Sunday, 27 March 2016

Brussels' Sprouts - Illiberal Limericks 10

News item: Belgium world's number one exporter of home-grown jihadis.

Now, of all European cultivars,
The one caution most prudently bars,
Is a rank little cabbage
From a region most savage,
More lethal than microbes from Mars.

Though it once was a plant quite benign,
Til it was grafted to imports malign,
Its least little taste
Whole countries can waste
By destroying the national spine.

For, once having ingested the spore,
The victims start craving for more,
Their strange paralysis
Defies all analysis:
Lying five times a day on the floor!

Susceptibility varies by zone,
With the French being especially prone,
With Hollande the chief chef
They couldn't get enough,
Til their appetite softened their bone.

For Merkel the buds were hot-button,
When served up with Levantine mutton;
Being nothing loth
To consume the fell growth,
She was Europe's worst punishment glutton!

Here, too, our own governing class,
Is eager to import them en masse; 
For our multicult cuisine,
Now favouring the green,
Is more dopey than legalized grass!

But down south a leader less shamesome, 
Who has defied the whole empire of Lamedom,
With a spine that won't bend,
Has promised he'll send
The whole crop right back where it came from!

But Hillary said Let's not be hasty!
Believing those morsels quite tasty,
Savouring each ballot,
She broadened her palate
To include terror's halaliest pasty.

So beware of what grows in your garden,
And toward crossovers let your heart harden, 
For if you're subject to bouts
Of indigestible sprouts,
You'll be sorry you never debarred 'em!

Inventive Journalism - Letter to the Ed

Once again a member of the corporate media has rolled out a predictably distorted diatribe against Trump - ahem! - that’s  Mr. Trump in the New York Times, if you please, where the enemy must always be accorded the most decorous terms of formal address even as he is set up for the worst outrages of drive-by journalism. 
Mr. Cohn pretends to be offering an analysis of regional voter preferences, but his piece is little more than a barely concealed continuous smear against Donald Trump, convicted racist. The journalist takes it for granted that his readers understand exactly what definition of racism is in play here and that it applies unequivocally to the candidate whose support among Blacks and Latinos is perhaps the highest in the history of his party. No quote is offered to support the insinuation that Trump has ever uttered any racist remarks, public or private. No doubt Mr. Cohn, like scores of liberal writers who have preceded him in this collusive vendetta, is tacitly premising his smear upon the candidate's maiden speech of last June.Those remarks have been persistently although vaguely evoked to foster the notion that Mr.Trump said or thinks or believes the absurd generalization that “Mexicans are rapists and murderers.”  In fact, they imply the exact opposite. For if Mexico is "not sending us their best” then by inference many if not most Mexicans at home must be good people, although the candidate even then allows that some of the illegal entries, the object of his concern, may also be in the better category. As for Mr.Trump’s remarks concerning Muslims, similarly routinely twisted past recognition, the writers who cite them as being ethnically motivated rely upon an even more absurd premise, i.e., the invention of an "Islamic race.”
       Ten months of intense media smearing have left Mr. Trump's orange and unvarnished hide by and large free of taint. It’s time for the Times to throw in the towel - or use it to wipe the egg off their own faces.

Sunday, 20 March 2016

Unsocial Darwinists

Riddle: Why are liberals known as the party of the poor?
Reply: Because they're always begging the question!

