"He be Good for the Hood"

I have some mind-numbingly substantive posts in the works, but for now here are three items from the (non-fake) news you may want to opine about.

1) The mug shot heard or rather seen 'round the world and its appeal to blacks. "He be good for the hood." "The more they indict, the more we unite."

2) Gold Star dad to Biden: "It's two-fucking-thirty, asshole." (1:30 ff.) Civility is a good old conservative virtue. But anyone who calls for civility in the present political situation is simply not perceiving said situation. We need to condemn morally our political enemies, in blunt and brutal ways. Yes or no? Argue the pros and cons.

3) My man Victor Davis Hanson was on Sean Hannity's show tonight. I have been linking to him for years. But I got annoyed with him tonight when he kept repeating, in reference to Biden's disastrous border policy, "It makes no sense!"

But it makes perfect sense if you are a globalist like Traitor Joe out to destroy the USA as she was founded to be. Does my man  lack the cojones (testicular fortitude) to come right out and say what I suspect he believes, namely, that the whole point of the open border policy is destroy the republic? Could he really be confused or puzzled about what's going on? Is he tempering his remarks to keep from getting shit-canned like Tucker?  'Defenestrate' is a polite word, and I could have used it instead of 'shit- can,' but again what good is politeness? You will get nowhere being polite or civil with mendacious thugs. Around thugs you have to be able to  project danger credibly and elicit fear. Jordan Peterson is pretty good on this. 

A good man is not a weak man. A good man is a dangerous man who is in control of the animal in him. 

Comments

[Joe Odegaard]

Brother Bill, your blue "mug shot" link is not woking.

Oh yes, and civility does not work with evil, which is what we are up against. At least say "fangul." Actual physical force might be necessary later.

Here's a song which says, "when the final showdown came at last, a law book was no good."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDN4L7cAQf0

Good night from Mendocino

[Vito B. Caiati]

“We need to condemn morally our political enemies, in blunt and brutal ways. Yes or no? Argue the pros and cons.”

I answer in the affirmative, and I believe that the rightness of this response is evident from a scrutiny of the words and deeds of those worthy of such commendation. These words and deeds are objectively evil and by their very nature give rise to moral outrage; in other words, the Left speaks and acts in ways that produce a spontaneous moral revulsion in those of us who seek to uphold objective moral values, whether for rational or religious reasons. If this is so, then our response to the crimes, deceptions, lies, and calumny of the Left must take the form of moral condemnations. What else could it be? The masking of our moral repulsion would lead us into the sin of omission, in which we fail to perform an action, in this case a speech act, required by our sense of the good, thus abetting the furtherance of evil. Those who argue against this position, generally speak of their desire to “lower the tone” or to “keep the conversation civil,” but such a position assumes that those disposed to evil are rational agents disposed to dialogue and, more importantly, conversion. All the evidence suggests that this is not the case; rather, it is the opposite

[BV]

Joe,

Click on the link and use the search utility. Thanks for your comment.

[BV]

Excellent comment as usual, Vito. Will respond later. Other matters press upon me at the moment.

[Malcolm Pollack]

As much as I respect Victor Davis Hanson, I'm growing weary of his continually popping up in print or onscreen to offer yet another withering and detailed indictment of our misrule. All true - but we get it, already!

What he never seems to address is: what now? Whither hence? The crisis is upon us, the barbarians inside the gates. What is to be done?

[BV]

Malcolm,

I agree entirely. We understand the problem well enough to move to the next step: solve it. But how?

1) We should distinguish between personal and society-wide solutions. And old man, expecting to be dead in a few years, might simply withdraw to a monastery and hope to be left alone. The hope is reasonable if he has only a few years to live since our totalitarian enemies will need time to get around to destroying the monasteries and whatever other enclaves dissidents hide themselves in. But this is a short-term merely personal solution. If the old man has children and grandchildren, he is leaving them to the wolves.

2) To accept political dhimmitude is not a society-wide solution.

3) What is needed is a society-wide fix that works for young and old. So we have to punch back hard against our political enemies.

4) Hot civil war is not an option for a number of reasons. One is that it would weaken us further and make us easy marks for our geo-political enemies who, working in concert would invade and destroy us. In concert: The China-Russia-Iran axis of evil. It would not be difficult to knock out our power grid, and then it is all over. Traitor Joe has done nothing to harden it. You will recall that he allowed the ChiCom surveillance balloons to float unmolested across the homeland.

5) The other form of punch-back would be less bloody: they weaponize the law against us; we respond in kind. This too is sub-optimal. We become like them, and we spiral downward and perhaps end up with hot civil war. Leftists are moral scum: you cannot reach them by giving them a taste of their own medicine. You will only galvanize them in their opposition to us.

6) It is not unreasonable to hold that the problem is insoluble except for a few of us on the personal level. If you disagree, then please proffer a solution!

Malcolm: I solicit your comments, but please respond directly to each of my points without going off on tangents.

