Archives for category: Leaders/Demagogues/Führers

When Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., 46th President of These Benighted States, speaks, we should listen. Amidst his fits and starts and faux pas we can find real gems of revelation.

The latest examples come from his G7 adventures. Speaking of Russia, he wants to appear smart. He obviously enjoys every old-timey turn of phrase, and he smiles as he says Russians have “bitten off some real problems they are going to have trouble chewing on.” I wonder if he rehearsed that. It is not exactly Shakespeare, but it is the Bard Himself compared to his repeated references to “Libya.”

You see, Biden meant to say “Syria,” which Russia has defended against repeated U.S. attempts at the overthrow of the Alawite regime. Biden wants to make Putin look bad here, for getting in the way of noble, peace-loving U.S. intervention. But Biden ruins this brilliant bit of misdirection by repeatedly bringing up Libya. For Libya’s the far bigger mess, and it was a mess caused by the United States, the Obama-Biden Administration in particular.

So, why would he do that?

I figure that his ability to lie is low, his pre-frontal cortex being so shriveled up that he cannot maintain the prevarication. Libya is the counter to everything Biden wants to say about Russian and Syria. It shows that it is the United States that is in way over its head, or, to use Biden’s preferred cliché, has bitten off more than it can possibly chew. The Obama-Biden-Clinton team ruined Libya. It is the U.S. that is responsible for that mess, and what a mess it is! And Biden knows that HE MUST NOT SAY IT, so he says it.

The Imp of the Perverse is Edgar Allan Poe’s metaphor:

Induction, à posteriori, would have brought phrenology to admit, as an innate and primitive principle of human action, a paradoxical something, which we may call perverseness, for want of a more characteristic term. In the sense I intend, it is, in fact, a mobile without motive, a motive not motivirt. Through its promptings we act without comprehensible object; or, if this shall be understood as a contradiction in terms, we may so far modify the proposition as to say, that through its promptings we act, for the reason that we should not. In theory, no reason can be more unreasonable; but, in fact, there is none more strong. With certain minds, under certain conditions, it becomes absolutely irresistible. I am not more certain that I breathe, than that the assurance of the wrong or error of any action is often the one unconquerable force which impels us, and alone impels us to its prosecution. Nor will this overwhelming tendency to do wrong for the wrong’s sake, admit of analysis, or resolution into ulterior elements. It is a radical, a primitive impulse—elementary. It will be said, I am aware, that when we persist in acts because we feel we should not persist in them, our conduct is but a modification of that which ordinarily springs from the combativeness of phrenology. But a glance will show the fallacy of this idea. The phrenological combativeness has for its essence, the necessity of self-defence. It is our safeguard against injury. Its principle regards our well-being; and thus the desire to be well, is excited simultaneously with its development. It follows, that the desire to be well must be excited simultaneously with any principle which shall be merely a modification of combativeness, but in the case of that something which I term perverseness, the desire to be well is not only not aroused, but a strongly antagonistical sentiment exists.

An appeal to one’s own heart is, after all, the best reply to the sophistry just noticed. No one who trustingly consults and thoroughly questions his own soul, will be disposed to deny the entire radicalness of the propensity in question. It is not more incomprehensible than distinctive. There lives no man who at some period, has not been tormented, for example, by an earnest desire to tantalize a listener by circumlocution. The speaker is aware that he displeases; he has every intention to please; he is usually curt, precise, and clear; the most laconic and luminous language is struggling for utterance upon his tongue; it is only with difficulty that he restrains himself from giving it flow; he dreads and deprecates the anger of him whom he addresses; yet, the thought strikes him, that by certain involutions and parentheses, this anger may be engendered. That single thought is enough. The impulse increases to a wish, the wish to a desire, the desire to an uncontrollable longing, and the longing, (to the deep regret and mortification of the speaker, and in defiance of all consequences,) is indulged.

Something like that is going on in Biden’s poor head. I suspect it is not unrelated to other impulses, which we see at play in the Law of Nemesis.

Biden knows he must not mention Libya, but cannot help but bring it up.

The imp is upon him, like the narrator in the Poe story, who is mysteriously impelled to run out into the public confessing to murder — inevitably bringing on his own destruction.

He is utterly in thrall to that imp.

That imp now rules America.

twv

It is largely an artifact of World War II, our age’s relentless demonization of fascism. The fascists lost; “we” won.

