Posse Incitatus

Another China retreat?

Over the weekend, Communist China announced that it was lifting tariffs against soy and pork products from the US.

If this is the case (note that the ChiComs lie early and often), it would be a significant win for Trump's trade policies.

As we've pointed out several times, the US holds the upper hand in this dispute.  The US is almost entirely self-sufficient, and only allowed itself to become dependent on Chinese manufactured goods through a combination of laziness and corporate greed.

China, on the other hand, cannot even feed itself.  This dependency goes behind basic nutrition to prestige items like pork, which is highly-valued in China.

The Communist regime's legitimacy rests in large part on increasing prosperity.  Forcing people to cut back on favorite foods while factories close undermines that legitimacy and strikes at the heart of the regime's power. 

There is also the problem that the rest of the world doesn't have enough soy or pork to feed China.  America remains the garden of the world, and without our foodstuffs, global famine is a certainty.

Trump's economic team has always known this, and it's worth noting that while the national security and political appointees seem to have regular turnover, the economic side of the administration remains stable and successful.  This is perhaps because Trump understands that without a firm economic footing, all else is weakened.  China's leaders are now learning the same lesson.

9/11 Comes of Age

The artificial outrage over the Trump Administration seeking a negotiated settlement to the Afghan War tells us all we need to know about the Bipartisan Establishment and the Democrat-funded "peace movement."

They are both incompetent and fake.

War is not a condition to be managed, it is an existential struggle for those involved.  It is true that a coldly rational policy might require sacrifice for a greater strategic aim, but no such vision is now being articulated regarding Afghanistan.  It's a quagmire so we must stay because that's what we have to do.

It's significant that our current Ruling Class is entirely insulated from the war's costs but richly rewarded by its benefits.

This is why Trump's effort to wind down the now-aimless struggle are being attacked from the left of all places.  So much for Cindy Sheehan.  The widows and orphans of the current war are drawn from the Deplorable class, so no attention need be paid them.

The desire to smear Trump as anti-military or defeatist will fail, just as all the other smears have failed because the truth is unmistakable.  Actual combatants and their families are tired of a war without end.  The ardent volunteers of 18 years ago are now watching their children come of military age to take up the torch from failing hands, but to what end? 

A punitive expedition to Afghanistan was always a good idea, and the installation of a friendly client government was a not unreasonable solution.  But one cannot "reconstruct" a society that never was.  George W. Bush ran for president in part by ridiculing "nation-building," and yet he was the worst nation-builder of them all.

Just as the attacks 18 years ago this morning tore away the illusions that our Ruling Class knew what it was doing, so the bumbling effort since has further destroyed their credibility.  In a sense, this is the 9/11 about 9/11.

Walmart's death wish

There is a strange virus infecting corporate America.  This pathogen seems to be transmitted by social media and incubates chiefly among insular business executives seeking social status from one another.

How else to explain yet another corporation deciding to alienate its core customer base and court financial ruin?

Walmart's announcement regarding firearms is completely incoherent.  It is one thing to ban open carry, which may or may not alienate customers.  In police states like California and New York, it's already illegal.

In more enlightened jurisdictions, concealed carry is generally preferred by the gun rights community anyway.

Yet Walmart is going even further, announcing that it will ban the sale of certain calibers which it deems "bad" as well as donating to gun control organizations.

Both are insane.

As long-time readers of this blog know, there are no "safe" calibers to be shot with.  All of them can kill you.

Walmart singling out pistol calibers is however particularly daft since these are among the least lethal.  A .32 Auto or .380 packs far less punch than a 30.06 and is also less likely to over-penetrate and kill people behind the original target.

Indeed, if there's been a shooting spree conducted with a .380 or .357 Magnum, I'd like to hear about it.  I don't think it's happened.

Deciding not to sell these calibers on the basis of "safety" is stupid on the face of it, and the only goal is to leverage corporate power in support of an otherwise unobtainable political goal.

I'm sure the David French's of the world approve.

But in the real world, this is a slap in the face to Walmart's long-time customers, and I don't think it will end well for them.  Just as Gillette found, pissing on your customer base because you dream that a more "woke," and upscale one will appear out of thin air to replace it is not a recipe for success.

I'm surprised more shareholder lawsuits haven't materialized as the result of these shenanigans, but such things also take time.

Meanwhile, gun control has never been less popular, and the legal terrain has shifted sharply against the Democrats.  It's therefore no surprise they've decided to try to use Big Business to impose their will.

This is a dangerous path for them, though.  It reeks of the Gilded Age when workers were paid in scrip and forced to use the Company Store.  That provoked a severe populist backlash and a similar one is brewing now.

Smug, un-elected plutocrats living in gated communities flying jets around the world telling people what they can and cannot buy is not how one builds an electoral coalition.

