Wonder Where This Glide Path Ends?

I can’t recall who it was who first observed that fascism is always descending on America, but always landing on Europe.  Certainly that’s been the case up until now.  Our most recent assurances that fascism was on its way was during the Bush administration, when the hand-wringers at the NYT and those like them were just convinced that the administration’s monitoring international cross-border communications among known terrorist affiliates was somehow the foundation stone of a new chain of concentration camps — one coming soon to a neighborhood near you — and bearing the smiling face of Bushitler over the gates.  These hand-wringers would be the same crew who haven’t weighed in much about Dear Leader’s assertion that he has the right — unilaterally and secretly — to promulgate a kill list disposition matrix under which anyone in the world outside the U.S., including U.S. citizens, may be blasted to shreds of meat by a missile fired from a lazily-circling drone.

But what do I know?

The ominous quotation from this article about Golden Dawn, Greece’s nascent and increasingly fashionable fascist party, comes from the fellow — an MP for Golden Dawn — who allows, “Most nations, well, not the US or Australia, have a single nationality that defines its culture and Greece must return to this ideal.  The Golden Dawn is a very well organised party that is intervening to support and help people. Without us in a country where two million of ten million people are illegal, there would be chaos.” 

Some years ago I read a book by Ludwig von Mises (can’t recall the title any more, alas) in which he identifies as the point where Europe began the course change which pointed it towards the rocks of the 20th Century that point at which became common currency the idea that each linguistic group needed to be gathered into one polity purged of other linguistic groups.  At that time, of course, we had two — actually, three — enormous polyglot empires in Europe, the Habsburg, the Ottoman, and the Russian.  Each of their dozens of native languages, in many cases fragmented across the map, had sullenly chafed under distant monarchs for centuries.  But then pretty much everyone chafed under monarchies for centuries, when you get right down to it.  The German-speaking serf in 18th Century Austria was neither in better nor worse shape than his Polish- or Hungarian-speaking counterpart in the 19th Century . . . or the 14th.  The wheels began to loosen on their hubs when someone whispered in his great-grandchild’s ear that it was an outrage not so much that he was a peasant but that he had all these Czechs cluttering up the place.  To say nothing of all those filthy Joooooosssss.  And so forth.

How deeply that idea took root we got to see when the restraining forces of the monarchies crumbled with the end of the Great War.  The fistful of nation-states that sprang into existence in Central Europe were not creations of the peace-making process; they were called into being by whichever dominant ethnic group happened to live there and by the time of the Paris Conference in 1919 they were facts on the ground that could not be ignored.  What didn’t change, however, was the geographic distribution of the groups within those new states.  Every single successor state had within its borders large numbers of language groups which had — from their perspective, at least — only traded dominance by some lantern-jawed Habsburg or nitwit Romanov or strutting and puffing Hohenzollern for dominance by the People’s Party of Whatever-the-Hell majority ethnic group happened to have seized the levers of power in the neighborhood.

In short, they all had the Minorities Problem, only this time the groups’ jealousies and resentments had the blessing of America’s first quasi-fascist national politician, Woodrow Wilson, and his pernicious doctrine of “self-determination.”  For all his posturing as a Deep Thinker and Mr. Cosmos himself in the flesh, Wilson like any other human could not see the world from any frame of reference other than his own.  Of course everyone ought to have the right of “self-determination,” because it had worked so well in the U.S.  Everyone pretty much rubbed along (well, except for that lynching thing across the South and up into Indiana, which Wilson really doesn’t seem to have had much problem accepting) and whether it was the Tammany Democrats or the Boston Brahmins in charge at any particular moment, we all more or less agreed on the rules of the game and we’d self-determined to throw in together.  Hell’s bells; we’d even fought a civil war that decided once and for all that we really had thrown in together and for keeps.