I have long been in the inconvenient position of itching to demonize fascism as a political and economic system while also sweeping under the Demon rubric the forces that did the grand work of defeating the Nazis, Italian fascists, and Japanese imperialists. For the nation-states and ersatz empires of the Allies shared more in common with their enemies than with the polity for which I advocate. They are all cultists of the omnipotent state. Though I readily admit, by happy accident I was born an American, where the omnipotence of the federal government was contained, traditionally, by some constitutional procedural niceties . . . legal limitations on governmental scope. American fascism was a thing, but fascistic elements of the Progressives’ beloved central government were even more important. And those American limits on state potency have eroded over time.

Nevertheless, it is today’s social justice, intersectionalist “pseudo-progressives” (to use the Misesian pejorative form) who are most likely to use “fascist” as the ultimate term of abuse. They have World War II behind them, and the modern Democratic Party beside them, to make their terminology stick. But their abuse of history and language remains an issue. For more on this problem, consult David Ramsay Steele and The Mystery of Fascism. It is an essay in a book. Look it up. Last year Lee Waaks and I talked with Mr. Steele about it on the LocoFoco Netcast:

But there is no end to the discussion, apparently. See a recent post to Liberty at Large on Quora:

Fascism and anti-fascism, in popular debate, are usually just political tribalism. Fascists were worshipers in the Cult of the Omnipotent State who made much of their differences with Socialists. Progressives in the Progressive Era preferred fascism, generally, to socialism; since World War II they preferred socialism to fascism. But what any of them “really mean” when they say “fascism” (bad) or “socialism” (good) is open to dispute. For, like always with political people, between fantasy and compromise lies a vast tract of spongey territory with no sure footing.

I sometimes find one fantasy worse than another depending on where the action is on the spongey marshland. I try not to be distracted by each will-o’-the-wisp conjured up out of swamp gas.

But hey: it is hard, since usually there is more gas than light. And we need the light.

twv

N.B. This afternoon I chatted with Anthony Comegna again, for an upcoming podcast. But I should mention two recent episodes of his podcast, Ideas in Progress, are about actual America fascism, with historian Katy Hull. Highly recommended!

After shouting by Democrats that they had overthrown a dictator, their man immediately goes on a diktat binge, signing more executive orders in his first week in the White House than any other president in history. Yes, even more than Orange Man Bad.

Yes, a dictator signs diktats, which in the American system would be that executive order. So, to judge a president’s dictatorial tendencies, compare the number of such orders. So far, we are limited to the counts of the first week.

Biden beats Trump in the Dictatorial Olympics, 32 to 4.

And Biden’s have not been humble, mere procedural edicts, either.

Evil Orange Man signed 220, during his beleaguered term, if my memory holds. I am waiting for Biden’s 666th.

Shall we form a betting pool?

twv

When Trump said something ungainly, blunt, or outrageous, it should not have been news. We expected it. Reasonable people had already discounted it. Republicans pick inarticulate Moseses (at best, and so to speak), not suave Aarons.

But when the news media praises a terrible speech, badly delivered by the new president — indeed, fawns all over it — should that be news? We expect Democrats to pick silver-tongues like Clinton and Obama, not numb-lipped buffoons like Biden.

So the news media fawning over dross as if it were finery is news, at least in that context.

But then, we all, deep down, know that the corporate news media plays Mockingbird to the Deep State’s Cuckoo, and is obviously partisan and unhinged. So, in that sense, we are witnessing the desperation of Democrats, pushing a lackluster pol to the top because the movement is intellectually brain dead but murderously power-hungry. In that jaded sense, Biden’s bumbling and the press’s puffery is hardly news at all. We are already discounting it as history.

What’s next?

What new effrontery shall become rule?

…to re-state…

To think that a mumbling corrupt insider is to be fawned over and a blustery demagogue is to be excoriated is itself unhinged. This is partisanship.

Now, the Democrats constitute the party of the ever-growing centralized unitary state, and that is itself an enormity, but I can see how one might ideologically align oneself with all that. I couldn’t since I despise concentrated power, but others lust for power and the salvific grace of such power.

What I cannot see is how anyone with a hint of integrity could pass over seven months of defense of street violence and insurrection, complete with arson and murder and actual territorial claims, defending such action and egging the acts on, and then flip out over that idiotic Capitol incursion. Just so, freaking out over Trump for five years and then praising someone who is arguably far more corrupt — and yes, we have actual data and plausible cases against him. This is unhinged.

