimed lower but surer with the goal of establishing good laws to tame the perversity of men. Even merely arresting the waxing of tyranny may be his unforeseen legacy.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Glenn, I’ve never been an “ideological purity” sort of guy. Conservatism is a basic set of principles, sort of like a canvas, oil paints, and various sized brushes. Because conservatism is not a totalitarian ideology (it has no set answer for every atomized problem in society), many different, and legitimate, beautiful paintings are possible.

      But does this bum know the first thing about the Constitution? Will he put the principles of the law over his own ego? Trump’s main problem is that he seems grounded in no more complex a formula than win/lose. And that is a recipe for further destruction.

      What I fully expect from Trump is a rearrangement of the deck chairs of the Titanic…lots of motion for the cameras but very little reforming effect. He’ll likely excel, as Obama did, at the perception of doing something useful rather than doing something useful.

      Should I be wrong then wouldn’t that be wonderful. But a “populist” dynamic cannot guide our republic to reforms. It is not immediate gratification that we need or the sating of every pent-up grievance. We need wisdom and some reforms, many of which are going to be like eating our spinach. “Populism” only ever wants ice cream and a second helping of cake.

  4. Glenn Fairman says:

    Populism gets you elected, its the men and ideas that you surround yourself with that will determine your arc of rule. My hope is that Trump knows he is in deep on this one and will take counsel from those who are more Madison than Machiavelli. Obama’s hubris made him believe he was the smartest one in the room, and he was going to push through his velvet Stalinism at a time of his choosing. Trump can have the Jacksonian dynamic with that Reaganite flair, if he so chooses. He remains an untested commodity. We knew what Hillary was all about.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Obama’s hubris made him believe he was the smartest one in the room, and he was going to push through his velvet Stalinism at a time of his choosing.

      First of all, my objections to Trump don’t stem from getting the vapors because he embarrasses me in some way. A friend of mine may have said the truest words: Maybe we need a capitalist pig to fix things.

      He could be right. But Trump is indeed a bit of a pig. He seems very short in the virtues that would allow him to stick to a sound philosophical course guided by good ideas rather than ring-the-bell populism. It is relatively easy to be a demagogue. It is much harder to build something substantial based upon sound principles. And “marketing” is not a sound principle upon which to reform what ails us.

      We hope Trump will do well because he’s all we have right now. But it’s hard to believe any sane conservative would ever have chosen this small-minded, mercurial man who surely knows much more about divorce proceedings than he does the Constitution.

      I think we’ve let in a very bad element, a congenital liar. I don’t think the man can be trusted. But if the bull in the China shop breaks all the right plates and leaves the good ones alone, if only by chance, then great. I’ll be relieved. But it will be very difficult for me to ever develop any enthusiasm for this man.

      And I do hope we haven’t all fallen for style (such as it is) over substance, of the man who can (at least to some ears) talk the talk of the smartest one in the room. We shall see.

  5. Anniel says:

    It seems we had little choice past a certain point. Bear and I pray for Trump, but then we had tried praying for Obama, too, even when his hubris was front and center. I try to remember, always, that we are to love even our enemies and to forgive all men. It gets difficult when the feelings are not reciprocated. Trump does remain untested, and the commodity that is Hillary has been tested with visible results for many a weary year. She is one where any love I have is sorely on trial.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I try to remember, always, that we are to love even our enemies and to forgive all men. It gets difficult when the feelings are not reciprocated.

      Annie, I’m convinced that the best show of affection and love for someone who is on an evil course is to, first of all, call them on their evil ways. Second, it’s to ask them to change their ways. But, yes, I do believe Obama is our enemy. Clearly so. He is the enemy of any man or woman who desires peace, the brotherhood of man, and all while holding people to the necessary and needed standards to allow this to be so. It is this latter part of the equation that separates the wise from the demagogues and fools.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        To a greater or lesser degree, all Inner Party liberals are part of the enemy. With Slick Barry and Slick Hilly, it’s a greater degree. But Id be happy to ignore them once they’re no longer politically important — unlike the way liberals treat the likes of Sarah Palin.