The truth is the Democrats are now the funhouse mirror version of their own caricature of cigar-chomping Republicans.  Thomas Nast's cartoons of the trusts ruling over the Senate applies to the Dems, not the GOP.

Whoever the Dem nominee ends up being, it's going to be tough for them to keep screaming that they're for "the little guy" when they are on the size of Google, Apple, Amazon and now Walmart.

They are forcing Trump to become the second coming of Teddy Roosevelt and fundamentally shifting the political allegiance of millions of Americans.

Heckuva job, guys.

Molotov-Ribbentrop at 80: The concentrated essence of unprincipled leftism

Today marks the 80^th anniversary of the infamous Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact, which sealed the fate of Poland and set the stage for World War II.

The alliance was purely tactical for both parties.  Joseph Stalin wanted to push his frontier further west and gain hegemony over western Poland, parts of Finland and the Baltic States.  Adolf Hitler wanted to avoid a second front during his ongoing showdown with the western Allies.

After years of heated vitriol, both totalitarian states turned on a dime, going from hating one another to proclaiming the wisdom of rapprochement so they could fight the true common enemy, western liberal democracy and capitalism.

The alliance was the basis for George Orwell’s famous formulation that “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia,” reflecting the ease with which the propagandists did a complete reversal on the Nazi-Soviet relationship and then reversed themselves again when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June of 1941.

The crucial lesson of this anniversary is that the left is utterly without principle.  It has but one goal: total, unbridled power.

This is how people who claim to worry about carbon emissions fly around on private jets and live lavish lifestyles while hectoring poor people to give up hamburgers.

It is how we must “believe all women” - unless they are accusing Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama and Eric Holder are free to call for more gun control even though it was their policy not to prosecute gun law violations.

The means are irrelevant to these people and even their goals are negotiable because all that matters is power for its own sake.  Arguably, they don’t have a clear vision of what they will do with it, other than enjoy its free and easy exercise.

Oh, and crush their enemies utterly.  That part at least is known.

This is why the best analogy to the contemporary US is not its previous civil war, but rather then one in Spain from 1936 to 1939.  Then as now, a major part of the divide was between the right – who respected institutions and culture – and the left, which respecting nothing but its quest for power.

The Spanish “Republic” was nothing of the sort, and it leaders were quite willing to rule by decree and use political assassinations and militias to achieve their goals.

Far from being a true Popular Front, the government was bitterly divided between Socialists, Communists and Anarchists, with only the common enemy of traditional Spanish culture and the Catholic Church holding them together.

What made the war inevitable, with the Popular Front’s abuse of power and its seeming pleasure in flaunting it.  Here we see a clear parallel with the left’s treatment of Antifa.  Just as in Spain, law enforcement has zero interest in breaking up the terrorist organization and instead blames their atrocities on their victims.

All of this has the effect of radicalizing the middle class, which is the crucial precondition for civil war.

The left seems convinced that this won’t happen, or that if it does, they will win easily.  The Popular Front felt the same way and it didn’t work out well for them.

Spain was the first time fascists and communists clashed militarily, with the Soviet Union backing the Republic while Germany and Italy sided with the insurgent Nationalists.

It was billed by both sides as an existential struggle and yet no sooner had the Spanish war drawn to a close than Hitler and Stalin were able to forge their infamous pact.

Because the pursuit of power demanded it and both Stalin and Hitler were leftists in every sense.

Today should be a reminder that the left is implacable, knowing no decent limits and eager to make a deal with anyone and everything to achieve power.

Is "Arkancide" still a thing?

I'm sure I wasn't the only person who saw the next that Jeffrey Epstein had apparently committed suicide in jail and thought:  I bet he had help!

The corruption of American politics and particularly federal law enforcement can no longer be denied.   While the left and their fellow-traveling Quisling Never Trumpers are acting like this is super-serious and must be treated with great care, everyone who isn't on a billionaire leftist's payroll knows the score.

The only question at this point is how severe the reforms will need to be.  The Dept. of Justice is shot through with incompetent crooks and the FBI is apparently staffed with operatives who are too busy reading and posting on Stormfront to care about "known wolf" shooters who they've been monitoring for years.

That the words "white nationalism" are even being spoken of by law enforcement shows just how far down the rabbit hole these people are.

In a sense, Epstein's death may have been an "Arkancide too far," the kind of stunt that blows up the whole operation. 

Which reminds me: I thought the investigation into the Clinton Foundation was wrapping up.  I wonder what they found?

 

Trump ratchets up the trade war with China

This week President Trump announced yet more tariffs in his ongoing trade dispute with China.

The result will be further economic difficulty for the ChiComs and greater prosperity in the United States.

