If you are a regular reader of VFR, I hope you will respond to the current fundraiser, which is the first in almost a year. Only a tiny fraction of the readers who regularly visit this site give toward its support. If you have found something of value here, please consider making a donation. In doing so, you will be supporting not just this site, but the ideas and principles expressed here.

A reader informs us that “Rumer,” the name of the eldest daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, was also the first name of a successful novelist in the last century, and I reply.

A reader expresses his discomfort with my description of the musician Lennie Kravitz as a “savage.” In response, I explain again what I’m about when I post and comment critically on photographs of people in the news. My subject is not their private character and behavior, which is no concern of mine; it’s what they represent, as symbolizations of our culture.

As an alumnus (though not a graduate) of Columbia College, the undergraduate liberal arts school of Columbia University, I received a fundraising e-mail today from President Lee (“Diversity Über Alles”) Bollinger of Columbia University.

I replied:

Dear Mr. Bollinger:

Columbia University under your racial-socialist leadership is a joke. I wouldn’t give one penny to Columbia.

If you are unfamiliar with the term racial socialism, it means giving vast unearned and unjust benefits to nonwhites because they are nonwhite, and imposing vast unearned and unjust disadvantages on whites because they are white.

When Columbia picked you as president, I knew it was finished as an institution.

Sincerely,
Lawrence Auster

In every photograph I’ve seen of Nancy Lanza, she looks like a spaced-out little girl, not a normal woman. But this photo takes the cake. I think the woman was three sheets to the wind.

The photo appears in a Daily Mail story which has an interesting report from Adam’s former male baby sitter, Ryan Kraft:

The babysitter who watched the Sandy Hook Elementary school killer Adam Lanza when he was nine years old was warned by mother Nancy to never turn [sic] his back on the child, not even to go to the bathroom.

However, with the detail and clarity we expect from contemporary journalism, the story doesn’t tell us if Nancy meant that Adam might hurt the babysitter, or hurt himself.

Ed H. writes:

When I try to come up with an explanation for the sea change in America from 1960 to 2012, only one factor seems broad enough to account for the comprehensive shift in perspective: the feminization of everything.

To test this theory I will compare the liberal and the traditionalist responses to school shootings, and the effect they would have on a Newtown, Connecticut. What would be the liberal solution to this type of mass murder? The confiscation of guns, the abrogation of the Bill of Rights, more government surveillance, more armed guards, more taxes to pay for it, more terrified children going through daily attack drills filling their heads with apocalyptic scenarios, more nightmares, more counseling for more children, childhood destroyed. Cost: trillions of dollars. Benefits to society: less than zero.

Now let’s consider the traditionalist conservative solution: a husband, a strong man, in charge of the Lanza household. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 17 at 11:45 AM

The AP reports, December 15:

Sammie Eaglebear Chavez Arrested In Oklahoma School Shooting, Bombing Plot

BARTLESVILLE, Okla.—Hours before a gunman opened fire at a Connecticut elementary school, police in Oklahoma arrested a teenager for allegedly plotting to attack his high school and trying to recruit classmates to help him.

Police in Bartlesville, a community about 40 miles north of Tulsa, arrested 18-year-old Sammie Eaglebear Chavez shortly before 5 a.m. Friday on charges of conspiring to cause serious bodily harm or death. He remained in Washington County Jail on Saturday on $1 million bond, and he is due in court Jan. 11. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 17 at 10:43 AM

Two 16-year-old high school football players in Steubenville, Ohio, Trent Mays (who is white) and Ma’lik Richmond (obviously black), have been charged in the night-long sexual abuse and rape of 16-year-old girl at a drunken party. The girl is described as living in “a well-kept two-story colonial house in a solidly middle-class West Virginia neighborhood,” and as “dark-haired”—i.e., she’s white. Mays and Richmond photographed and posted on the web images of the drunken girl as they were abusing her. Numerous other football players participated in the event.

The very long, yet delicately written New York Times article (all Times articles are delicately written when politically correct icons are at stake) makes no reference to race. It says the town is divided between those who protect high school athletes at all cost and those who want justice for the girl.
MORE…

Here is a recent photograph of Demi Moore, mother of Rumer, Scout, and Tallulah, at some Hollywood party, dancing in front of the half-black, half-Jewish musician Lennie Kravitz:

We see a female celebrity, formerly beautiful or at least very comely, now noticeably frayed around the edges, seemingly offering herself to a seated, tattooed Negro idol, who, narcissistically absorbed in his own reveries, or his drugs, looks away indifferently or disgustedly. The white woman, once a movie star, once part of the “royalty” of our society, is too drunken and debased for even the savage idol to take an interest in her.

Of course readers will say I’m reading too much into it. Maybe Moore just happens to be standing next to Kravitz and is not directing her desperate charms at him. Maybe Kravitz is not even aware of Moore. Nevertheless, the photo is iconic. I see it as a fitting symbol of the approaching end of our civilization. As such, it also reverberates in my mind with the concluding lines of W.B. Yeats’s bitterest poem, “Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen,” the entirety of which is about the end of civilization:

But now wind drops, dust settles; thereupon
There lurches past, his great eyes without thought
Under the shadow of stupid straw-pale locks,
That insolent fiend Robert Artisson
To whom the love-lorn Lady Kyteler brought
Bronzed peacock feathers, red combs of her cocks.

Dame Alice Kyteler, in the fourteenth century, was the first woman in Ireland charged and condemned as a witch; she was specifically charged for consorting with a demon named Robert Artisson. Here she is offering the demon sacrificial gifts—one of them, the bronzed peacock feathers, very precious and refined, suggesting the lady’s own nobility and refinement, the other consisting of animal parts, symbolic of primitive lust. For a woman, especially a high-born woman, to give herself to a demon is Yeats’s ultimate symbol of the destruction of civilization.

And what phenomenon do we see throughout the West today, not just occurring spontaneously, but deliberately orchestrated and promoted by the all-powerful mass media? Attractive white women offering themselves to Negro primitives—who, by the way, with a frequency far outpacing that of any other type of coupling, turn on them and savagely kill them.
MORE…

Do you know what the names of the three daughters of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore are?

Rumer, Scout, and Tallulah.

Can you imagine a man holding Rumer in his arms and whispering, “I love you, Rumer”? Can you imagine Scout’s future husband saying, “Oh, darling Scout, I adore you”?
MORE…

According to the Daily Mail, Adam Lanza’s mother was some kind of survivalist who never let friends into her house. After her divorce from her husband in 2008, the $200,000 per year she received in the settlement made it unnecessary for her to work. Meanwhile, Adam never did anything after high school—no job, no education, no social life. Ryan Lanza, Adam’s 24-year-old brother, had not seen Adam—or, apparently, their mother—since 2010, and the father apparently had no relationship with Adam after the divorce. So the two of them, mother and son, were living together alone in this house stewing in their own private weirdness (the mother) and madness (the son), until the son’s madness erupted.

I don’t know if the Daily Mail’s reporting can be relied on (consider all the false facts that have been reported on this story), but the article was interesting and I’ve summarized it for what it’s worth.

John Hinderaker at Powerline sums up the various media outrages in their coverage of the Newtown massacre, both the staggering number of gross factual errors they made, and their ridiculous advocacy of the “something” that “must” be done to prevent more school shootings. He concludes with a rational and just proposal that would prevent more school shootings:

But if we think that school shootings demand effective action, as President Obama said in a televised address tonight, then the obvious course is to post an armed guard at every school. The problem with this approach is its expense; the same amount of money spent in many other ways could no doubt save more lives. But if we decide the expense is worthwhile, there are creative ways to raise the money. We could impose a tax on Hollywood—so many million dollars for every movie in which more than one person dies violently. Same for video games. And we could tax media outlets: any media outlet that has publicized mass shootings in the past pays one percent of its gross revenue to contribute to the cost of armed guards at schools.

School shootings are an eminently solvable problem. All we need is political will—not to ban “assault weapons,” which would do no good at all, but rather, to find creative funding mechanisms to pay the cost of adequate security. If school shootings are a problem that must be solved, it is time for Hollywood, video game makers, CNN and the New York Times to pay their fair share.

Here is a staggering, nightmarish story (via Lucianne) of a 13-year-old boy who keeps threatening to kill his mother or himself. The only sane recourse would be to commit the boy to a state mental hospital. But the state mental hospitals were closed decades ago because liberals said they were oppressive, and that everyone deserves to be free, free, free.

Why is there so much mental illness like this in America? The conservative answer is that it is the result of liberal and feminist ideology, i.e. widespread fatherlessness due to divorce and illegitimacy, elimination of male authority, demonization of maleness itself, the condemnation of normal boyish behavior as sickness, and then pumping misbehaving boys full of psycho-active drugs which often help but often make them worse.

Or perhaps, at least in this case, is the problem not liberalism but simply that this boy happens to be dangerously mentally ill, and therefore has to be separated from society? But, as the mother explains, there is no way to separate him from society unless he is convicted of a crime and sent to prison.

Also, I notice that the mother doesn’t say anything about a husband. And Adam Lanza’s problems evidently worsened when his parents divorced three years ago and his father disappeared from his life.

I stick to the traditionalist conservative explanation: through our ideology of radical personal freedom and anti-maleness we have destroyed the familial and social structure needed for a sane human life, and the main casualties of this destruction are young males. As I say about so many contemporary social problems, the only cure is a return to a traditionalist order of society. which is not going to happen as long as liberal society still functions, however poorly, and liberalism remains our guiding ideology. Therefore, like our other terrible problems, the problem of widespread mental illness and dangerously violent males cannot be fixed until after liberal society has largely destroyed itself. To believe that the human and social catastrophes caused by liberalism can be solved while liberal rule is maintained is like believing, as the delusional Gorbachev did, that the social and economic catastrophes caused by Communism could be solved while Communist rule was maintained.
MORE…

In the previous entry I said that liberalism facilitates evil, then refuses to acknowledge both the evil and its facilitation of it. But there is another side to liberalism: it also facilitates mental illness, particularly in boys and young men, and refuses to acknowledge it. I’ll try to expand on this later today.

Looking at what America has become, considering how America has liberated, licensed, and unleashed every kind of evil passion, I, for one, expect terrible things to happen in America. So I’m not particularly surprised or shocked by an event such as the Newtown, Connecticut mass murder. I expect things like this to happen. After all, they’ve happened plenty of times before: the Columbine High School mass murder; the Virginia Tech mass murder; other planned school mass murders that were stopped (see my 2001 article, “The Revelation of Nihilism”); a post office mass murder in Montclair, New Jersey; the mass murder of eight employees at a Connecticut beer distributorship by a driver who was about to be fired; numerous other mass murders in work places, and on and on and on. And that’s not even counting the September 11 attack and numerous other planned terrorist attacks that were forestalled. Mass murders occur regularly in America. But liberals do not expect mass murders to happen and are utterly shocked and surprised when they do happen. They think everything in their world is fine. They cannot take in the fact that there is a great deal of evil and madness afoot in our society.

Why this blindness? Why this recurrent shock at a recurrent type of event? I think it’s because liberalism consists of blocking out all the vast sectors of reality which contradict liberal belief. One of the major sectors of reality which contradict liberal belief is evil (not counting, of course, the delusory evil of those modern witches, white conservative Christians, an evil which liberals fully believe in and are obsessed by). If evil exists, then evil is worse than the good, which contradicts the liberal belief in equality (as explained here and here). In the world of liberalism, there cannot be any fundamental distinctions among men, such as whether they are good or evil. The only fundamental moral distinction that liberals acknowledge among men is whether they are liberal or non-liberal, with the non-liberals, who believe in moral distinctions, consigned to the outer darkness. But when it comes to real evil, as distinct from the imaginary evil of white conservatives, liberals block it out, and so they are always shocked by its repeated manifestations.

A further reason liberals block out evil is that so many of the evil events in modern society are a direct result of liberalism, namely of what we’ve just been talking about, the liberal denial of evil. Because liberals deny the existence of evil and think that the only evil is to believe—like those Christian conservatives—in the existence of evil, they do nothing to forestall evil. Thus the ticketing agent who allowed the demon Muhammad Atta to get on a plane in Maine on the morning of September 11, 2001 notwithstanding his feeling that Atta looked like a classic Islamic terrorist, because he felt it would be morally wrong to stop a Muslim for further questioning. Thus the teachers and schoolmates of the demons Harris and Klebold who ignored their threats of murder because they thought they were just joking around. And on and on it goes. First liberals, by blocking out the existence of evil, allow evil acts to flourish, and then, once those evil acts have occurred, the liberals must continue to block out those evil acts because it was the liberals themselves who through their liberalism allowed them to occur.
MORE…

In the still continuing thread about the school massacre, “Our false innocence, our real guilt,” a reader has strongly condemned me for what I said about our society’s guilt and lack of innocence. I’ve posted his e-mails as well as responses from other readers on whether I said something wrong in that entry.