  6. Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

    “A year when cowardice and whoredom were checkmated”.

    That’s awesome! Yup, I hear the pillars creaking and feel the static. But it’s not personalities that we need to defeat or champion. Its structure and process. Liberty has been granted a reprieve but like Madusa, liberalism will sprout again. I’d welcome a Supreme Court based revival of federalism and personal responsibility and elimination of the DC credit line. Perhaps we can build a park on the site of the wreckage. I like the sound of that.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      But it’s not personalities that we need to defeat or champion. Its structure and process.

      Stuart, I commend you for broaching a topic most complex and usually overlooked. In a perfectly logical world, we would write: We need from Trump (or anyone) to enact specific reforms A, B, C, D…Z.

      But unless wielding power and having winners make losers for the sake of the sport of it is the point of it all (and it often is), there are intangibles upstream of reforms. We have been “reformed” to death (“fundamentally transformed”) by Obama and his Marxist-based minions for decades now. But such reforms started with an ideology.

      I can’t join Glenn’s hopeful message because I don’t think declaring Progressivism on the run has talismanic power. I don’t see it on the run. And it’s not going to be on the run until we clearly declare our ideology and then specify our reforms based upon that ideology.

      This is the primary weakness of Trump. Dennis Prager has often noted that you can’t make any gains against the Left unless you run against them. Trump did not oppose the ideology of the Left. In fact, he’s adopted many of it core premises. Trump is giving many people the false hope that America can be great again without first being good. He is actually the unkempt, rough-edged wet dream of Establishment Republicans who view America as a great machine that the wise and powerful can run “smartly.” Perhaps they do not view themselves a Philosopher Kings. But they do view themselves as Bureaucracy Kings.

      In the top-down Establishment Republican view, America is reduced to just another oligarchy in the history of oppressive oligarchies. But at least the “good” people are running it,

      Trump showed little or no understanding of what ails America. What he tapped into was simply an amorphous animal anger and discontent with himself as the Philosopher Bureaucrat (Businessman) who can cure all things just by the application of his will. That is, his reforms are based on his ego, not sound policy.

      And that’s hardly the basis for reform. Yes, we can hope the people he has surrounded himself with is a sign that Trump is not the bumbling fool that he appeared to be in the campaign. But is Progressivism really on the run because this East Coast Progressive has been re-branded as a Republican? I have my doubts.

      And until we specifically name our ideology and try to convince others of it. we’re likely to do no more than just rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

      • Glenn Fairman says:

        Brad: While I hate to reveal this, I have little hope for a great awakening, but only a respite. As a writer, I often swerve off the reservation and become rhetorician—but such rhetoric is meant to exhort men to take hold of the plow with a renewed due diligence. This form of rhetoric is more suited to be delivered to a crowd or from a pulpit, yet it is not designed to deceive, but to restore. A call to action and renewal is the call of every statesmen or prophet, and it is a call to virtue lest the curse overtake us. My personal opinions are always darker and more complex, but who can know, if for but a short time, we can regroup and forestall our impending judgment, as Ninevah did when Jonah finally sprinted to his mission after his harrowing attitude adjustment?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Brad: While I hate to reveal this, I have little hope for a great awakening, but only a respite. As a writer, I often swerve off the reservation and become rhetorician—but such rhetoric is meant to exhort men to take hold of the plow with a renewed due diligence.

          Glenn, my comments (as I’m sure you know) should not be taken as a personal repudiation of your own views or hope. I hope you are right. I admit my pessimism could be a little…well, pessimistic.

          If you are Peter then I must play Paul. (Or is that the other way around? Or maybe Martin & Lewis?) I think our culture is awash in emotionalism and zealotry. I don’t encourage the rote recitation of the sins of the Left, but an article such as Katherine Timpf’s 16 Most Ridiculously PC Moments on College Campuses in 2016 provides a needed perspective.