We've written about this many times, but one of the interesting aspects in Trump's approach is how he's created the mirror image of the "free trade ratchet" that seemed to only go one way.

Once NAFTA was passed and then when China became a member of the World Trade Organization, the decline of American manufacturing was taken as a given.  Powerful market forces, we were told, were the culprit, not government policies.  One may as well rage against the tide.

Ironically, many of the same people who insisted globalism was like a force of nature also claim that massive state control can change the global climate, but I digress.

Donald Trump has proven all of that false, and the stunning rebound of manufacturing jobs and the resulting prosperity are going to make it very hard for his successors to reverse his policies. 

This is clearly what the ChiComs hope for, and why the media howls incessantly about RUSSIA while ignoring massive Chinese political influence.  RUSSIA is economically weak, militarily overstretched and remains a world power solely on the basis of its nuclear weapons. 

Ask yourself a simple question: If RUSSIA is such a serious threat, why can't it fix it's only aircraft carrier?

China, on the other hand, continues to expand its blue-water fleet.  In terms of force projection, there is no comparison.

I suspect Trump knows this, which is why he's pushed harder on the economy than anything else.  The media refuses to give him much credit for the booming economy, but its effects are undeniable.  Like Ronald Reagan, he is rightfully asking the key question:  Are you better off now than four years ago?

Unless you're a fake journalist, the answer is unquestionably "yes."

The "Cold Civil War" gets warmer

I've noted before that societies do not descend into civil war all at once.  Rather it is a gradual, uneven process the moves by fits and starts, sometimes reversing, but never long enough to stop its downward spiral.

The past few weeks have given us a number of examples that future generations might call "milestones to war."

• The savage beating of journalist Andy Ngo in broad daylight in full view of the police.  Liberal apologists for the Antifa Stosstruppen are trying to claim that he's a conservative provocateur, but in fact his politics are firmly on the left - he just likes following a good story.
• Facebook's revised policy on death threats, which forbade them - except in cases where they were issued against people the management didn't like.  This illegal policy was almost immediately rescinded, but one has to wonder what kind of idiots signed off on it in the first place.
• The spectacle of CNN/Playboy "Journalist" Brian Karem taunting attendees at a White House event and then challenging Sebastian Gorka to a fight in full view of the press - and then lying about it afterwards.  It wasn't exactly an attack on the Senate floor, but it was close.  Also indicative - mainstream press lied about what happened, choosing an edited version of the tape with Karem's taunting and challenge omitted.
• The growing public knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's predations, which happened in plain sight of the Ruling Class for years - and the fact that despite his conviction, they continued to party and socialize with him.
• The Democrat Party's full embrace of erasing US borders and it's open preference for non-citizens. 
• The US "National" Women's Soccer Team openly insulting the National Anthem and trampling the flag during one of their tasteless celebrations.

I could go on, but the sum total of each of these events is to destroy the social contract that holds the nation together.  If citizenship is meaningless and the "national team" feels it can insult the nation's symbols with impunity, what's left?

It's clear that the Democrats have no grand design or carefully crafted plan once they gain control, just a series of anti-American impulses to destroy our institutions.  When 50 million Central Americans enter the country, they have no idea how they will govern it and this doesn't seem to bother them.

It's interesting to see how much this insanity is radicalizing the center.  I've watched with great interest as otherwise moderate or non-political entities and publications have changed their tone. 

Sohrab Amadi's famous essay has struck a nerve and I'm noticing a change in both attitude and behavior among Kurt Schlichter's "normals."  No longer is there an easy-going sense that this will all blow over, or that cooler heads on the left will rein in the crazies.  Instead there is a defiance, a stridency on the part of the center that wasn't there a year ago.

It comes from a simple realization:  They really do hate us.

I don't think the left is capable of understanding where this will go, but it won't be pleasant for anyone.

In Defense of Marianne Williamson

A lot of conservatives are picking apart the aphorisms of Democrat presidential hopeful Marianne Williamson and though I initially joined in the laughter, I've since come to conclude that it's poor form.

Whether you like self-help gurus or not, a lot of what she says is good to hear and worth repeating.

It's interesting that the Catholic Conservatives on Twitter are frantically retweeting many of her items about God and spirituality (particularly forgiveness) and they seem to be doing it in an unironic way, adding positive commentary.

Of course, there's also a little fun going on here, since I'm sure she considers traditionalist right-to-lifers to be her mortal...adversaries, or something.  Maybe enemies.  She doesn't like Trump, that's for sure.

At any rate, her qualities as a motivator may be debatable but her qualifications for executive power are not.  There is no indication that her skillset is suitable to navigate the twisted Machiavellian world of international relations. 

The funny thing is I think Trump could charm the socks off her.  A debate between them would simply be him admitting that all the things she thinks are correct and that he too wants a better world. 