Today’s New York Times has a much more detailed account of the school shooting than we’ve had so far. It is devastating. Also, many details reported previously have been changed, among them: All the children who were killed were first graders. The killer was not let into the school, but shot his way in. All the killings were carried out with a semi-automatic rifle, not with the two handguns that the killer had with him. Comments begin here.

Children Were All Shot Multiple Times With a Semiautomatic, Officials Say
By JAMES BARRON

The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomatic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday.

The state’s chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 children and 6 adults gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., had been struck more than once in the fusillade.

He said their wounds were “all over, all over.” MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 16 at 05:14 AM

A reader suggested in the previous entry that I was drawing too quick a conclusion about the appearance of the killer based on one photograph. But here is a second photograph, from today’s New York Times, and Lanza has exactly the same, totally mad face and eyes—the face and eyes of an stereotypically insane person—in the second photo as in the first, suggesting that this is really the way he looked, and is not just the result of one odd photograph.

Adam Lanza in an undated group photo of
the Newtown High School technology club,
which appeared in the school’s yearbook.

And while numerous persons who knew him have indicated they felt there was something wrong with him, evidently nothing was done about him, but he continued to move about at complete liberty. People in modern society are Eloi. They’re so comfortable with themselves and with their world, they’ve been so thoroughly trained not to judge anything or anyone (except of course for white conservatives who are the embodiment of evil), that their instinct of danger, and their instinct to do something about danger, are radically diminished. In a previous age, someone who looked like Adam Lanza would have set off alarm bells, and, at the very least, the eyes of the authorities would have been on him. Among other things, the police would have checked out his home, and when they found that his mother had several guns, they would have strongly advised her to keep the guns where her son could not get at them.
MORE…

If the above photograph of the mass murderer Adam Lanza is at all accurate, if he looked at all like this, then he was obviously mad and dangerous, and no one did anything about it, including his mother who left several guns in the house where he had access to them.

Yet liberals never ask: “Why do we turn our eyes away from obviously disturbed and dangerous people such as Harris and Klebold of Columbine, Cho Seung-Hui of Virginia Tech, and Adam Lanza of Newtown, Connecticut, leaving them at liberty so that they bring hell on earth over and over again?” Instead the liberals self-righteously demand that our society be turned into a dictatorship in which all private gun ownership is eliminated and only the government, led by Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano, has guns. Because—please get this straight—the ONLY gun control regime that could have prevented the crime that Lanza committed would be the outlawing and confiscation of every privately owned firearm in America.

And why does liberal America leave obviously mad and dangerous people at liberty? Because its guiding principle is not the good, but equal freedom.
MORE…

Since so much has been posted about the school shooting since then and they’ve rolled down the page, be sure not to miss my main entries on the school shooting, which were posted last night: “On the shooting,” and “Our false innocence, our real guilt,” in which many comments continue to be posted.

Laura Wood writes at The Thinking Housewife:

Though relatively few children overall die in these massacres, the impact is still enormous. As I point out in this entry, children are now subject to years of lockdown drills in which massacres are rehearsed in schools. Now think what it is to be a child and to go back in a dark closet or the corner of a classroom with your teacher and cower there with your heads down. Not only does this terrorize children, but it teaches them that the adults in their lives are fearful, helpless and incapable of defending themselves. It undermines their respect for the adult world and steals their sense of security.

MORE…

Karl D. writes:

I found this photo posted today:

LA replies:

This is not only a perfect answer in itself, it’s also a perfect gloss on my message regarding the school shooting: As a society, we dismiss right and wrong, we embrace sickness and evil; yet we still expect people to be good.

MORE…

Ben S. writes:

Subject: California goes full Onion
Drudge has linked to a story about a “transgendered” 50-year old male Gulf War vet who is playing on a women’s college basketball team in Santa Clara, CA. The more you read, the more surreal it gets.

Gabrielle Ludwig, a 6-foot-6-inch transsexual player on Mission
College’s women’s basketball squad, reflects on her return to
college ball. The 50-year-old transsexual, Army veteran, father
and Mission College freshman is believed to be the first hoopster
to play college ball as both a man and a woman.

LA replies:

We have turned our society into a madhouse, in which the sickest and most deranged things are considered normal and right and are upheld by the power of the state, and disapproval of those deranged things is considered sick and wicked and is punished by the power of the state.

And, having done all that, having reversed right and wrong, having reversed the normal and the sick, we expect people to continue to behave normally, and we are shocked when they don’t.

MORE…

James N. writes:

All the “anti-violence” theory that inundates our schools wrongly condemns righteous violence—or, to put more properly, the righteous use of force.

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday in the teachers’ parking lot at a local school: “Wag more, bark less.” I was struggling to explain this to my eight year old in a way that could contain a moral precept.

The logical consequence of “Wag more, bark less” is that when the killers arrive, no one will remember how to bark.

It’s not the barking that’s the problem. It’s not the guns.

It’s the failure to discriminate between good and evil that’s the problem, and it’s getting worse all the time.

Attacking violence without addressing the rationale and purpose of violence in particular situations is nihilism.

This also applies to “gun violence.” If the principal had been armed, and had shot Adam Lanza dead on the spot, would she be guilty of “gun violence”?

MORE…

Paul T. writes:

Ah, Canada leads the way again. On September 27, men who were concerned about violence against women and girls marched in downtown Toronto wearing high-heeled shoes, in an event promoted as “Walk a Mile In Her Shoes”:

Dare I suggest that the real agenda here wasn’t about violence? What next? Tampon Tuesdays?

MORE…

I’m far from alone in the view I expressed last evening of the Newtown, Connecticut school slaughter. This is from Lucianne.com:

Reply 2 - Posted by: M2, 12/15/2012 6:55:55 AM (No. 9066823)

The culture is permeated by violence and has been so for a decade, more escalated recently in movies, computer games and even advertising. Violence, by any means, is glorified, vigilantiism is lauded and life is generally cheap. This begins in the family; if parents show contempt for pro-life views, the seed is then planted that life is fungible, disposable.