So what could go wrong with transplanting that notion of “self-determination” onto an ethnic mosaic the forms of which had begun to coalesce with the latter days of the Western Roman Empire (there’s a reason “Romania” is nowhere near Italy, guys) and the massive migrations of the next few hundred years?  The Sudeten Germans who had migrated to Bohemia beginning in the 1300s and by the 1900s comprised around a quarter of the total population of ancient Bohemia were simply among the more prominent groups — and more pregnant with mischief.  The Sorbians, a Germanic people who spoke a Slavic language, and who gave names to such places as Drežhdany — “forest swamp dwellers” — which we now know as Dresden, were among the lesser.  Toss in several million Roma and Sinti, Ruthenians, Slovenians, Rumelians, Bulgars, Croats, Ukrainians, and millions upon millions of Jews (Wilson’s high-falutin’ principles don’t seem to have applied to them), mix them in with several centuries’ worth of genuine grievance and several generations of demagoguery, and you’d think anyone with more than just walking-around sense would expect something along the lines of what actually happened.

But not Wilson.  To understand how disastrous Wilson’s influence on history was, you have to understand how nearly universally admired the United States was back then, even among people who couldn’t stand Americans because we were . . . well, we acted like Americans.  [One of my favorite Twain passages is from The Innocents Abroad, in which he describes some American in a Paris restaurant loudly proclaiming himself a “free-born sovereign, sir,” an American, who never dined without wine, sir, and so forth; Twain observed that he failed to mention that he was also a “lineal descendant of Balaam’s ass, but we all knew that without his saying so.”]  When Wilson spoke he did so not as some momentarily-successful politician.  When Wilson spoke he gave words, specific words, to an abstract and idealized Promised Land, a secular Zion for the Gentiles, which millions of people all over Europe looked up to.  Many of them had family members, fellow villagers, friends, or fellow parishioners who had crossed the oceans and sung the praises of the Land of Unlimited Opportunity in writing.  When Wilson began to bloviate it was the same as if in ancient Rome the massive statue of Capitoline Jove had in fact opened its mouth and said, “So let it be done.”

Had Lloyd George or Clemençeau blathered about a bunch of “self-determination,” it would have swirled about the floor a few times then gone right down the drain.  Wilson gave the idea the sanction of Idealized America.

After World War II, that is, after the next round in the fight which Versailles made if not inevitable then something which only phenomenal luck could have avoided, Central Europe solved a large measure of its Minorities Problem.  The minorities got their country asses kicked out, is what happened, frequently on twelve hours’ or less notice.  Ox carts full of possessions (and frequently pulled by their owners, the animals in the span long since having dropped dead or vanished into a cooking pot somewhere along the line), parents slogging along loaded down with pathetic bundles, filthy, emaciated children in tow, their faces bearing the pole-axed look that only violated innocence can show, the corpses of those who could no longer keep up lining the road sides: all those were part of the landscape in 1945-46.  Who has counted the loss?  Who has measured the suffering?  Who today traces the psychic scars of those savage adjustments on the survivors and their descendants?

The EU is no more exempt from the Law of Unintended Consequences than is any other human undertaking.  Its intentional obliteration of barriers to human movement has encouraged exactly that.  And with it is returning the Minorities Problem.  Whether it’s “illegals” in Greece or cheap Polish labor flooding Germany (won’t someone please explain to Germany that fixing their demographic issues is fun?  I mean, guys, c’mon, you’ve got a statistically irrefutable mandate to hop in the sack as frequently as you can and with as little precaution as possible; so shuck them clothes and Get it On), or the Islamization of wide areas of ancient European cities, the tide is setting towards the rocks, once again.

Pray God we may not see Europe visited with Wilson’s legacy once more.

At Least Journalism Isn’t Completely Dead . . . Yet

Prostitution may be the world’s oldest profession, but its practitioners can certainly no longer claim to be the most supine when at work.  That title has to go to the U.S media, from roughly late 2007 until . . . well, until right about now.

They resolutely buried any and all information that came their way which might have reflected poorly on their Golden Boy, their Great One, the vessel of all their dreams.  And so we bought a pig in a poke.

But a few journalists are finally, less than one week from an election, at the point where they’re willing to look things straight on and call them by their correct names.  The Las Vegas Review-Journal’s headline sums it up:  Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief.  As the Blogfather a.k.a. Instapundit, would say, read the whole thing.

The Proof of the Pudding

. . . being in the tasting, in evaluating the relative merits of the two visions of the citizen-state relationship on offer this coming Tuesday, might we not with profit ask ourselves:  From which of the two systems are people most intimate with it willing to endure the greatest hazards to escape it?