But it gets worse. Major media, social media, and major Democratic politicians openly talk about suppressing the speech of their opponents. It’s right out there in the open. In an American context, that is unhinged. But usually I just call it evil.

Behind all this is, I think, the Deep State, specifically the CIA. It may be that we should have sympathy for this devil, just as one has for the mad computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The inhabitants of the Deep State have been given contradictory messages and missions. Nevertheless, the Deep State supports mass slaughter overseas, keeps secrets from Americans apparently of astounding nature, and engages in psy-ops in a grand manner. To top it all off, the Pentagon and alphabet soup intel agencies cannot and will not account for trillions of dollars in income and expenditures.

They are the real rulers.

Autocrats, oligarchs, and the like might be given some leeway if they ran the non-secret governments well. But they have encouraged the growth of deficit spending, debt financing all along. So, for this reason they must be condemned, as must both major parties. And, the heads and former heads of the CIA and FBI et al., they spent years plying an absurd case against Trump. The Russian dossier was an obvious forgery, and we know a lot about it now. One of the only good things Trump did towards the end was self-serving on this manner, but it helped us: he de-classified the Russian dossier material. We know where all that came from: a British agent who plied a lie about Trump to aid Hillary Clinton.

But, the good news is that most of this secret governance is stupid. I had thought that most of the blackmailing that the Deep State sets against the presidents (Obama being an obvious “victim”) was sophisticated. But Comey’s attempt was a botch, and the unraveling of the case managed by the administrative state was before our eyes (a few of its genius leaders were conveniently hired as on-air consultants of the cable news “networks”): the insiders are not that smart.

They only succeed because Americans of both parties are extremely dumb.

…a grand effrontery…

Biden calls for unity and says his inauguration is a win for democracy. That is not how democracy works. It is not a loss for democracy if your side loses, or a win when your side wins. The biggest source of disunity right now is the widespread belief that the election was rigged. And a rigged election is a huge sign of a pseudo-democracy — and fighting the impression of electoral corruption cannot just be a matter of assertion and dismissal of evidence.

There is a lot of talk of hallowed ground and sacred this and that in the speech. Ugh. Abraham Lincoln got away with that kind of thing because he was talking at a gravesite of fallen warriors, not where politicians routinely lie, cheat and steal.

twv

The Thing that Biden wouldn’t say is, of course . . . well, I will leave that thought to a podcast. (And yes, more are coming.)

So, everyone acknowledges how weird 2020 has been. But too rarely do we recognize how well prepared we have been for the totalitarianism now developing. Our progressive servility has been managed, taught, bought and paid for (though the “paid for” includes over $27 trillion in debt, so I’m using this term loosely). It is a multi-pronged advance, of course, and it would be tedious to list at this point the major wings of our enslavement. But what Herbert Spencer called “The Coming Slavery” in 1884 is what we are seeing at the end of 2020.

Though in some sense “shocking,” it is not as if all my life I have not believed this was coming. I believed it when I ate up evangelical Christian eschatology as a young teen; I grokked it when I read Aldous Huxley and Yevgeny Zamyatin as an older teen. I began to understand its methods when I learned the meaning of words like “Orwellian” and “fascist” and “communist,” and especially as I read the history of the rise of the American military-industrial complex. Economics proved helpful, too, as did social psychology and . . . science fiction.

Indeed, that latter should have prepared us all what we are about to experience. I occasionally use an obscure word: stefnal. Well, that word sure will come in handy in 2021. The world is undergoing metamorphosis, and it is a very “science-fictional” one.

The Age of the AntiChrist™ is here, and tens and tens of millions have voted for it. Ah, the Savior State! But caution: Biden’s not the AntiChrist™, and neither, I suspect, is the loathsome Kamala Harris: the Savior State itself fits the role, with the figurehead being replaceable.

And the Last Men (of all “genders”) shall march to their demise taunting those recalcitrants who must be dragged to their doom their in chains — though the chains may very well be some form of psychotropic drug, a freeze ray, or a carefully constructed virus.

When the definitive history of the last three decades is written, my bet is that the black-and-white of it will characterize the policies from George Herbert Walker Bush through Barack Hussein Obama as deeply, deeply anti-Christian as well as just murderously anti-christian — and, of course, criminally stupid. Their mid-east wars displaced, demoralized, and killed Christian communities in Syria, Iraq and environs. And American Christians let it happen because — why? why? — well, maybe because they whored out their loyalties to the powerful American super-state, trading in God for guns, and perhaps because those foreign Christian communities were neither Catholic nor Protestant. Heretics!