          We are going kooky as a culture. In one sense, the sort of secular/materialist ideology of Trump (such as it is) is a healthy and needed return to “The business of America is business” which is preferable over the point of America being zones of “safe spaces.”

          An alchemy of wisdom and truth is needed that is neither too hard nor too loose. We need a Goldilocks to guide us. I believe neither in the amoralism of libertarianism nor the all-consuming totalitarian ideology of the Left (or religious fundamentalists of any stripe). We need a Baby Bear “just right.” And to the extent that Trump yanks us back to more practical pursuits instead of ideological pursuits, this could be a welcome thing.

          But I find it difficult to believe that America can reform herself in any meaningful way without both taking note of her sins (as you are expert in doing) as well as noting the needed reforms and what ideas (ideology) those reforms are based upon.

          For me, I think we’ll be lucky if a Trump administration isn’t a cacophonous blender of chomped up mush, guided by the needs of ego and poll numbers of the day. He needs to not only sign various executive orders but also make the case. He needs to state that global warming is a scam, that environmental hysteria is no way to set policy, etc. etc. And once in a while the man seems to give some indication that he is not as shallow as he appears to be.

          But although reform is going to exist to a certain extent in rescinding Obama’s executive orders, Trump issuing his own positive ones, and perhaps new laws passed in Congress, it’s not enough to pull a few levers, although the levers need pulling. He, like Reagan or any other great leader, must make a principled ideological argument for where we need to go while undercutting and dismantling the ideology that has so harmed us.

          In a visceral way, and perhaps in a very important way, Trump has undercut one of the great harms of Progressivism which is eternal juvenilism and feminism. By his very swagger and presence he has, however crudely at times, been a model of our need to “man up” as opposed to becoming such emotional basket cases that we need safe spaces because someone wore a sombrero while drinking tequila.

          America badly needs to man-up. It needs to set aside the mental illness of Snowballism, as well as the cultural illness of everyone needing to think of himself as a victim. And we need especially to set aside the bizarre and destructive pursuit of Utopia. And surely this is one reason Trump so rankles the Snowflakes. He does not resemble the idea of the Left which is an emasculated man who puts “sensitivity” over real-word facts. Although how these degenerates, fools, and very often fakers could believe that Hillary was a harbinger of Utopia shows how damaged we have become as a people.

          And, I firmly believe, we are very apt to be damaged by Trump unless we keep a very careful eye on him and tell it like it is. For me, this is part of regrouping. I just don’t want us to go down another cul-de-sac of grand political theatre for the sake of theatre.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Yes, Trump must make the case, for example, not only that CAGW is a scam (which in fact he has), but why — the scientific flaws in the theory.

          • Stuart Whitman Stuart Whitman says:

            You seem to hold high expectations of him but doubt he could ever meet them. Holding a lower expectation would not be misguided, not only because he is a clown, but because the office was not intended to be a platform for personal ambition but rather a leadership position to execute and deliver the consensus solution. Often some work is needed to develop the consensus. And often tough decisions are made unilaterally. But the point remains that we don’t (or shouldn’t) elect a Preseident to impose a vision on us as much as to help us solve our collective problems.

            And this is the case today. You mention reforms. Congress HAS developed reforms for a whole host of issues that have been the victims of partisan gridlock. What Trump CAN do is break the log jam and move the ball, as opposed to proposing the solutions. This is apparent to me because as you rightly point out, his ideas, philosophy, and familiarity with the constitution are seriously flawed.

            His skill set is deal making. And he’s not particularly ideological. But neither is the average American. He’s simply pledged to renegotiate for the benefit of America. We could call him The New Dealer. So perhaps you should simply lower your expectations and wish him luck. He will need it.