On top of "fearful and frustrated," America's media have found a third pigeonhole to stuff Trump's supporters into: angry. It goes without saying that in the liberal universe, anger is always a sign of negativity, if not indeed of derangement. Unless of course, it's liberals who are angry. If a liberal gets angry, it's because some great and noble cause is being impeded by some miserable right-wingers. Anger then becomes not only justified, it's admirable. It's not even anger anymore, but rather righteous indignation. Those people disrupting Trump rallies, for instance: don't mistake their threatening gestures and obnoxious language for anger. Those contorted red (or black) faces are actually paragons of progressivism, if not of progress itself. The "protesters" are simply exercising their Darwinian right to shut down anyone to the right of themselves. Darwin? You bet! But that's also a privilege of the left.When rightists try it, they're pilloried for being "social Darwinists." (Shudder, shudder!) 
      Anger, like all the emotions, must have a vital use, however, fulfill a necessary function, or why would God - or evolution - have instilled us with its ever-ready fire?
      Its main use, in fact, is survival. If you threaten an entity, it will get angry in order to better defend itself. Adrenaline and testosterone and any number of other energy-boosting secretions start flowing when we're feeling threatened, and lucky for us that they do, too. Organisms without anger don't last long in a world ruled by the Darwinian imperatives of aggression and domination. So it's puzzling to find liberals, those self-professed disciples of Darwin, deprecating any exhibition of anger from their fellow organisms. Puzzling, that is, until it's understood that deprecating anger is part and parcel of their attempt to dominate said organisms. 
         When journos condemn anger they rely on the convention which bars such an emotion, and emotions in general, from our everyday situations. At school, at work, at church, or even at home: in most situations, anger is regarded as a disruptive, primitive force. Quite unsocial, in fact. And so it is!        
       But in the realm of politics, in the arena of democracy, is anger  to be similarly banished from the light of day? Since when? Athletes and spectators alike get angry at sporting events and it's taken in stride. Sports are sublimated war, after all, and no one expects their troops to be polite. But war is "politics by other means." By other means, not by other emotions. 
        The Trumpsters are angry, and to suggest their anger is somehow indecorous, out of place or un-American, is to ignore US history, which is replete with intemperate politics and mad pols. (Read some of Gore Vidal's novels to find just how intemperate and mad.) And it begs the fundamental question: Are they under threat or not? That is to say, Is their anger justified or not? In fact, of course, they are under threat, under attack, and it's no use having the media, which is constantly leading the attack on their conservative way of life, trying to persuade them otherwise. 
          For the human organism, one's way of life is practically indistinguishable from life itself. Hence, the whole Trump phenomenon is a case-in-point illustration of the inexorable battle for survival. These people have been slowly beaten back into a defensive corner and now they're coming out in a last do-or-die counterattack at their tormentors. Angry? Hell, they're furious
         Granted, Trump and his supporters threaten the liberals' survival, too. The entire entitlement culture which half the US citizenry depend upon, in some degree, feels threatened by the Make America Great Again crowd. Alas, nothing ever got great again on welfare.  
          So let the war proceed, but please spare us the logic games, journos. Anger is the lifeblood of politics and anyone who says it isn't has already got his fangs halfway into his enemy's throat. 

Sunday, 13 March 2016

Destwoy Twump!

Ladies and gentlemen of Radioland, welcome to the Drone on the Wall, your best source for behind-the-scenes scoops on all topics political. Tonight we take you into the very bastion of Mainstream, the editorial boardroom of the New York Times, where our roaming micro-bug finds itself sitting like the proverbial fly on the wall just as a highly secret teleconference is getting underway. This emergency session of the editors of all the Big Seven news outlets was evidently called in response to what the various media conglomerates regard as an impending challenge to their informational supremacy in the USA and, indeed, the entire world. The publisher of the NYT appears to be moderating the historic conclave. We join them literally mid-sentence . . .