Trump did not stop bombing those lands, alas. But — and this is one of his few minor successes, but a major reason I had some sympathy for him — he at least did not start any new wars. Still, I see little evidence that he managed to repair much of the destruction of Christian, Jewish and Yezidi populations after the defeat of the mostly tolerant thugs of the Baathist regime.

As the second decade of this century draws to a close and we perhaps turn our eyes to the Democrats’ horrific globalist policies, and to the threat of China, with which they are complicit, maybe we should remember past victims of American globalist hegemony.

And maybe we should ask ourselves if there might be any reason why our Deep State wanted to kill off mid-East Christians. Sure, the most likely explanation is the utter stupidity of American foreign policy — a bipartisan hackery with knaves and fools like

  • Henry Kissinger
  • Zbiegniew Brzezinski and his idiot daughter and her doltish husband
  • Paul Wolfowitz
  • Dick Cheney
  • John Kerry
  • Hillary Clinton
  • all our CIA and NSA chiefs, et al.,

and other mass murderers and clueless purveyors of buncombe —but mightn’t something more sinister and Book-of-Revelation-y have been in play?

I cannot properly appraise how malign these luminaries have been, what damage they have done, or how untrustworthy they remain, since much of the information about them is socked away in secret, or kept from our eyes by the American taboo against speaking truth about our global neo-imperialism. Patriotism! The first refuge of scoundrels.

Our rulers are fools and knaves, and, if you ever despair of your place in this world, maybe you can take this as consolation: not one of you has done as much harm as these celebrated jet-setter antichrists have.

Remember, American military and diplomatic policy is a bipartisan affair, by which I mean that when the two parties disagree, they are usually right about each other, and when they agree they are worse.

Whatever we may say about our current president, the reason the Democratic establishment (and no smallpart of the GOP establishment, too) hated him so much was not because of his “narcissism” or “sexism” or “racism,” it was because Trump had a commonsense hunch about their competence and moral standing: he suspected (correctly) that they were a putrid mix of incompetence and corruption. They constituted The Swamp. Against which — ah, to Drain! — Trump strained in vain, since he knew almost nothing.

It is dangerous to vote for unlearned, incurious blowhards.

Now another chapter is opening and we get to see how long the least impressive P/VP picks in American history play out. I assume they will serve as earnest toadies to our murderous Deep State, but eagerness and earnestness may not prove enough. Will His Senility last a year in office? A month? Will Her Hollowness implode like the vacuous pufferfish she appears to be? I do not know.

Meanwhile, the persecution of Christians and Yezidis that Sadasm Hussein prohibited will no doubt continue as Muslim populations solidify their own wins. Will there be any left?

Islamophile Democrats in America, of course, don’t care. Mid-east Christians are an embarrassment to them. But less embarrassing when safely dead.

Happy Boxing Day.

twv

Mr. Roosevelt is the most formidable disaster that has befallen the country since the Civil War — but the vast mass of the nation loves him, is frantically fond of him, even idolizes him. This is the simple truth. It sounds like a libel upon the intelligence of the human race, but it isn’t; there isn’t any way to libel the intelligence of the human race.

Mark Twain (September 13, 1907)
Cover illustration, Harper’s Weekly, August 3, 1912.

What do libertarians think of Teddy Roosevelt?

…as answered on Quora….

As a president he was a very good prose stylist. As a philosopher he was a very good hunter. As a man he was a very good maniac.

I have never met a libertarian who saw in TR much other than an imperialist, a warmonger, and a scheming corrupter of the Constitution. He brought “Progressivism” — technocratic Socialism Lite with a plutocratic twist — into the mainstream, which meant that he prepared the way for the worst president in American history, Woodrow Wilson, and for that epochal disaster, TR’s clanmate FDR.

He is admired by ambitious people left and right, and, arguably, there are few better cultural indicators of libertarianism’s perpendicularity to standard politics than libertarians’ near-universal hatred for Teddy Roosevelt.

I liked John Milius’s The Wind and the Lion, though — an interesting portrait of TR by Brian Keith. I need to see it again, considering the film’s eerie framing of the current cultural friction between Islam and the West.

twv