[BV]

Joe,

Here is a better video of your favorite song with scenes from the movies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWtlgADNYA

[BV]

Hollywood depictions of gunfighting in the Old West have little to do with reality.

Wyatt Earp explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEJNpWBcvQE

[BV]

Race-deluisonality is another factor in the problem we are up against: https://anncoulter.substack.com/p/apparently-not-all-black-lives-matter

[Vito B. Caiati]

“6) It is not unreasonable to hold that the problem is insoluble except for a few of us on the personal level. If you disagree, then please proffer a solution!”

If you mean by a “solution” a coherent political strategy for the political and cultural reconquest the nation, I believe that no one possesses anything close to that right now. The closest thing that we have come to an organized national resistance to the Left is the MAGA movement headed by Trump. But this movement is both too amorphous, too ideologically immature and confused, and too tied to one man. While the sentiments that underpin it are deeply seated in a large segment of what is left of the traditional nation, it is questionable if it could survive the demise, in one way or another, of its leader, something which is fanatically sought by the Establishment, both the Left and the Republican Vichyites.

So, I think, that the first step towards a solution that would lead to the restoration of the Republic is the formation of a new political party, one with a sharply defined cultural and political ideology that is counter-revolutionary in nature. It is not enough for it to be conservative, since so much social, cultural, and political damage has been done that there is little of the Old Republic to restore; it went the way of the American people as we knew them only sixty years ago. Such a party would, at first, likely be restricted to certain states and sections of the nation, hoping in time (1) to expand its electoral reach and power and, as importantly, (2) drive the Republican Party rightward., The second step is the redefine what we on the Right mean by politics, for we remain imprisoned by inherited forms and modes of behavior, such as the recent Republican debate, the perpetuation of which simply encourages the Left mythology that the nation is a functioning “democracy.” We must go outside of these forms on a local, state, and national level. Whatever gains we make electorally must backed up by a display of raw social power, whether in the form of boycotts, demonstrations, protests, and so on. All of this will be met by repression in one form or another, most of it not of the “soft” variety, and the situation might well devolve in massive violent conflict, which, like Bill, I would hope to avoid. Our we up to these tasks? Of this, I am not at all sure, for it is very surprising that the signs of resistance have not already been much stronger, given the insults inflicted on the nation each day by the Left.

[BV]

I am afraid I must disagree with you on this one, Vito. Mere talk of a new political party is empty and utopian as compared to the reality of the MAGA movement which enjoys widespread popular support. And I disagree that the MAGA movement is too tied to one man. For a young Trump has arisen among us, Vivek Ramaswamy. A Trump-Ramaswamy ticket is our best hope for a solution. Trump has said good things about VR. If the young man is smart and is offered the Veep slot, he will accept, learn the ropes for four years, and then be set up for two terms as US president.

You speak of a third party which could drive the Repubs rightward. It might, but that good would cancelled out by the splitting of the vote.

If there is any hope for a solution, Trump is the only one capable of saving the republic. People have to vote and vote early by mail. They also have to vote with their feet and wallets. But no violence and talk of violence, but quietly prepare for the worst case.

And no defeatism!

Defund the Left and fund the Right. Bo Snerdley's Align Us may help. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/14cl/align-us-shopping-bo-snerdley

[Malcolm Pollack]

Bill,

Resisting with difficulty the temptation to consider in periphrastic detail why a person might go "off on tangents", I'll do as you ask:

1) Agreed. (And you and I aren't really even that old.)

2) Political dhimmitude is no solution at all; it is defeat, even for those who don't understand this well enough to resist it.

3) Well, sure. Sounds great.

4) Hot civil war may become an "option" even if you think it isn't one. But I agree that it's nothing to wish for.

5) Agreed.

6) The problem is soluble on a general scale only to the extent that sufficient numbers of us a) see that there is a problem in the first place (a great many think that people like us are the problem), and b) have the thumos to resist.

To quote a controversial author:

"...the spirit of man is broken by a habituation to an overlong domestication... Once a great power imposes domestication upon its neighbors and then itself, comforts grow, and so many are born who experience life at birth in an exhausted state, and who call upon themselves the governments and religions of the exhausted and stressed."

I don't think most people could even imagine what "resisting" would mean; they've spent too many generations in a well-functioning, trustable society. By the time the depth of the catastrophe sinks in for such people -- the realization that this time it's different -- things will be very far gone, perhaps too far gone.

But we shall see! Perhaps the "acceleration" we've discussed is jerking forward so sharply now that people really will wake up and simply say NO. That's all it would take: to wake up. We already have the power; a truly awakened nation could brush this madness aside with a flick of its finger.