Exhibit A:  China is having a hard time holding on to precisely those people which it must, absolutely must, keep as willing participants in the great adventure that is China if it is to continue to flourish.

Exhibit B:  The Antifaschistische Schutzmauer, better known over here as the Berlin Wall, which up to 200 people died trying to cross between its 1961 construction and its 1989 breach (this ignores those shot elsewhere along the border between the two Germanies).

Exhibit C:  The periodic waves of people fleeing Castro’s Cuba.

You know, I’m not a Deep Thinker, and certainly not one of them Sophisticated Northeasterners, and so I tend to ask real damned simple questions, and to weigh the answers accordingly.  But I’m just going to go out on a limb here and say that if large numbers of people are willing to throw everything they’ve ever worked for overboard, if they’re willing to risk being shot, if they’re willing to consign their nearest loved ones staying behind to prison (if they’re lucky), just in order to escape your system . . . then you might ought to think real hard about whether you need to change how you do things.

It Takes a Village

. . . to sell its daughters into marriage when they’re anywhere from 11 to 15 years old.  One of the girls in this picture series was married off to a man in his mid-20s.  She was eleven at the time of marriage and was delivered to her husband shortly after her 12th birthday, when she still had not had her first period.  She attempted not to consummate the marriage . . . until the village women (way to stick together, sisters!) got after her, whereupon she gave in.  I can understand, just barely, selling a daughter into marriage when the choice is she gets married off to someone who may be able to feed her or she starves at home with you.  Just barely. 

But according to this report “even in good times” a full third of all girls in Niger are married off by the time they’re 15.  According to the lead-in, world-wide among women now between 20 and 24 years old, a full one-third were married off while still children.

The next time one is tempted to condemn the patriarchal, phallo-centric power structure of entrenched dominance &c. &c. &c. &c., in the fashion of those tiresome all-sex-is-rape gas-bags, remind them that pretty much not any of that one-third of the forced marriages of children occurred in a Western country.  And the next time one hears someone gush about “it takes a village,” remember the child in this picture series (she’s no. 5), whose daddy back in the ol’ village has three wives and 23 children, which, you know, just may have something to do with his difficulties feeding them all.  Just sayin’.

But most of all, remember, ladies:  It’s Mitt Romney and all them awful Rethuglicans who are after your lady parts.

The Next Time Talk Turns to Open Borders

. . . and immigration policy, please do keep in mind that people like Alla Axelrod are also among the people in whose face you spit when you argue that any attempt to keep out swarms of illegals is somehow deeply unfair, nay, racist.

This is the view from someone who lived and grew up in the socialist, re-distributionist utopia that Dear Leader really thinks the U.S. ought to be more like.  These are vignettes from the “single-payer” healthcare system that he and his allies tout.  This is what the ways of the U.S. looked like to someone so fresh off the boat that she spoke almost no English (and having tried to function — even a little — in a society of whose language I spoke almost zero, her coming here, to live and work in NYC, fills me with immeasurable awe).

And these are the thoughts and discussions that are current among those who played the game, honestly, correctly.  Who paid their dues, digging fans for an un-airconditioned NYC apartment from the garbage, digging up a mattress from the same source.  Who walked 16 blocks to the subway through early 1980s NYC dirt and crime.

To pretend that there can be no two good-faith sides to the discussion about immigration policy, about government hand-out policy, about tax policy, about socialized medicine, is neither more nor less than dishonest.  This woman’s intellectual legacy isn’t of patriarchal, dominant-culture, slave-holding exploitation over sundry oppressed minorities on whose necks she and her ancestors stood to enjoy the Good Life.  Her legacy is just about the diametric opposite of that.  Her resentment of shucking out her taxes to fund drug habits and sturdy beggars is not that of someone who’s finally being asked to “pay her fair share” to those whose misery is the foundation of her prosperity.

Disagree with her if you want.  But you cannot dismiss her out of hand.

Willie Sutton Owns Up to “Errors”; Apologises to Banks

. . . Or something like that.  Special Operations Speaks is a group of former U.S. military special operations types (beg pardon, but is that descriptor in and of itself not sufficient warning not to screw around with these guys?) that doesn’t like how the present administration is running things and wants it out of office.  You know, sort of like that ol’ freedom of opinion thingy, right?  This being the 21st Century — except inside the administration’s policy groups, where it’s still 1935 — they’ve got themselves a Facebook page.  They have a third-party administrator run it for them.

