Jeff Goldstein Isn’t Ready to Don His Saffron Robe and Chant, ‘Hare Mitt-nu’

“Mother, do not wonder that my loyalty is growing weak. . . . I am sick and tired of the disaster and the fools that bring disaster upon us.”
— letter from a soldier in the 79th New York Infantry, 1863

Seedubya today was cracking cynical jests on Twitter, whence I derived the headline joke. Speaking of headlines and jokes . . .

Rick Perry endorses David Dewhurst
for Hutchison’s Senate seat

Not a joke, but quite laughable: Alleged populist sides with GOP Establishment against Tea Party-backed dynamo Ted Cruz?

Jeff Goldstein — who has been on a tear lately, as Mike Hendrix notes — decided there were some bridges that badly needed burning:

Crazy how all that online support that started out with Perry (and was simultaneously very vocal in its attacks on Bachmann, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, et al.,) seems now to have solidified behind Romney.
I mean, who would have thought it, right? These people go to TEA Party conferences! On stipends! And are given speaking roles. To stand up for conservative principles.
So they have to be conservatives, no? I mean, they are our conservative leaders, if you judge by their online influence.

It’s almost as if certain people were peddling their asses like cell-block punks trying to hustle up the price of a carton of Newports.

NTTAWWT, just don’t kid yourself that the rest of us can’t see what you’re doing. Maybe this will all work out just like you’ve planned it, and on Nov. 7 you’ll be accepting congratulations on the key role you played in Romney’s glorious triumph.

My hunch — and hey, maybe it’s only a hunch — is that this is as tragic a miscalculation as your ride on the Rick Perry bandwagon turned out to be, and all you’ll get is a sore ass, with no Newports to show for it.

Coalition politics in a two-party system requires each of us to decide which compromises we will accept and on what terms, so I try not to be too judgmental or intolerant about such things. What genuinely annoys me is irresponsible incompetence in politics of the sort that permits people to advocate bad policies and strategies which fail, and yet those who bring about such predictable failures — “the fools that bring disaster” — suffer no loss of influence as a result.

Demoralization spreads in the ranks as the troops begin to realize the “leaders” are members of a sort of Old Boys Club, and that their leadership status has nothing to do with actual merit, except in terms of their superior ability to curry favor with fellow club members.

After a while of watching this, you start noticing little things:

Oh, that’s sweet. Even as @NewtGingrich campaign was drowning in debt, it found $12k to pay daughter’s company.

Little things like that you notice, and you remember when Newt was also peddling his ass. But now what’s he got to show for it?

A sore ass. And no Newports.

Derbyshire, Goldstein and Lowry

The Bonfire of the Derbyshire has burnt itself out, although some latecomers are still poking around in the ashes. Liberals have reassured themselves of their moral superiority. Rich Lowry has reassured himself of his own editorial adequacy. And all is right with the world.

Except of course, it’s not really.

The wheels keep turning, and if Derbyshire’s downfall was just an isolated incident, rather than part of a larger phenomenon, it wouldn’t have resulted in such a carnival of finger-pointing and recriminations.

Mark Judge congratulates himself upon the theft of his bicycle? Meh.

The other day, I made a call to a Known Thought Criminal and chatted for a while about all this. Republicans have an amazing flinch reflex about race, I said, and the Left’s politicization of race is something the GOP can’t figure out how to deal with. National Review is a Republican magazine, and Derbyshire’s extracurricular outrage was a public-relations nightmare in an election year, which Think Progress seized on in a way no one had hitherto seized on Derb’s previous excursions into race-talk.

Having studied the ways of the finger-pointers — sanctimonious white liberals who are as eager as Ashley Judd to drape themselves in a borrowed mantle of righteous victimhood —  the whole ritual was to me entirely predictable. From the minute it was brought to my attention, I knew Derbyshire was doomed. If he wished to advocate freedom of association, certainly Derb understood that the proprietors of National Review must be extended the same freedom, eh?