NY: Hewwo everybody! Welcome to our confewence! This is a special session, as you know, convened in wesponse to the national emergency facing us all. But befowe we start, may we have a woll call of attendance, just to make sure we're all here? First, WaPo, are you dere, WaPo? 
WP: Yes, we are here! Shalom, NYT-wits!
NY:  Time, come in, Time! Are you dere?
Time: Yes, we are here! Shalom!
NY: ABC, NBC, and CBS: are you dere, Big Thwee? 
ABC: Yes!
NBC: Yes!
CBS: Yes! We are here!
All: Shalom!
NY:  Did I miss anyone?
Newsweek: Yes, you missed us! We are still here!
NY:   Oh, wight!  No offense, Newsweek. Also, I would wike to welcome our guest, Fox News, who shares our concern in dis urgent matter. Are you dere, Wupert?
Fox: Yes, we are here! Sha, sha - lom? 
NY: Shawom to you, too, Fox. Also, I wish to welcome, as new recwuits, some of our young offshoots who have expwessed an interest in joining us, and who, we bewieve, may weap some vital insights into information contwol from our own wong and stowied expewience. Welcome Sawon, Powitico, Swate and Daiwy Beast! Are you dere?
All four: Yes, sir, we are here! Shalom!
NY: Now to get down to business! As you all know, our countwy is appwoaching a histowical cwosswoads unwike any we have ever befowe witnessed, an encounter with an enemy of bibwical pwopowtions, an enemy wike weviathan himself. A powitical Gowiath who thweatens our very existence.  
NW: Do you mean ISIS?
NY: No! I mean Donawd Twump! 
NW: Oh, right! And by "our country" you mean Is - 
NY: (cutting NW off) I mean Amewica, of course! 
NW: Oh, of course!
NY: What other countwy could I mean? Where was I? Oh yes: the thweat. Now, I think we all agwee that Mr. Twump is dangewous. 
All: Very dangerous!
NY: But are we all aware of just how dangewous he is and pwecisewy why he is so dangewous? Well? Any ideas, fwiends?
Time: Well, sir, it's that wall he's going to build.
WaPo: And deporting all those illegals, er, I mean undocumented workers.
NW:  And don't forget the trade thing. The man's an isolationist.
CBS: He's a racist.
NBC: A bigot.
ABC: A Hitler.
NY: Ok, yes, you're all wight, but what's the very worst thing he's said, the thing that's most dangewous of all? You young 'uns, can you help us?
Politico: He insulted women. 
Slate: He insulted Muslims.
Salon: He insulted us!
NY: All true and quite repwehensible. But what is it that makes him so incwedibly dangewous to us and all our pwiviweges? 
Fox: He's trying to cut into my slave labour -er, I mean our foreign worker supply. That's enough for me to hate him right there.
NY:  Of course, Wupert. We all, or rather our owners all share your concern. But don't you people see what this man has said that cuts us all wight where we wive?
All:  (Baffled silence) 
NY:  Wisten and wearn! Twump said: I say what I say!
All:  (Horrified) No!
NY:  Yes! He said it. And when I heard those disgusting, ominous words, I knew this was going to be a fight to the death. Do you not weawize what dose odious words mean? What will happen if dey catch on, if this thing spweads? I say what I say? No! We say what dey say. Not dem! We say! We have always said what dey say. Now do you understand?
All:  Horrible! Terrible! Monstrous! Iniquitous! Impious! Seditious!
NY:  It's not the wall that he's going to build that's so dangewous, it's the wall he's teawing down, the wall bewteen us and dem. That wall we've been building for over half a centrury, since the end of the war, that wall of words and images and attitudes that we owe all our ascendancy to. That wall, my fwiends, is cwacking.
All: Oh no!
NY: Yes, it's cwacking, and Mr. Twump is an out-of-contwol wecking ball that will destwoy it and us if we do not destwoy him first.
All: (Angry voices) Yes! Destroy him!
NY:  Therefowe, we must commit ouwselves as never befowe to attack him and his suppowters. We must pull out all stops, cast all decency to the winds, use every diwty twick in the book and work night and day for dis man's total and absowute destwuction. Are we all agweed?
All: Agreed! Agreed!
NY: Befowe we depawt, then, let us swear to one another to renew our efforts to bwing this man down. [They all swear] 
Now I suggest we all cwasp hands, viwtually speaking, and join in a two-minutes-hate against Mr. Twump. The monitor will dispaly his image as we chant in unison. Feel fwee to bang on the table and stomp on the fwoor. You're among fwiends here. I shall wead the way: (chanting) Destwoy Twump!  Destwoy Twump!   
WaPo and Time, join in, pwease! 
WP and Time: Destroy Trump!  Destroy Trump! 
NY: Evewybody! 

All: Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! Destroy Trump! (etc, for two minutes)
NY: Whew! That felt good. Now back to work, evewybody! See you at temple, young 'uns!

Thursday, 10 March 2016

Beware the Ides of March - AND the March of Ideas

      The right is on the march and come Tuesday one of the epic ideological battles in history will be joined in the voting booths of Florida.
       How fitting that the fate of Donald Trump, and perhaps of his country as well, should be decided next week on one of history's most ominous dates, the ides of March. This time around, it's character assassination that's afoot, though, and the perpetrators are Trump's own party members, who detest him for much the same reason that Julius Caesar's killers hated him - his huge popularity with the plebs, aka the "fearful and frustrated." No daggers and swords, then, but attack ads and smear tactics on a scale unprecedented in a country already notorious for its exorbitant and dirty politics. If Trump pulls the Florida haul of deleagtes away from the establishment's man Rubio, the nomination will be all but assured him. Failing that, he may get outmaneuvered by the backroom pols and see his wins on the ground snatched away behind closed doors. Caesar's murder plunged the state of Rome into fifteen years of civil war. If Trump falls, his party can expect a similar fate when the Don crosses the Rubio-con for a third party run at power.
       The soothsayers, however, say that Trump will prevail. In which case the treacherous party bosses should be prepared to emulate Brutus and fall on their own swords.  