          • Rosalys says:

            Concerning #4 in that “16 Things…” article:

            “Resident assistants at the University of Massachusetts warned students that “any negative remarks regarding ‘Harambe’” were “direct attack[s] to our campus’s African American community”…”

            So, comments about an ape are automatically construed to be racial slurs? Tell me please, just who are the racists here?

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Liberals regard any comparison to monkeys or apes as a racial slur because blacks used to be called “monkeys”. (I don’t know if they object to references to lemurs.) You may recall the “macaca” incident, which was considered a pejorative because a macaque is a type of monkey.

              Naturally, the snowflakes take this even further, and even an innocuous reference thus becomes racist.

      • Ron says:

        Sorry, Brad, but the “bumbling fool in the campaign” you allude to
        defeated the democrats, republicans, and virtually the entire media in this country. I don’t know how you define “bumbling”, but in most people’s minds I don’t think the results of the campaign can be equated with “bumbling”.

  7. David says:

    I agree with Glenn. This, while a lurch off the destructive path, is only that – a lurch.
    That Trump – might – realize the current historical implications and rise above to greatness is my hope.
    While supporting that notion, I remain vigilant nonetheless, knowing the forces which forged the past administration will not remain idle. They have simply scurried to some dark corners where they will formulate their next assault upon polite society.
    The image of a ‘Watchman’ certainly is needed now more than ever.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    After this vote, I don’t think there will be any stopping Brexit. The withdrawal from the EU will be protracted and negotiation over the details will likely be acrimonious, but it truly appears the U.K. will go its separate way from the EU.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Events such as this make us consider what it is that unites people. Having about as opposite of a European mindset as you can imagine, I can’t say I completely understand it. But after Europe’s recent history of two wars (hardly two in its history, of course) and decades of Progressivism programming, it seems to me that the EU was formed in the first place for (giving a mix of motives):

      + Power and prestige for the bureaucrats
      + Nationalism having been thoroughly demonized in people’s minds, and the prospects of a Utopian union, people just liked the idea of forming into something bigger, prettier, and shinier.

      But it didn’t last and could never last. And not necessarily because they didn’t share the same interests. The problem was what those interests are/were: socialism.

      No one can afford socialism forever and the rot that comes with it in so many ways and layers. In short, your hard-working Brit or German wasn’t likely to forever finance the deadbeats in Greece, etc. Even so, it would appear from that what propelled much of this — and was the least aspect talked about— was the invasion of Islam facilitated by the treasonous EU officials. Perhaps it was the rot of socialism timed with the accessory rot of Islamic invasion (facilitated by that socialism) that was the convergence that pushed Britain over the top.

      It’s a great time for Britain to exit. There’s still time to save the body…or at least prolong it a little. Expect major social upheavals on the continent (mostly in France) in the coming years. Who needs that?

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It’s important to remember that the EU was always more popular with elites (who tend toward globalism) than with ordinary people (who are much likelier to be nationalist/patriotic). I wonder if the euro won a single referendum; it was imposed against the popular will. Just like everything else in a country that literally qualifies as a bureaucracy in that it’s ruled by bureaus.

  9. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Here’s an article by someone who seems to know what he’s talking about. If it’s true regarding the political consultancy plan that British PM May instigated (to get the newspaper to downplay her, up-play Corbyn, and thus supposedly scare the electorate into even heavier support for May), this is the stuff of science fiction, if not craziness:

    Lynton Crosby (the Australian Karl Rove) and Jim Messina (a co-architect of Obama’s victories) gave May the most hubristic campaign strategy ever devised. They took her popularity and Jeremy Corbyn’s unfitness for granted. And they apparently decided that they needed to scare overly complacent Tory voters to the polls. Their strategy for doing this was to have May stumble and make the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn victory real for voters. Almost exactly on cue, the conservative-leaning Daily Telegraph, Times of London, and London Spectator were all dumping on May and talking about the strange integrity of Jeremy Corbyn. Effectively, the Crosby-Messina strategy amounted to: 1) We’ll give Jeremy Corbyn free momentum. 2) We’ll demoralize Tory voters. 3) We win. 4) Profit.