Their administrator recently posted on their Facebook page a composite picture showing Dear Leader, the late Mr. bin Laden, and the U.S. Navy SEAL trident-and-eagle insignia.  You know, the one all SEALs wear on the left breast of their uniforms, as prescribed by official regulations of the U.S. military.  Both Dear Leader and Mr. bin Laden were, insofar as their pictures showed them, clothed to their ordinary sartorial standards.

The picture bore a legend, in two parts:  “Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”  Oh, and they had the URL of their website.

Breitbart.com has a story, with a copy of the picture.

You can quibble a bit with the second part of that; in truth two of the four Americans that Dear Leader abandoned to their deaths were not active-duty SEALs any more.  They’d left the navy and were working for the CIA tracking down all the stray ordnance that’s washing around Libya and finding its way into the militias’ hands.  But true to the parole, “Earn your trident every day,” they’d run to the sound of the guns; I suppose just like former Marines (which there aren’t any, except for John Murtha), there aren’t any such animals as former SEALs.  My first cousin, currently a four-striper SEAL, would likely confirm that supposition.

Facebook took the picture down, after it had been shared some 30,000 times and got 24,000 “likes,” all within 24 hours.  Their message to the account-owner? “We removed content you posted. We removed the content you posted or were admin of because it violates Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.”

Apparently one has a right to support Dear Leader, irrespective of what he actually, you know, does while in office, and a corresponding responsibility to cheer oneself hoarse for him.  Or something like that.  The Washington Post has a fuller version of what happened next, together with a deconstruction of the only “rights and responsibilities” that the post might even arguably have been said to violate (plot spoiler: you can’t square that circle).

Whereupon things hit the fan.

Facebook has now graciously allowed a group of people who have quite literally put their lives on the line for their country (that’s you and me, friends), and more than a few of whom have the scars on their bodies to prove it, and who count themselves fortunate, having seen their close friends come home in boxes, to express an opinion about Dear Leader.  Facebook admits to an “error” in taking down the post, not once but twice.

Whatever else it was, an “error” it was not.  Facebook simply decided that there are some expressions of political opinions which, because of whom they damage and because of how effectively they do so, may not be held, known, or shared if they have anything to do with it.  If Facebook’s censoring those special forces guys was an “error,” then the late Mr. Sutton’s transactions with all those banks were nothing more than inadvertent account over-drafts.

Does Facebook not understand they’re a public company now?  That their censorship decisions, ex post disclaimers of such intent notwithstanding, will have deleterious effects for their owners, the shareholders?  How about the employees, who while they haven’t dumped all their stock (yet), are the ones whose pocketbooks this sort of nonsense will drain?

I make no secret of my thoughts about Dear Leader and the legal and moral plane on which he and his administration operate.  Disagree with me if you please, throw facts in my face if you can.  But stuff like this is distressing for the same reasons that NOW’s unwavering support for Clinton was distressing.  Here’s the President of the United States of America having it off with a 20 year-old intern; here’s a credible accusation of rape against the same man (admittedly while he was still governor of Arkansas); here’s a man willing to perjure himself over the whole mess and use his minions to destroy his accusers’ lives.  Christopher Hitchens’s No One Left to Lie To has the full story; one of the most damning passages is when he describes a reporter asking Algore if he thought the woman accusing the president of rape might be telling the truth.  As Hitch put it, a man who’d spent some six years working in harness with Clinton at that point could not bring himself to state unequivocally that he refused to believe that we had a rapist in the Oval Office.  In fact it was how the Clintons dealt with Bill’s victims that turned Hitchens against him, once and for all.  And NOW and all the other feminist hand-wringers closed ranks behind their beloved Bill.

Clinton did everything but drop his trousers and urinate on their skirts, and they kept on cheering.  These Facebook people will experience the same from Dear Leader, sooner or later (in fact they have, with his relentless anti-private enterprise agenda), and my prediction is they’ll never miss a single bar of whatever eery Mao-ist ditty his people compose next.