We may therefore say they segregated themselves from Derbism, and the great misfortune may have been Derbyshire’s foolish belief that he could integrate himself into an unwelcoming community.

Perhaps no one will be offended (but my apologies in advance, anyway) if I extend the metaphor by saying that one day, Derb was minding his own business, wearing his hoodie and walking back from the store with some Skittles, when suddenly his career was ambushed by the Zimmermans of tolerance.

Like I said, apologies in advance.

Jeff Goldstein offers some wise words:

Eric Holder once told us were were afraid to have a real dialogue on race.  And he did so because he knew we were …

Goldstein’s theme is “defending the indefensible.” I know Jeff as someone who, like me, absolutely hates to see liberals win a fight — any fight — and especially hates it when liberals win because conservatives permit cowardice or convenience to persuade them to surrender.

You don’t have to agree with Derbyshire’s argument to say that liberals routinely get away with making worse arguments with more serious consequences: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.” And isn’t politics about electing officials and enacting policies?

Isn’t it true that accusations of racism — overt or implicit — are a common tactic of the Democratic Party? So wouldn’t it have possible for Rich Lowry to say something like this?

“Wait a minute! I’ve called John Derbyshire on the carpet, read him the Riot Act, and suspended him from National Review until we can calm down and figure this out. I strongly disagree with what John wrote, and some of my colleagues are very angry at me for having let Derb drift along like this for so long without any attempt at enforcing editorial discipline. He’s an old man undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, and I think his ill health should be taken into consideration in dealing with this problem. It is not, and should not be interpreted as, an endorsement of Derbyshire’s opinions for me to refuse to fire a longtime employee, a writer whose work has been enjoyed for years by our magazine’s readers, under such extraordinary circumstances.
“We may be unable to work out any honorable solution, and in that case, a parting of the ways will be necessary. However, as matters stand, Derbyshire is suspended until further notice, and this seems like as good time as any — a ‘teachable moment,’ as our liberal friends might say — for National Review to have a thoroughing discussion about how issues of race relations have impacted our nation’s culture and politics. What Derbyshire did was both stupid and wrong, but if I’m the Boss around here, I must bear the responsibility for what my employees do.
“I am inextricably implicated in Derbyshire’s misdeeds, which happened under my negligent supervision. Therefore, as General Lee said to his defeated troops as they retreated from the failed assault on Cemetery Ridge he had ordered, ‘This is all my fault.’
“It would be dishonorable for me to say otherwise, and if the board of directors should see fit to require my resignation as the consequence of this embarrassment, I would tender my resignation without resentment, regretting only my costly failure.”

Yes, if Rich Lowry were a man, he might have said something like that.

But the word “if” denotes a hypothetical, doesn’t it?

I Never Heard of a ‘Fair Fight’

Have you ever been sucker-punched or kicked in the head? I have.

These are not experiences I would recommend to anyone, although such experiences can be quite valuable life lessons. When you’re in a fight that begins when somebody punches you without warning and if, during the course of such a fight your assailant then kicks you in the head, you understand that rules of “fairness” are not universally recognized.

When somebody is determined to whup your ass, without regard to any concern for what is “fair,” you must recognize that the only alternative is to whup his ass by whatever means or methods are available.

Jeff Goldstein ponders the progressive “morality” of Stanley Fish and, of course, the only morality Fish recognizes is the Triumph of Progressivism.

This is what Amy Alkon discovered when the Left tried to destroy her career: The radicalism described in Herbert Marcuse’s notorious 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance” is now almost universally embraced by the Democratic Party and its supporters. These are not your father’s Democrats.

Anyone who thinks today’s Democrats are interested in “compromise” or “bipartisanship,” is a fool. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot expect fairness from them. You can either defeat them, or else be subjected to their absolute authority.

Bring In Jeff Goldstein?

by Smitty

Bill Quick and some people are arguing past each other on an important linguistic/cultural point:

Are you guys really this dense, or is it just that you can’t see past your own blinders – lefties don’t like racist terminology and usage, so you think you have to approve it, or pretend that it isn’t racist?
You have a right to say any dumbass thing you wish to – but you don’t have any right to a free pass on it based on some of the screwiest reasoning I’ve ever run across in supposedly intelligent people.
“Jig is up” is a usage of “jig” that is related to dancing, so naturally there is no possible occasion when the context of its usage could also have racist overtones even though it also has a vile and racist meaning.” Are you even listening to yourselves?

I have not been arguing that other people are incapable of re-purposing the symbol ‘jig’ to have racist connotations. And, certainly, with an imaginable suffix, it’s a racial epithet.

The point I’ve been getting at, and one of the major themes of Protein Wisdom for probably longer than I’ve read it, is that we are in an ideological war, and that this is precisely the sort of tool employed against us: taking a symbol, re-working the meaning, and then using that re-worked meaning as a weapon to beat us down.

Such is evil, demonic, and a ploy of Satan himself. We should (a) refrain from doing it ourselves, and (b) confront anyone using the tactic and say ‘No’.

Let jigs be jigs. And let crackers be something put on soup. And let me cheerfully laugh, and de-escalate the situation, if somebody uses ‘cracker’ on me to mean otherwise. For hyper-sensitivity, too, like turning up the gain on a control circuit amplifier, is still another de-stabilization technique of the Left.

Peace, out.

UPDATE (RSM): Minor editing has been committed. Our blog is sometimes improvised or, as some would say, jerry-rigged. (No offense to Germans intended.)

Is Matt Drudge Not A Mitt Romney Fan?

by Smitty

Ouch:

Quite the triumph of the negative advertising will, Mitt’s 3% victory in Michigan. Alas for Romney,

Rick Santorum is the leading Republican presidential contender in Ohio, according to a new survey in the state.
The Quinnipiac University poll released Monday showed the former Pennsylvania senator with 36% support among likely Republican primary voters, followed by Mitt Romney at 29%, Newt Gingrich at 17% and Ron Paul at 11%.

Can Mitt’s squadrons of carpet bombers drop enough negative ordnance on Ohio to pull that out in time for Super Tuesday?

It remains to be seen. As Protein Wisdom noted yesterday,

Romney: “obviously, I want to make sure that we maintain the progressivity of the code”
Yes, obviously. Because that’s what “severely conservative” candidates do: maintain “progressivity” — or, to put a finer point on it, maintain one of the 10 planks in the Communist Manifesto, the graduated income tax.

I don’t know why Jeff G. has been unable to regain the happiness in slavery he seemed to be enjoying at Woodstock with the band. That tax code, which does not seem to have any point as far as funding a balanced federal budget goes, is really more of an iron rod by which We The People are punished, divided, and ruled.

Anything said by any candidate of any party has got to be given the litmus test of liberty. The ‘p’ word is anti-liberty at all points. I hope that Romney’s handlers are keeping an eye on this blog and noting that, in spite of whatever sort of Lefty dog-whistle is afforded by ‘progressivity’, usage of that term is an air-raid siren for conservatives that ol’ Willard is full of Mitt.

But maybe those handlers are paying attention:

What precisely am I deciding here? The contents of Romney’s core convictions? The presence of those convictions? Scroll down the page to the public figure Tea Party endorsements at the bottom: when this toss-off of a web site puts itself alongside some un-named “Sen. Demint Adviser”, and hasn’t even been updated to include Gov. Jan Brewer’s “OK, sure” endorsement of Mitt, you know it’s a joke. One is tempted to speculate that the Left is fronting this site more as a poke at Mitt’s lack of Tea Party support.

However, I don’t wish to sound all Bill Quick in my tepid attitude toward Romney. There really is too much at stake not to support Mitt, should his megatonnage of negative advertising result in the GOP nomination amidst the rubble. Mitt shall have bought the nomination fair and square, in that case. I also respect Mitt’s unwillingness to ‘set his hair on fire‘ while commanding the bombastic advertising campaign. I suppose that means Mitt won’t give us the Full Klinger, in his quest for the Resolute Desk. Fine. Some level of restraint is good in a Presidential candidate, insofar as his megalomania is concerned.