Bad neighborhoods are allowed to perpetuate the culture of violence so long as it doesn´t spread beyond the borders. Remember Rahm Emmanuel´s admonition to the Chicago gangs to “stop it,” but nothing was done. That kind of casual approach to the valueless nature of human life has become the worldview of American culture.

No doubt the Left will try to blame the guns, but that is like blaming the fork for obesity. The problem must be attacked at its roots — entertainment, music, art and godlessness. If it isn´t, it cannot be destroyed. Parents, churches, synagogues and mosques must speak out forcefully against violence. Three out of four might.

The commenter’s last point weakens his main point. Of course our society constantly speaks out against violence. The problem, as the commenter himself indicates, is that our society, even while speaking against actual violence, systematically normalizes fictional portrayals of extreme and perverted violence through the entertainment media. And on a deeper level, it systematically normalizes the idea that there is no such thing as right and wrong. On the main page at Lucianne.com today, there is an editorial note: “Innocence defiled and destroyed.” But how could anyone who has spent one hour looking at American television, looking at the magazines on display in every supermarket, say that we are an innocent country? Our blindess to ourselves—our blindness to the evil and the general sleaze that we ourselves normalize—is stunning.
MORE…

In the previous entry, “Our false innocence, our real guilt,” Ed H. writes:

As they track down the story of Adam Lanza, and all standard parts fall into place—the weak absent father, the dingbat single mother, the liberal, well-meaning psychologist who was “working” with Adam, the shallow friends who found him “edgy” and “different,” Adam’s cultural life which consisted of an addiction to violent imagery, music, and movies supplied by the same media-political complex that is now feigning “grief”—as all of America is brought before the microphones blinking, crying, totally uncomprehending, we will notice one repeated phrase, a phrase so universal, so emblematic of Liberal America and its mounting catastrophes that I am proposing it become the new national motto, or rather the epitaph to be engraved on the tombstone of the Republic:

“HOW COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED?”

The big headline at Drudge is:

SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS

I’m sorry to sound so brutal, but there are no innocents in America. This society has normalized the abnormal and the evil. In particular it has normalized, in the all-surrounding mass entertainment media, displays of extremely sensate, grotesque, and perverted violence, and no one in the society publicly opposes it. Therefore the whole society shares the guilt. And children share the guilt by association with their parents and with the whole society. (Note to reader: Before you conclude that I’m crazy, read on and see my further refinements and explanations of that statement, both in the main entry and in the comments.) Societal guilt is not neat and precise and fair to individuals in the way it works out. Everyone partakes of it and everyone is liable to receive the consequences of it, even if, as is the case with children, they are personally innocent.

Our society has also destroyed norms in taking a non-judgmental and libertarian position on mentally disturbed and dangerous people who once would have been isolated from society. It would be unfair and oppressive to institutionalize the mentally ill, so we let them move about at liberty where ultimately many of them commit violent crimes.

But no one notices our systematic normalization of the normless. People seem to think that because they themselves are not bothered or harmed by this normless world of violence and madness, no one will be harmed by it. But not everyone is equally stable. Some people are more vulnerable to messages of sadism, savage violence, rampant lust, and murder than others. They need a sane and well ordered society to remain well-ordered themselves. But our society hurls everyone into moral chaos and assumes everyone will be ok, because, after all, if you don’t like perverted and violent messages in the surrounding society, you’re free to ignore them, right? Isn’t that what every libertarian and “freedom”-loving conservative like Rush Limbaugh says?

While our society manufacturers suicidal false guilt, such as the guilt of whites for their fictional racism against blacks, it ignores its own actual guilt in having built a continent-sized Sodom where anything goes. Yet as soon as something bad happens, the Sodomites—meaning the residents of Sodom—cry, “But we thought our town was safe!” Amazing. Mass murders have of course previously occurred in “safe” towns. Yet each time another mass murder takes place in another “safe” town, everyone is shocked and rushes to tie pink ribbons on trees and hold prayer-and-therapy vigils and hug each other—symbols of their own invulnerable and utterly false sense of innocence.
MORE…

The New York Daily News update of 12:18, which said that no one but the shooter was dead, and which contradicted earlier stories speaking of many dead, was wildly wrong.

I’ve been away from my computer since 1 p.m. Wherever I’ve been around a TV, with the cable stations going continually, the story has been solely about the victims, not about the crime and what the killer did and how he did it.

James N. sent this at 3 p.m.:

Let me predict that Adam Lanza was known to be crazy, made other people afraid, was known to the authorities, and that no one did anything about it.

At 7:00 James sent a followup:

Police told Fox News he had “behavioral disabilities.”

In other words, he was known to be a dangerous crazy person who would have been locked up, except we don’t do that anymore.

Also, a conservative friend said to me that she’s starting to think that something has to be done about guns. But I heard a few minutes ago on Fox that the three guns the killer used were all owned legally by his mother. Which made my point for me: the only type of gun control that could have stopped such a crime would be the outlawing and confiscation of every privately owned gun in America.

Meanwhile, the entire country takes for granted demonically evil and violent entertainment. It takes for granted—when it’s not applauding—movie stars who declare on national television that they enjoyed killing white people in their latest movie. At the same time, people assume that their lives in America is middle-class, normal, and safe. The disconnect is radical, apparently incurable. We have a society in which there are no moral norms (except for the tyrannical and inverted “norms” of politically correctness), yet we are always shocked when someone puts into practice the idea that there are no norms.

According to the latest update on the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, posted at 12:18 p.m. at the New York Daily News, the only person dead is the shooter. At least two children and one teacher have been wounded.

From April 2006, a VFR post on “The stupidest sentence ever written.” The sentence was by the late Joseph Sobran. The sentence was: “I can’t imagine Jesus standing on the border to turn them back.”

I am regrettably behind in posting comments. It’s simply because my available energy and time each day is limited. I will try to catch up tomorrow.

UPDATE, December 15: I haven’t caught up; I’ve been too busy with new posts as well as personal business for the last two days.

The AP reports a story from Dade City, Florida:

Caseworker was ‘chased down street with butcher’s knife and stabbed to death’ during routine visit to client’s home

An inexperienced health care caseworker who visited a client at his home knew there was something that made her ‘very uncomfortable’ about the 53-year-old man, even writing in his file that two people should visit him in the future.

Yet 25-year-old Stephanie Ross went alone to Lucious Smith’s apartment Monday morning, and police said the ex-con with a history of violence inexplicably chased her down the street, stabbing her to death with a butcher knife.

Stephanie Ross: the perfect type of the naive and
idealistic white female Eloi who is compelled by the
law of her nature to deliver herself into the maw of death.

… Ross wrote about being ‘very uncomfortable’ with Smith, according to Dade City police officer Brian Uppercue, who said authorities reviewed the file. It’s not clear why Ross went there by herself Monday or what his illness was.

[end of excerpt of AP article]

Lucious Smith: the perfect type of the oppressed black man
who, had it not been for white racism, would have been
a Supreme Court Justice, or at least a host on MSNBC. .

Did you notice how the motives of both the killer and the victim are described as unknown and mysterious? Lucious Smith “inexplicably” chased and stabbed Stephanie Ross, and Ross went alone to Smith’s home for reasons that are “not clear.” But what needs to be explained? Smith is a savagely violent Negro who was an obvious danger to society and should have been institutionalized long ago, but wasn’t because institutionalization is considered oppressive and unequal; and Ross is a white female Eloi who disregarded her own strong intimations of danger in order to help a black man. Both the murderer and the murdered were following the familiar and established behavior of their type. But liberal society refuses to recognize distinct human types and the respective patterns of behavior they typically engage in, because all human beings are equal, and to suggest otherwise is an offense against society worse than,.well, worse than chasing a 25-year-old social worker down the street and stabbing her to death. So, in the eyes of liberals, Ross’s decision to go to Smith’s apartment, and Smith’s murder of Ross, are both odd and inexplicable.
MORE…

Jonathan J. writes:

The story of football player Maurice Clarett is a perfect example of the thug life of continous dsyfunction you have been writing about.

LA replies:

With the exception that Clarett seems to have straightened himself out after serving in prison for planning a murder. But can we really believe that he read Tolstoy, Confucius, and Forbes when he was in prison? It sounds like the familiar lie about black “honor students” that Tom Wolfe skewered in Bonfire of the Vanities.

MORE…

And they also can’t quite face the fact that a black from a well-to-do background was, indeed, a criminal. The New York Times story on Brandon Lincoln Woodard, the man executed on West 58th Street in Manhattan the other day, is a classic. In precious tones, it effuses about his privileged upbringing as a “scion [oh lah lah] of a successful family” which included “entrepreneurs, lawyers and trailblazers,” his “achievements,” his high level social set, his status as a “law student” (which somehow never is verified), then segues oh-so-gingerly into the fact that the man was a criminal. For example:

Mr. Woodard, 31, was the scion of a successful family in California. His life had been a blend of achievement and puzzling setbacks that included at least 20 arrests, mostly in California, the police said.

Don’t you just love that phrase, “puzzling setbacks”? But from the liberal point of view, that is the story of the black race since 1964, isn’t it?

James N., who sent the article, writes:

The circumlocution index is very high, even for the NYT. The description of the “law student” reads like it was written by his own mother. He was an obvious thug, and his criminal scope was large enough to get him stalked and killed 3,000 miles from home.

Here’s the article:

Tracing a Victim’s Path in Life to a Brazen Killing in Midtown

By J. DAVID GOODMAN, SERGE F. KOVALESKI and WENDY RUDERMAN
Published: December 11, 2012

A single bullet. A nickel-plated gun. Two suspects, lying in wait in the light drizzle of a Monday afternoon in Midtown, stalking their victim for nearly 30 minutes.

The target came down West 58th Street, toward Broadway, his eyes focused on a smartphone in that familiar modern pose. He appeared for a second to glimpse his hooded assailant, the police said, but, not recognizing him, turned around again.

The gunman then fired a bullet into the back of the victim’s head and, without apparent urgency or panic, stepped into a waiting car to blend into the midday traffic near Columbus Circle. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 13 at 12:35 PM

In addition to boasting about how much fun it was to kill whites in his new movie, Jamie Foxx also said this week:

Being called a nigger as a young kid by white people was something I had to deal with. Having that done to me I was able to grasp what was going on in the script. When a project becomes magic and special it means that at certain points in the script it parallels your story.

As soon as read that, I became suspicious. I figured that Foxx is about 40 or 45 (in fact he was born 45 years ago today, December 13, 1967, in Texas), meaning that he was a young kid in the 1970s. Did white people really throw around “nigger,” even in Texas, in the Seventies? I don’t think so. Here’s what I think is the truth: when Fox was a young boy, say between eight and eleven, young white boys, also aged between eight and eleven, called him “nigger” two or three times. And he has now turned that childish name-calling into a scenario in which “white people,” i.e., white adults, routinely called him a nigger, thus putting him on the same exalted level of victimhood as a black slave who is justified in killing whites.

Also, about slaves killing whites, I’m reminded of John Brown’s raid on the federal armory in Harper’s Ferry, Virginia in 1859. The purpose of the raid was to arm slaves and spark a slave rebellion. In that rebellion, whites would be slaughtered and raped. The fact that Northern newspapers seemed to condone the raid convinced Southerners that the North was their enemy and led directly to the Southern Secession.

It occurs to me that while John Brown’s raid was unsuccessful, what we have been experiencing in this country since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a successful, slow-motion John Brown’s raid. Blacks have been liberated and empowered by fanatical white egalitarians, and they are using their freedom and power to kill, rape, and terrorize whites, with the silent acquiescence of the nation’s news media—a silence that adds up to condoning the ongoing anti-white savagery.
MORE…

This is reported at Breitbart:

Jamie Foxx used his opening monologue on last night’s edition of “Saturday Night Live” to assure us that “black is in.”

Foxx, who recently told an awards show crowd that President Barack Obama is “our Lord and Savior,” employed his “SNL” pulpit to riff on how cool it is to be black right now.

“Black is in,” the Oscar winner said, offering as proof that the NBA’s Nets moved to Brooklyn. “How black is that?” he asked.

He went on to talk about his upcoming role in Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained.”

“I play a slave. How black is that?” He asked. “I have to wear chains. How whack is that?”

But not to worry, he said.

“I get free. I save my wife and I kill all the white people in the movie,” Foxx said. “How great is that?”

Foxx then riffed that Obama’s first term reflected the president’s white side, and in the next four years we’ll see a blacker, cooler president named “Barack Dikembe Mutombo Tupac Mandela Hussein Obama X.” [VIDEO]

Harry Belafonte, being interviewed on MSNBC by Al Sharpton (who barely seems able to speak coherently—the aged Belafonte speaks much better), said that the American people “in their maturity” have shown that they want to go in the direction that Barack Obama wants, but that in the middle of this, there is still an “infestation” of people who oppose Obama’s agenda and want to cut entitlements. Therefore, Belafonte continues, Obama should “act like a third-world dictator” and imprison his opponents who are standing in the way of the desires of the American people.
MORE…

Timothy A. writes:

Tolerant liberals are not willing to tolerate a private organization that requires an oath that acknowledges the existence of God, so the Boy Scouts in the UK are preparing an alternative oath so that atheists can join and lead the organization (for 40 years, the UK Scouts have allowed alternative forms of the oath for Muslims and members of other religions.) The founder of the Scouting movement, Robert Baden-Powell, listed atheism alongside other social evils such as gambling and excessive drinking.

As Jim Kalb discussed at VFR last year, liberals believe that all human beings seek what is right and just and fulfilling, therefore all human beings, including jihadists, including cannibals, are at least aspiring liberals. Just include them in the liberal system, just treat them as though they are liberals, and they will naturally begin to manifest their essential liberalism.

Here is a perfect—and perfectly horrible—example of that liberal belief in action. In 1999 Susan Rice was a leading advocate in the Clinton administration for initiating a “peace process” with the insanely murderous, hand-chopping Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, led by Foday Sankoh. The basis of the Clinton policy was: “If you treat Sankoh like a statesman, he’ll be one.” In other words, no matter how evil and monstrous a foreign group may be, they want the same thing that we Western liberals want, a right and just and fulfilling human life for everyone. So we will ignore their monstrousness and treat them as though they were our fellow liberals, and—poof!—they will turn into liberals. The liberal belief that everyone is a liberal, just like us, doesn’t just make it unnecessary to acknowledge the existence of evil and of enemies, it precludes it. It thus empowers evil and enemies.

I quote below the most relevant passage from “The Other Susan Rice File: How to embrace psychotic murderers and alienate a continent,” by Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal (I read at the time the 1999 article in The New Republic by Ryan Lizza about Sierra Leone that Stephens quotes, so finding out now about Susan Rice’s role in pushing a peace process with these monsters is eye-opening): MORE…

From last August, my satiric analysis of “Drudge’s most racist headline yet.”

Ed H. writes:

When we encounter liberal figures like RFK Jr., we should not be disconcerted at their stupidity, but start considering how it is a vital resource to be exploited. For example, a friend complained of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, “She is just too stupid to bear, the Dems made a bad choice in her, she has to go.” I countered with the question, “Why would you ever want the enemy to have a more intelligent, more competent general?” He seemed to get it, but you can never tell; after all, he was a Republican. Joe Biden was another amazing resource that should have been exploited to the hilt. But what did the Republicans do? They sent in Eagle Scout First Class Paul Ryan, MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 12 at 03:42 PM

A recurrent theme in the writings of the Anglo-Irish poet William Butler Yeats (1865-1939) is the spiritual damage caused—particularly to women—by political activism, namely that of the Irish nationalist movement. Yeats himself sought a revival of the Irish nation by means of a renaissance of Irish myth, drama, and poetry. At the same time, he consistently criticized the political movement for Irish nationalism, which he thought involved hate and demagoguery rather than any positive values. He felt that involvement with this movement had ruined highly talented friends of his, such as Maud Gonne and the sisters Eva and Constance Gore-Booth, by turning them into hard-bitten fanatics and destroying their finer qualities, even their very humanity. Many of his best poems, such as “A Prayer for My Daughter,” “Easter 1916,” and “On a Political Prisoner,” touch on this theme.

W.B. Yeats

In notes on his poems and in other writings, Yeats explained with remarkable psychological insight why politics can be bad for women, and women can be bad for politics. In the following passages he discusses his view of women that lies behind the lines, “An intellectual hatred is the worst, / So let her think opinions are accursed,” from “A Prayer for My Daughter.” (The quotations are from A Commentary on the Collected Poems of W.B. Yeats, by A. Norman Jeffares, p.246.)

Yeats wrote in a diary in 1910: MORE…

Fox News reports:

Fox News contributor punched in face at pro-union protests in Michigan

I saw the tape on Hannity. It was a powerful glimpse of the thuggish, leftist country that the American people voted for on November 6.

Earl writes:

You’re great at explaining liberalism as a (dare I say coherent) system. But systems of any kind throughout nature are usually developed to cope with reality and rational forces. They observe the laws of nature very strictly, or give rise to laws themselves. Systems are usually rational. How then does liberalism make sense? Liberalism is suicidal, self-loathing, reality-denying, irrational chaos. It is an attack on the existence of existence.

It seems only white people enthusiastically support the self-annihilatory aspect of liberalism. Why? Have whites developed some genetic mutation that will cause them to self-destruct?

LA replies:

Earl is absolutely right that liberalism is an attack on the existence of existence. I can’t reply right now, but his question is so powerful and to the point that wanted to post it now. We’ll get back to it later.

LA continues:

However, here’s quick answer to Earl’s question that just came to me. I’ve often said that liberalism, proceeding from its ideal of perfect equality, blocks out all the vast sectors of reality that contradict that ideal—sex differences, racial differences, black violence, the tyrannical agenda of Islam, the objective moral good, the conditions for the creation of wealth, and on and on. Well, since liberalism at its core consists of blocking out reality, it is no surprise that liberals also block out the fact that by blocking out reality, they are assuring the destruction of their own civilization.

MORE…

NBC Philadelphia reports (via Drudge):

Teens Ask for Smoke, Kill Woman When She Replies “Get a Job”: Cops

Police say three teens, 13 and 14, charged in the fatal shooting of a western Pennsylvania woman targeted her after she told them to “get a job.”

Police say three teens charged in the fatal shooting of a western Pennsylvania woman targeted her after she told them to “get a job” when she saw them trying to bum a cigarette off her boyfriend.

Beaver Falls police have charged 14-year-olds Todavia Cleckley and Marcus Velasquez and Kyle Goosby Jr., 13, with criminal homicide and other charges in Saturday’s shooting of Kayla Peterson, 22. She was shot at about 3:30 p.m. that day and died in a Pittsburgh hospital two hours later.

Goosby is in custody and his attorney says he was just “in the wrong place at the wrong time” when Velasquez—identified as the gunman by police and Peterson’s boyfriend—opened fire.

Beaver Falls Police Chief Charles Jones says officers are still searching for the other two suspects.

[end of article.]

Sadly this young white woman (photo) did not understand that white people, unless they are armed and prepared for deadly violence, and are also prepared to be arrested and charged with murder as a racist white, must avoid all contact, all confrontations with young black (or black Hispanic) males and, obviously, do nothing that will provoke them. This is not a matter of honor, it’s a matter of dealing with deadly beasts that are at liberty in our society and will kill you as soon as look at you. If a black youth asks you for a cigarette, just say “No” and keep walking.

Kathlene M. writes:

Today Daniel Greenfield has an article at his blog called “Winning the Demographic War and the Culture War,” It explores themes we’ve been addressing at VFR. He discusses cultural (not just physical) secession and the necessity of limiting immigration. He’s a bit more optimistic than most, but he acknowledges the hard work and sacrifice needed.

It took us at least 50 years to get to this point. It’ll take at least that many years to build something new, but it’s worth struggling for. It’s good to see more writers exploring these topics.

Here are some excerpts (with my highlights): MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 11 at 12:25 PM

Aditya B. writes:

Someone needs to get a dictionary for these reporters. I don’t think they understand the meaning of the word “random.”

The Daily Mail has a story about a black man who shot a man, described as a “rapper” “execution style,” in broad daylight, with a get-away car at the ready. Based on the reported facts, it appears to have been a carefully planned gangland execution.

Yet the Daily Mail describes the murder as a “random act of violence.”

How the heck could it be random act of violence? Isn’t it a clear example of a premeditated act of violence, aimed at a particular individual whom the killer wanted dead? And isn’t that the opposite of “random?”

Are these reporters sub-literate? Or has some alternative definition of “random” become standard English on both sides of the Pond? An expression which means, well, I don’t exactly know what it means. Just a random way of using “random,” I guess. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 11 at 11:12 AM

Mark Richardson writes that the British lesbian movie director Phyllida Lloyd has

hit the news after complaining that there are more roles for men than women in Shakespeare’s plays. Her solution is to have the European Union pass laws requiring that theatre companies employ exactly equal numbers of men and women, which would then require “gender blind” casting for roles (i.e. gender wouldn’t be taken into account when casting for plays, so that you might end up with a male Juliet and a female Romeo).

Why not? Think of any phenomenon in the human world; eventually a liberal will complain that it’s not equal and that it needs to be equalized by the force of law. Anyone who dismisses Lloyd’s proposal as absurd and a non-starter hasn’t been paying attention to the escalating evolution of liberalism over the last several decades and especially the last several years. I believe that liberalism will not be rejected by the West until it has worked out its logic—and its monstrously perverted and destructive potentialities—to the very end.

Joe C. writes:

Always read your blog and like it very much. A thought struck my mind over the issue of black-on-white crime and if blacks are more violent. If history is any guide, Europeans aren’t exactly lily-white of the issue of perpetrating violence though perhaps the worst atrocity ever was the Holocaust in its coldbloodedness. Sure it was more clinical that say a knifing but the victim is still dead.

I don’t disagree with your accounts by the way. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 11 at 10:25 AM

A strong article by Mark Steyn on the lifestyle of the Grand Sultan Obama which the media doesn’t mind a bit. Thus, for example,

According to the USAF, in 2010 Air Force One cost American taxpayers $181,757 per flight hour. According to the Royal Canadian Air Force, in 2011 the CC-150 Polaris military transport that flew William and Kate from Vancouver to Los Angeles cost Her Majesty’s Canadian subjects $15,505 per hour—or about 8/100ths of the cost.

Yet, continues Steyn, while the Canadian media obsessed over the cost of Prince William’s travels, the U.S. media has nothing to say about the more than ten times greater cost of Obama’s travels.

Another sample:

The president has one pooch, a photo-op accessory called Bo, who unlike [Queen Elizabeth’s four] corgis requires a full-time handler. In contrast to the stingy remuneration offered by the royal household, the presidential dog-walker is one of 226 White House staff earning over $100,000 a year. For many centuries, the King had a courtier whose somewhat intimate duties were reflected in his title: the Groom of the Stool, a position abolished in 1559. Now, after two and a third centuries, the American presidency has evolved to the point that it has a full-time six-figure Groom of the Canine Stool.

Scott M. writes:

The discovery of your blog has been a real serendipity for me, as dire as the civilizational forecast seems at this point. It is better to face the truth than to exhaust ourselves like giblet-brained nincompoops running interference for pleasant falsehoods.

(Note, December 11: I’ve continued to make minor revisions in this entry to make the ideas clearer.)
Do you want a laugh? Read this, from the Daily Mail (via Lucianne.com):

RFK Jr lashes out at Fox News saying the network ‘has divided country in a way not seen since Civil War’

Robert F Kennedy Jr has blasted Fox News as a detrimental force in American life as he took potshots at conservative news networks….

He noted that 22 per cent of Americans get their news from Fox, telling HuffPost Live that the network has ‘divided our country in a way that we haven’t been divided probably since the Civil War’.

Let’s assume that Kennedy, who is clearly no brain, is sincere in what he says. How could he believe that Fox News (!!) is dividing the country as much as or more than the Southern Secession and the Civil War, in which the country was split in two and 600,000 men died? MORE…

Two years ago this month, at the first VFR dinner, long-time reader Jeremy G. told us a remarkable story: Raised in a Jewish atheist (though non-liberal) family, he was moved by the traditionalist—and largely Christian—perspective he found at VFR to become a religious, traditional Jew.

In a comment today in the entry “Separating from America 2.0,” Jeremy writes in part:

I’m seriously considering moving to Israel permanently. Hopefully I can find a job there. I don’t see why my family needs to go through the intense suffering that is the future of white America. This suffering is designed by G-d for white liberals. I don’t think its for those who already understand and do not need this type of growth.

Another reader strongly disagrees with Jeremy’s idea that Israel would be better for traditionalist Jews than the U.S., concluding that “Israel is as much a moral and cultural disaster area as the rest of the Western world.”

I just came upon a February 2009 entry, “In the midst of liberal triumph, liberal idols keep being shattered,” and I think it’s worth reposting. Here it is:

Right in the middle of the global celebration of the man who said that we’re descended from apes and are not essentially different from apes, a Connecticut woman who had taken that lesson to heart lost control of her 200 pound enraged “pet” chimpanzee, which proceeded to bite off the hands and destroy the face of the woman’s friend.

Right in the middle of the biggest dhimmi outreach ever by a U.S. president to the Muslim world, a widely respected “moderate” U.S. Muslim in New York State who ran a TV station devoted to persuading Americans that Muslims are not extreme and dangerous, but are just like you and me, beheaded his wife.

Right in the middle of black America’s biggest sack dance ever, with the black U.S. attorney general telling white Americans in the arrogant words of a conqueror that they must do much, much more to acknowledge their racial guilt and must become much, much more open to blacks in their private lives and not just on the job, a white woman in Atlanta who had fully internalized that teaching let a 22 year old black man enter her apartment and he promptly bludgeoned her to death.

God keeps sending one horrible lesson after another, and the lessons keep getting more and more horrible, but man—liberal man—never gets it, because he’s too committed to his liberalism to see outside liberalism or imagine being different. How many lives must be destroyed by the liberal belief in equality, before liberalism dies?

There is a long discussion following the original entry.

Karl D. writes:

Take a look at this photo of a beastly rapper named “Flo Rida” (after the State of Florida). Notice the color of all the young worshipping female arms reaching out to him. Even more sickening is the fact that these white girls appear to be in their early teens.

It is indeed their country now.

MORE…

White left-liberals (e.g. Jimmy Carter) and blacks of various kinds gravitate lovingly and automatically to black African despots. As a high official in the Obama administration and as a black, America’s ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice fits the pattern fulsomely.

Complementing Roger Cohen’s recent article in the New York Times opposing Rice as possible Secretary of State because of her arrogance and poor judgment, today’s Times has an op-ed again blasting Rice, this time for her inordinately close relationships with African dictators. This sullen-faced woman, who forever destroyed her credibility by going on five national TV programs touting the administration’s bald-faced lie about the Benghazi attack, is so vile that even the vile creeps of the Times have a problem with her.

However, given the recent pattern in which liberalism in general and Obama in particular (a) keep becoming more and more criminal and extreme, and (b) keep getting away with it, I think it is a reasonable expectation that notwithstanding the furor over Rice, Obama will nominate her for Secretary of State and the Senate will confirm her.

Here is the op-ed: MORE…

A correspondent told me this evening that he is working on an article about secession in which, among other things, he will present the laws that would be needed in the new, non-liberal, breakaway society (or societies) to avoid the mistakes of the existing society. This is exactly the kind of work that is needed. It is a complement to my proposed article listing all the things about the existing America that we reject.

The trauma of the decisive takeover of this society by the left and the death of the constitutional republic has a large silver lining: we are now free intellectually of liberal America. We no longer have to keep hopelessly trying to inject some conservatism into a society that is overwhelmingly and unchallengeably liberal. Now we are free to start over again,—intellectually at first, and later, we hope, practically. What the task involves is taking the good principles and components of the old America and dispensing with the bad, and introducing new principles and components that can be the basis of a new, viable, non-liberal society.
MORE…

The third annual VFR dinner was held last night at a Manhattan restaurant. The turnout was larger than in previous years—about 30 people, all seated at a very long banquet table in a private room. Guests came from as far away as California, Arizona, and North Carolina. A good time was had by all, though the service and food left something to be desired. Cocktail hour began at 6:30, and most of us didn’t leave until 11:30; some stalwarts stayed on until 12:30. The main feeling expressed by the attendees was happiness at the chance to meet and talk with so many like-minded individuals.

On the morning of December 1, linebacker Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs murdered the 22-year-old mother of his three-month-old child at his home by shooting her nine times, then drove to the team’s practice facility where, as the police were arriving, he shot himself to death in front of his coaches.

In the early morning hours today, December 9, Josh Brent of the Dallas Cowboys, driving drunk and recklessly at high speed, flipped his car over causing the death of his teammate Jerry Brown.

Physically powerful, mentally and morally deficient:
Josh Brent, a typical example of white America’s black sports heroes.

With the back-to-back occurrence of these, as they are called, “tragedies,” has the black thugification of professional sports reached critical mass? Will the twin “tragedies” lead to any publicly expressed thoughts that maybe there’s something wrong with the blacks in sports and with the sports industry that cultivates and promotes them? Of course not! Eloi white America’s worship of these SUV-sized barbarians will only continue and intensify.

The story is from TMZ, via Drudge:

Dallas Cowboys Player
Dies in Car Wreck
Teammate Arrested

Jerry Brown, a linebacker on the Dallas Cowboys practice squad, died early this morning in a single-car accident—and his teammate, Josh Brent, was arrested on charges of intoxication manslaughter.

According to police, Brent (see above) was driving at a high rate of speed at around 2:20 AM when his car “hit the outside curb,” flipped over and came to rest in the middle of the road. MORE…

Posted by Lawrence Auster on December 9 at 06:11 PM

William Kristol writes at The Weekly Standard:

Is the Grand Old Party in as much disarray as it seems? Yup. For one thing, Republicans are electorally shellshocked. For the past couple of years, they had been confident Barack Obama would lose in November. Many Republicans held that belief going into Election Day. This was the first time since 1948 that Republicans were confident they were going to win a presidential election—and then lost it. The Republican psyche will take a while to recover from the shock of November 6.

I would say to Mr. Kristol that if Republicans had been reading VFR for the last two years they would not have been confident that Obama would lose and would not have been shellshocked by his victory. For two years I repeatedly mocked Republicans’ triumphalism about the continuous but somehow never completed “precipitous” fall in Obama’s popularity and about his coming defeat. I pointed out that Obama had a lot going for him, that he was not a beaten looking incumbent like Hoover or Carter or Bush the elder, but a tough competitor who was set on winning. I said that Obama because of his race was still a messianic and historical figure in the world’s eyes and that it was very unlikely that such a figure would be a one-term president. I indicated the continuing leftward movement in our politics and culture, the victory of the left on one issue after another, and said that an Obama defeat would be inconsistent with that clearly established direction. I said that Romney with his empty candidacy and his weak kindly smile looked like a classic loser, not a winner. I ridiculed the conservative writers who, in the face of very close polls two days before the election, declared as a fact that Obama would lose.

One writer, who is unconnected with any establishment, who is not a political expert, and whose only political skill is looking at reality with his own eyes, had a better insight into the election than the entire vast superfunded Republican/conservative establishment and its armies of experts.
MORE…