    The plan worked — up to the winning part. But I’m sure the checks cleared. Even before the night was out, rumors that Lynton Crosby was now going to help Boris Johnson replace May were circulating. Honestly, if there was a zany conspiracy in which angry Tory Remainers such as David Cameron and George Osborne secretly paid Crosby to sabotage May and Brexit, what would be different?

    Note, I have little idea what’s going on in UK politics. I’m not sure anyone really does given the chaotic and superficial ideology that has swept the West. “Serious” is out. Trump and the non-serious are in. Perception is trumping and thumping reality. Still, I do like reading articles that give at least a hope of understanding, quite in contrast to Cooke’s contentless article on the matter (as at least one poster pointed out).

    I posted this here because the subtext is that May’s idiotic moves have supposedly imperiled Brexit — which I have alway put in the category of “I’ll believe it when I see it.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Occasionally someone comes up with a really stupid campaign. In 1982, David Emery, a Republican congressman from Maine, ran against Ed Muskie’s replacement in the Senate, George Mitchell. Mitchell voted against the 1982 tax increase, and Emery campaigned hard on support for it. He started out with a big lead in the polls — and ended up losing badly. I wonder why.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Yep. Sounds like a bad campaign. Regarding the May campaign, I would be stunned to learn that is is true that as a campaign strategy they tried to build up the opposition and downgrade their own candidate. Granted, it sounds as if there were other factors (there always are). But this is the one and only report I’ve heard about this. I’ll be on the lookout for confirmation, just out of curiosity.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I exchanged emails with an old conservative friend in London and, regarding the campaign, he wrote:

          Probably the most underwhelming election I can remember. I almost didn’t vote and even then had to force myself to back the local conservative candidate.
          My analysis is that May thought it was a cake walk and all she had to do was point out Corbyn’s inadequacies. Then she thought that the Labour manifesto was a gift from heaven as it was closer to the Communist Manifesto than anything before. So all she had to do was capture the “middle ground” by watering down real conservative principles thereby trashing traditional supporters like us. Thatcher at least would have stuck to core values. So in the end no one knew what she stood for. Plus, as someone said, she performed like a speaking clock when she appeared on tv and you have all the ingredients for a cock up.
          Now we have up to 5 years of politicians doing what they do best i.e. scheme, jockey for advantage and not worry about the best interests of the nation.
          I recently reminded myself of Groucho Marx’s definition of politics:
          It’s the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
          Enough said.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            Well, the DUP is socially conservative, so an alliance with them will probably move somewhat to the right. Sometimes the voters really want to get rid of one of the candidates (usually an incumbent). In that case, making as few differences as possible can be useful because it makes it easier for those voters to switch. But it also fails to motivate them. This seems to have been one of May’s errors.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Already the Tories’ leader in Scotland, a lesbian named Ruth Davidson, has warned May about getting too close to the DUP.

              I am very happy to hear about the possible alliance. Northern Ireland is the only place in the U.K. which doesn’t allow queer marriage. Conservative lesbian my ass.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              That one article I read said that the dynamic of the DUP party is that it regularly extorts “free stuff” social safety net favors from the Tory party in England when that party is in desperate need of support. I have no idea of the truth of this. But that writer said that is has turned North Ireland into a weak entitlement state.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Thanks for that report from the front lines. It would be instructive to learn what a British conservative would understand as “the best interests of the nation.” But if he’s a friend of Mr. Kung, we’ll assume it wouldn’t be something like crippling the economy to chase the fraud of “climate change.” That Marx quote is a good one. I hadn’t heard that before. I wish your friend would start a regular column here titled, “Letters from England.” I’d love to get the British conservative perspective.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              It would be instructive to learn what a British conservative would understand as “the best interests of the nation.”

              You can be sure his understanding would be close to mine. And I think you have a good idea of my basic political philosophy is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *