[the munching sound of eating the popcorn of mounting horror in the overton window of despair]

platonictrumpThe microcosm of conservative crisis that exists in the interchange between Sarah ‘Sad Puppy’ Hoyt and Vox ‘Rabid Puppy’ Day continues after a brief hiatus.

The interchange warmed up again with a guest post by Jeb Kinninson, which, I think it is fair to say, was better than average. http://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/03/07/sons-of-liberty-vs-national-front-jeb-kinnison/ It takes a lot for granted about reader’s views on immigration but otherwise it does a not unreasonable broad-strokes view of the USA’s history of immigration.

A taste here:

This is an interesting mix of “truthiness” and bigotry. Sarah is American by belief and choice, accused of being a “traitor” by people who think their ancestry and presence on the landmass of the US since birth make them guardians of the US nation-state. Aside from the incoherence (how can she be a traitor if she is not a member of the tribe?), the commenter attempts to other her by lumping her in with the virtue-signalling SJWs.

This commenter is sadly unAmerican in his resort to racist and sexist issue framing, completely misapplied to Sarah Hoyt. It’s unfortunate that the loud outpourings of these people, few in number but egging each other on in the fever swamps of sites like this blog-which-shall-go-unlinked, can so easily be used by progressive scribblers elsewhere to tar all dissenters from the Progressive program of thought control as racists, misogynists, and neo-Nazis (or worse!)

Yup, it is a shame – after all it isn’t as if people like Sarah Hoyt actively promoted a campaign which sought to give the man who runs that blog-which-shall-go-unlinked a Hugo Award for no good reason other than everybody else not liking his politics.

Vox, naturally, has replied in his own style http://voxday.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/that-which-goes-unlinked.html and pretty much aligns himself with the 19th century American ‘Know-nothings’.

But the post does serve to nicely illustrate the intrinsically dishonest, pernicious, and untenable nature of the concept of the proposition nation, which anyone can join “by belief and choice”. Such a nation requires, absolutely requires, thought policing of the most stringent and ruthless variety, and is intrinsically totalitarian in a way that the most authoritarian “blood and soil” regime could never be.

It is no surprise that as a result of immigration and the necessary redefinition of what it is to be American, the country has become considerably less free despite the influx of these “belief and choice” citizens. The Know-Nothings were, more or less, correct. Indeed, the present situation is a direct consequence of the inability of 19th century immigrants to fully grasp the Rights of Englishmen, because they were never English and they will never be what might be described as Americans version 1.0. More recent arrivals are observably even less able to do so.

So, for those keeping tracking, among the groups that Vox sees as having an adverse affect on America’s gene pool are the Irish. Vox loves the classics!

Meanwhile, in the twilight zone between Day and Hoyt, John C Wright is struggling with his beliefs: http://www.scifiwright.com/2016/03/unimpressed-and-undecided/

[Trump] I do not blame for the crudeness, carnival barker and pro-wrestling atmosphere of this race. The Dems won election after election with such tactics and the majority of voters react positively rather than with discust. That is the fault of the general crudeness of the American people.

But crudeness is something from which the nation can recover, if we survive, repent, and vehemently abolish the only other rival religion to Christianity equal in strength to it, namely, political correctness.

Mr. Trump has greater charisma than Mr. Cruz, but no displayed loyalty to constitutional principles, and, seemingly, no loyalty to respect the constitutional bounds of the office.

The bluster and the undignified antics are unpresidential: he is a rightwing version of Barack Obama. Mr. Obama was, as it turns out, no more loyal to the Left than you or I would be.

I am disappointed and disheartened with him, but not to the point of supporting the vile betrayers RINOs and establishmentarians who seek to overturn the nomination process, and certainly not to the point of vowing not to support whatever candidate the party base picks.

But I hope they pick Cruz. He is a solid and principled conservative. He won a place in my heart when he filibustered for twenty four hours and more. And all the right people hate him.

Is Trump just too vulgar for Wright? Sure Trump is reactionary enough for Wright but is he a bit icky? We will have to wait and see as the Republican Party heads ever further closer to a choice between Trump and Cruz.




10 thoughts on “[the munching sound of eating the popcorn of mounting horror in the overton window of despair]

  1. JCW, in all immodesty, one of the most immodest writers writing today, spelled it “discust”? Oooooookay.


  2. Ok, but I’m still ahead on handbags. After all, do you have one winging its way to you from Charles de Gaulle Airport? No? I didn’t think you did!


  3. But everybody hates Ted Cruz! It’s something which transcends political party. Democrats hate him, Republicans hate him, people he went to college with hate him, people he’s only met once hate him, people who’ve never met him hate him. You can’t judge Cruz by who hates him.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I’m going to give a point to Hoyt for acquiring a guest poster who’s actually quite coherent (if, you know, wrong), and a point to VD for a really pointed title (“That Which Goes Unlinked”), and nil points to JCW for vacillation unbecoming a demagogue.


  5. I am loving your portrait if the candidate political columnist Charlie Pierce refers to as “the vulgar talking yam” at the top if the page more and more each time I look upon it. I may have to crochet a tiny plush version of it sometime, if my limited skills and your tolerance permit it.


Comments are closed.