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill, I believe that you misunderstand my musings on our political dilemma. To begin with, I am obviously not speaking of the upcoming election, for which we have no choice but to support the re-election of Trump. This is a given. What I proposed for consideration, and my thoughts on this matter are merely speculative, designed to promote discussion, is a long-term strategy for the reconquest of cultural and political power in the nation, one that will stretch over many years, for what has to be accomplished is the not the work of one or even two election cycles. I speak of the need for a new, ideologically defined party simply because without such it, our struggle against the Left will continue to be largely REACTIVE and PIECEMEAL. Particular candidates propose this or that idea or program, many of which are quite good in themselves, but these, however bundled together, do not constitute an alternative world view to that of the Left, which advances its own with a ruthless efficiency and unshakable unity, and which are easily undone when the Left resumes power, if it, in fact, ever loses it. The Republican Party, as presently constituted, even with the MAGA presence in and pressure on it, is ideologically divided and politically vacillating; to think that such a party is capable of the immense task of overturning the present tyranny is wishful thinking. Rather, much of what it does is to dissipate the political energy that is embodied in the MAGA movement. Now, if this party can be taken over and radically transformed from within into one with a defined counter-revolutionary ideology and with internal unity, then let it be the new party of which I speak. If not, we must look elsewhere.

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bill,

6) It is not unreasonable to hold that the problem is insoluble except for a few of us on the personal level. If you disagree, then please proffer a solution!

What is needed is something akin to a spiritual great awakening. To quote John Adams, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." What we see around us is the fruit of our secularism, which needs to be repudiated. Perhaps, a form of Christian Nationalism is a solution?

Brian

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

I should have said in response to you that any misunderstanding of my comment is entirely my fault, since I should have been clearer in specifying the time frame that I had in mind.

Malcolm,

You make an very important point, when you state, "I don't think most people could even imagine what 'resisting' would mean; they've spent too many generations in a well-functioning, trustable society. By the time the depth of the catastrophe sinks in for such people -- the realization that this time it's different -- things will be very far gone, perhaps too far gone." It is one that troubles me much of the time and to which I hinted at in writing, "it is very surprising that the signs of resistance have not already been much stronger, given the insults inflicted on the nation each day by the Left." What a mess we are in!

[Vito B. Caiati]

Of course, this entire discussion on the option of political resistance presupposes that an American form of "hard" totalitarianism, the first manifestations of which are evident in the trials of those at the Capitol on January 6 and of President Trump and those associated with him, including some of his attorneys, is not already on the wish list of the Demo fascists. On this matter, this important article in the American Thinker points to the extent of the present politization and corruption of the federal judiciary and, with a Demo victory in 2024, its complete transformation into tool of repression and domination: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/trump_victim_of_a_radically_transformed_federal_judiciary_.html

[BV]

Thanks for surfacing, Brian.

The John Adams quotation is spot on. And it gives me an opportunity for a poke at Pence. In the GOP debate he said -- and this is my interpretive paraphrase -- that the problem is not with the American people; the problem is that they are not getting the government they deserve. This shows the man's cluelessness. We are a decadent people, not a "moral and religious people." And so we are getting precisely the gov't we deserve: a government of brazen liars and scumbags 'led,' 'presided over' by a puppet, morally rotten to the core, unfit to serve both physically and mentally, whose policies are destroying the republic, and who is supported by half of our legal and illegal population.

>>Perhaps, a form of Christian Nationalism is a solution?<< Not implementable. No chance of success. I say we navigate back to the classical liberalism of the Founders, avoiding both the Scylla of theocracy and the Charybdis of 'leftocracy.' Admittedly, not much chance of this happening, either.

But you and I, who believe in the Beyond, and understand that this passing scene is vain and vanishing and of no ultimate significance, have the consolation we need to get through these transient terrestrial trials.

[Joe Odegaard]

But it's not the government we deserve. They've cheated to install it. And elections are rigged even before voting happens, when the uni-party draws all the "safe" districts.

It can't go on like this, and people are waking up.

According to the 2020 census, some 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christian; it says "In God We Trust" on every penny.

Thee Devil is trying very hard here, we are in a battle royal, but the evil are weak — Look at Biden! — and they will be defeated.

[DaveB]

"A good man is not a weak man. A good man is a dangerous man who is in control of the animal in him.
"
Well said, Bill.

[Brian Bosse]

Hello Bill,

I agree with you that neither option has a chance of happening apart from some kind of religious awakening. Also, I agree with you that we are getting our just deserts, which I see to be a form of judgment.

The concern I have of "navigating back to the classical liberalism of the Founders" is ending back where we started for failing to address the secularism that arises from our avoiding the "Scylla of theocracy". A Christian Nationalism broadly conceived at least would address this.

Lastly, your last point is very important. Eternal matters are significantly weightier than our current "transient terrestrial trials". Thank you for pointing this out.

Your Friend,

Brian

[BV]

Dave,

What I wrote is a two line summary of Peterson. I gave his very successful book a quick read a while back. What struck me was that the obvious points he made had to made! How far we've fallen.

[BV]

Brian,

I see that Ed Feser has joined Postliberal Order. https://www.postliberalorder.com/p/philosopher-edward-feser-and-economist

[Joe Odegaard]

You all may enjoy this young black lady's walk away video. It's a hoot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUK-36rp8uQ&list=RDCMUCDb4InP9mRZR9oogD1b2dOQ&start_radio=1

It garnered 3,000 comments in 5 hours by the way.