Contra the Quisling Never Trumpers, one of the things that attracts evangelical and other Christians to Trump is his lack of pretension regarding morality.  He doesn't judge and doesn't claim to be holier than anyone else.  He seems genuinely in awe of observant religious people.

He's also the first president in decades to take the Right to Life movement seriously and speak openly about what abortion is in practical terms.  He's taken concrete action as well to defend religious freedoms, which cannot be overlooked.

We may admire saints, but they do not always make the best practical leaders.  Gandhi was a very spiritual man (albeit with a number of seldom-discussed oddities) but in terms of politics, he was a disaster and the party he led became a sink of crony corruption.

A less spiritually enlightened man might have served India (and Pakistan and Bangladesh) much better.

Trump visits North Korea

The critics will say the meeting was only symbolic, but that's the point.

Symbols exist because they mean something.  The left is obsessed with symbolism and much of their time seems consumed with inventing honors to bestow on one another.  Actual positive results?

Not so much.

Where this goes, no one can say, but it's clear that Trump is driving a wedge between North Korea and China.  As in so many other areas, he's refused to play the game he was offered because doing so was a sucker's bet.  Instead he's flipped the table and is doing his own thing.

Just as with the debate over immigrant, tariffs and abortion, Trump refuses to accept the old rules where conservatives play the role of noble losers while the Democrats stack the deck at every turn.

I don't even need to look, but I'm sure Max  Boot, Bill Kristol and the rest of the neocon warmongers are besides themselves with rage.  Why Trump is giving away the farm!  Kim doesn't deserve this level of respect!

Of course if Trump was full of bluster and following the same failed policies they touted for decades, they'd be insisting he was a madman bent on starting World War III, so there's a reason why such people are properly ignored.

In terms of the event itself, there is an upper limit to "firsts" in terms of breakthrough diplomacy.  On the one hand, this may all play out and stall, leaving no real change.  This is the risk Trump is running.

But the potential gain is considerable.  North Korea is built on a cult of personality.  Without the reverential awe the Kim family holds, all the security forces in the world would be useless.  He can only shake hands and embrace so many times before his people violently try to take the peaceful payoff he's dangling before them.

This might have been part of the discussion he had with his Chinese masters: put simply, he can't hold on indefinitely.  Unless China's willing to put aside the fiction of independence and send thousands of troops into to reinforce Kim's rule, there will eventually be an uprising by people tired of starving and willing to risk death for the prosperity they've been assured is already on the way.

That's the thing.  Rebellions rarely happen when things are getting worse; it's usually because there is an immediate hope that things can get better.  Seeing their leader greet the American leader and promise peace is like dangling the carrot before the proverbial mule.  It buys time for a while, but eventually the animal will need to eat.

I expect things to continue to move incrementally, lest the North Koreans lose control.  That's why there is this start-stop dynamic.  No one wants to see a border rush ala Germany.

In any event, we are witnessing historic events, even if the media would rather focus on weirdos claiming a non-rape rape in a dressing room a quarter century ago.

The Conservative Counter-Reformation

The intra-conservative debate over David French-ism has abated.  If anything, the anti-French-ist forces are building newer and more powerful arguments to assert their position.

These are moving beyond the realm of tactics and into the weeds of the entire philosophical basis of conservatism and the fundamental weakness at the core of classical liberalism.

In a nutshell, liberalism has failed because it places individual autonomy at the highest plane, making moral considerations secondary at best.

Thus, David French's claim that "sincere religious belief" has to be respect must necessarily collapse when said religion hurts someone else's feelings.  Their "right" to be free of offense supersedes someone else's "right to hate."

Indeed, we're seeing this argument already being deployed by the left.  Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel recently said that religious beliefs cannot justify "hate," and of course she's the one who gets to decide which beliefs are acceptable.

In a sense, this debate somewhat mirrors the old Catholic vs Protestant split, with non-conformists being deeply distrustful of state power and therefore blind to discrimination by non-state actors.

Senator Josh Hawley's bill requiring online platforms to be certified as non-discriminatory as a condition for legal immunity from defamation lawsuits is a great example of this split.  The French-ist wing claims that the left will abuse this regulatory authority should they gain power - ignoring that the left already has de facto power over the marketplace.

The left can also (and has) twisted its regulatory power without provocation, so they don't require a precedent in order to abuse their authority.

It is an open question on how much of this debate is really corporate shills earning paychecks to defend their sugar daddies.  Jonah Goldberg in particular seems to argue almost entirely from a dishonest position and seems to spend his time picking - and losing - Twitter fights with actual conservatives. 

Tellingly, he's the first to make personal attacks and when they are reciprocated, runs around asking for backup against his target.  Amusingly, the reinforcements almost always accrue to whoever he's fighting.