Sunday, 6 March 2016

We’re All Nazis Now

It's a basic law of politics that all parties and movements must move to the center. And after three "reversals" in as many days, and after the revelation of a secret tete-a-tete in the bowels of the enemy, i.e., the New York Times, which, purportedly, saw even the sacred Wall itself up for negotiation, the word is out that Trump is getting ready to abandon his base, betray his followers, and submit to the law of the center like any other mortal. But he's not any other mortal. He's a prophet, right? For who but a prophet could defy all the prophecies of his own destruction?
    The media likes to play fast and loose with the Trump threat. On the one hand they're telling Americans that they can't trust Trump. Everything he says is a lie. But on the other hand Trump excites their fear and loathing because they do take his promises seriously. (It recalls Trump's own contradiction when he claimed that Carson's youthful pathology was incurable and in the same breath  derided it as impossible. Either it never happened or it did happen but is incurable: one or the other, Donald, but not both!) In other words, the media wants it both ways, Trump as a clown and Trump as a madman. A bombast and a Hitler. The consensus, however, seems to be gravitating toward the Hitler side of things. Not surprising, given the ethnic constitutuion of America's media.
        After all, this epithet was fore-ordained the moment Trump declared war on Mexico's illegal emmigrants. "Illegals" is just right-wing-speak for immigrants, period, right? Which in turn is dog whistle for Mexicans, i.e., all Mexicans, all Muslims, and all non-whites. And never mind that the stigma was in the pipe the moment Trump got identified as a "personality" candidate. "Personality" was just code for "cult of personality" which was wink and nudge for "demagogue," and so on through the by-now familiar sequence of racist, bigot, hater and finally, triumphantly, "Hitler." Ironically, most of the sites using the Hitler epithet against Trump, routinely flag and delete any commenters who so much as mention the name. Perhaps they're trying to preserve the epithet in all its pristine stigmatizing power.
     Problem is, although the left is a having a hard time accepting it, "Hitler" just isn't the ultimate term of opprobrium that it once was. Because a funny thing happened on the way to Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values: Hitler himself got transvalued. 
      The liberal exults in the spectacle of men turning into females and vice versa, (although we suspect that feminists can't help deprecating the idea of any woman wanting to join the ranks of such an inferior gender), women's rooms getting invaded by adult males, children scolding their parents, students expelling their teachers, whites bowing to blacks, and the whole world generally getiing turned inside out. My God, even the vampires and zombies are turning into the good guys!
       But lefty hasn't noticed that other shift in values occurring in the shadow of the first: office workers turning into warriors, housewives turning into heroines, racists turning into patriots and history's demons turning into saints.
       The liberals righteously denouncing Trump at WaPo and the NYT reflexively invoke the traditional categories of decency and propriety against him. But it's as though they're using a foreign currency in a different and far-off country. If it's decent to cut the jugular of an abortion-born child  - and the Obamaites seem to believe it is - how then is it indecent to mock the withered arm of someone who might have been very decently aborted as "defective?" There are two competeing currencies in the West these days. One mint of "decency" contains gold, the other does not. One is counterfeit, the other is true. The left wanted to transvalue everything and ended up transvaluing the language out of any common meaning. Transaction denied.
       Back in the day, getting branded a Hitler was a rightist politician's ticket to obvlion. Today, Trump almost seems to relish it. It certainly hasn't hurt him. He's "virulent," we're told. But their "virulence" has lost its own virulence. Trump is immune.
         All is relative, say the relativists. As backgrounds change, so change the features. Hitler looked odious - until Merkel showed up. Trump looked like a clown - until reality showed up.
       Trump doesn't have to move to the center, the center is moving to him.