However, we all need to be relentless, hair aflame, and as serious as lung cancer about liberty. About turning the Information Age into something that means less government. About holding public figures accountable. About blowing the face off of the zombie of Progress, and, metaphorically, every sad little tool who preaches this false progressive gospel.

Let us soldier on and ensure that Mitt at least respects the actual Tea Parties, for all he probably hates them. ODERINT DUM METUANT.

Ruling Class Overlords Repair To Davos For Cthulhu Worship

by Smitty

Protein Wisdom links Breitbart in celebrating the World Economic Forum in Davos. It sounds as though the Commies are realizing that if you subvert capitalism to the point that you destroy it utterly, you’re going to have to come up with a new source of crap with which to flood the world.

But if there is one thing Turbo Tax Timmy Geithner can do, it is crapflood.

This blog would like to point to The Protocols of the Elders of Cthulhu, a fine farce founded on Protocols Of The Meetings Of The Learned Elders Of Zion that ran a couple of years ago, but remains just as valid of as Obam’s State of the Union address today.

Dammit, Smitty! How Many Times Must I Tell You, ‘No Quarter to Feminists’?

HOLLIS, N.H.
The sun is shining this morning in New Hampshire, but the shadows of gloom still threaten to swallow my soul. First, I couldn’t get a “Roll Tide” from Rick Santorum and now . . . Et tu, Smitty?

“Roxeanne gets me thinking with this one,” indeed!

The redheaded temptress has evidently beguiled and confused you by asserting that it is “downright sexist” to assume “that men can do things competently but women cannot.”

Obviously so, and this is exactly the point: What Roxeanne pejoratively styles “sexism” is the only possible resistance to the deceitful strategic attempt at gynocentric hegemony commonly known as “feminism.”

Don’t you see, Admiral Smith, that feminists are lying when they claim to want mere equality? Do you suppose that the Fair Sex shall be content to get 51% of everything and leave us with a respectable remainder? Hell, no, sir.

They want it all or, at least, they want everything worth having — every position of prestige and influence — and if their ruthless power-grab is not strenuously resisted, we shall be left only the most ignoble duties of society. Men will be hewing wood and drawing water for Our Omnipotent Feminist Overlords, tugging the forelock to beg crumbs from the distaff banquet table.

It’s a zero-sum game, you see, as any Womyn’s Studies major would be happy to inform you. Any power exercised by any man over any woman under any circumstance is, according to feminist doctrine, the Unjust Misogynistic Oppression of the Patriarchy.

Call a waitress a “waitress”? SEXIST!

Glance twice at a long-legged beauty? MISOGYNIST!

Ask your wife to wash your socks? OPPRESSOR!

This endless hectoring — the constant accusatory finger-pointing intended to shame men for their natural masculine impulses — is part and parcel of feminism’s totalitarian quest for complete dominance. And the fact that feminism, as an ideology, represents only the selfish hatefulness of a relatively small number of embittered hags does not make this totalitarianism less dangerous.

Remember that the Bolsheviks were but a tiny fraction of the Russian populace at the time of the October Revolution, and yet their radical ruthlessness enabled them to seize power. In much the same way as the Bolsheviks claimed to speak for the workers and peasants, feminists nowadays claim to represent the interests of all women. On the basis of that usurped authority, feminists wield the awful fury of revolutionary terror against their enemies, so that even Jeff Goldstein seems afraid to openly oppose them.

Am I alone in seeing this? Is there no one else who recognizes the dictatorial ambitions of feminism, the steel fist inside the velvet glove? Do you not understand, Smitty, that you can no more placate these would-be tyrants with soft words of reasonable compromise than you can negotiate with a ravenous shark?

Rebuke them! Expose them! Defy them! Denounce them!

Never show fear in the presence of feminists, because your fear is their second most powerful weapon, and nearly as dangerous as the first.

IYKWIMAITYD.