George Sarant

NEW YORK ON THE PRECIPICE

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Fri, 31 Oct 2025 23:42:00 +0000

New York has been declining for decades, hemorrhaging people and businesses, largely due to gross mismanagement by elected officials. But that will be accelerated many times over if Zorhan Mamdani becomes mayor.

Who is Mamdani? He is the son of radical parents who own a guarded luxury villa in Uganda. His father believes that Lincoln was equivalent to Hitler, yet he has a professorship spewing garbage to students. As for Zorhan, he has never seriously worked or supervised more than a handful of people, he has never run anything, yet he is poised to take over the financial capitol of the world. He is more than a Democratic Socialist. He talks about seizing the means of production which makes him an outright communist. Well over 100,000 American lives were lost fighting against this ideology, along with a hundred million other people who were killed by communist regimes.

He is slick and has managed to fool a lot of gullible people with promises of free stuff, which supposedly will be paid for by richer, whiter people. But the rich can simply leave. It is the middle class and homeowners who will bear the brunt of his expenditures. He is a relatively recent arrival and not a real New Yorker. Native New Yorkers are not supporting him. His support comes from the foreign born and affluent young radicals who have moved here from other parts of the country. They have not been educated in American values, but against them.

He is a Marxist and a nominal Muslim which gives him a convenient identity, but in all his pronouncements he is far more Marxist than Muslim. In fact Islam is even less compatible with Marxism than Christianity. He is also a hypocrite, not just because of his well-to-do family. He wants to eliminate all educational gifted programs, yet he himself went to the Bronx High School of Science, which is one of those schools. He is blatantly anti-semitic and opposes a Jewish state. He does have a minority of Jewish support, but they are more left than Jewish.

Under Mamdani public safety will be infinitely worse. He wants to close the Rikers Island prison, he has been militantly anti-police, and will appoint judges that will free criminals into the city far more than they do now. They in turn will also make life miserable for the banks, who have already moved most of their jobs out of state. His regime will terminally damage the finance industry, which in all likelihood will abandon New York, leaving only a shell of its former presence. So will many other businesses, leaving only mom and pop small businesses that can’t move, and who will be burdened with even more onerous taxes. Unemployment will rise when the job creators are gone.

But the city will not totally collapse. There is simply too much critical mass for that to happen. However the New York we have known and loved will be but a shadow of itself. The wheels of commerce will grind to a halt, achievement and ambition will evaporate, infrastructure will continue to rot, public services will be diminished under incompetents, and the quality of life will greatly decline. But the left will have achieved the “equity” it wants- everyone remaining will be equally miserable.

Much of the damage could be mitigated by the state, which has a lot of power over the city, but given that Governor Kathy Hochul has endorsed Mamdani there is not much relief to be found there unless she is voted out next year.

I was born in New York and have lived here all my life. I have thought about leaving, like many others, but then think why should I leave? This is my home and I will still stay and fight. But then again if things go from miserable to intolerable I may have no choice.

THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sun, 02 Mar 2025 03:38:00 +0000

The Territorial Imperative is the title of a book by Robert Ardrey that shows how male animals, especially the alphas, are compelled to establish and defend, or even extend, their territory. Something along these lines appears to be stirring in the White House when it comes to places like Canada, Greenland, Panama, and Gaza.

Of these, Canada is most compelling, provided of course that the Canadians are amenable to it. But offering to make the 51st state out of a territory so large is woefully inadequate. If we were to consider this seriously it should be on the basis of statehood for each Canadian province. That would yield ten new states (Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec) along with three territories (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Yukon).

This would make the combined country the largest territory in the world, and provide a continuous line in the Arctic from Alaska to Greenland, another potential territory. Given that most Canadians live along the border with the USA in a narrow continuous strip, the whole process could be seamless. However this is not something that is going to come about unless the Canadians themselves want it, and pressure will only increase resistance. If anything the initiative for union should come from Canada, pursuant to advantages that might accrue by combining with the USA.

On the other hand there is no particular reason why friendly countries cannot maintain independent, but closer relations. It would behoove us and our allies to move closer together, allowing more free movement and trade, while reducing, not increasing barriers. Unfortunately at the moment we appear to be headed in the latter direction. While things are moving well in Washington now, this is one area where reservations are in order. We share a common western civilization that should be fortified for our mutual long-term interests.

The map of the world is not static, and changes virtually every year. It is sometimes due to the territorial imperative, often via war. One of the biggest problems arising with it is that extreme nationalists in every country think that their country should be at the maximum extent it was in the past, which obviously leads to conflicting overlapping visions of what borders should be, as well as chronic instability, if taken seriously. But empires wax and wane, so that if every country sought to replicate their height of power and territory there would be endless conflict.

This is reflected in the Russia-Ukraine war. Putin would like to restore the Russian empire to its greatest extent, and Ukraine is a historic and essential part of it. A case could be made that a common history makes this obvious, except for one thing: the Ukrainians clearly do not want it. Whatever was common in the past is in the past. Divergence has given contemporary Ukrainians a keen sense of their own identity and that cannot be undone.

Such territorial claims can also be conflicting as we see in the Middle East. But turning Gaza into a beach resort while displacing the native population is no solution. It is wrong to consider “Arabs” as interchangeable so that they can easily be resettled. For the Palestinians are not Arabs but consist largely of the indigenous population that was conquered by Arabs. There are people there whose origins go back to the Philistines, whose displacement would be morally indefensible. But it is true that a Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank separated by Israel is simply not viable. Gaza should be an independent city-state initially under international supervision and the Palestinian state proper should be confined to the west bank.

It is one thing to engage in much-needed disruption to reform the government of the USA, and something else to tamper with a far more complex world order. For the latter will come with unanticipated consequences and events beyond anyone’s control. Let the macho instincts be confined to domestic affairs.

HOW REPUBLICANS STOOD MARX ON HIS HEAD

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 23:56:00 +0000

If you ever wanted to make an argument for economic determinism, the recent election results provide fertile grounds for it, based upon voting patterns. There was a clear divide between the wealthiest segment of the population and everyone else. A majority of those making over $100,000 per year voted one way, while those earning less that $50,000 as well as everyone else, voted another way. Marxists argue that economic factors determine political attitudes, so that the well-,off vote for conservative candidates, while the lowest earners vote for the Left. This has been the case in countries around the world (until recently), so that the wealthy favored the Republicans while the common people voted for the Democrats.

But the recent election completed upended this dichotomy. Although these groups aligned according to income predictably, who they voted for did not. The wealthiest segment voted left, i.e. Democrat, while virtually every other segment with lower incomes voted right, or Republican. The Democrats raised more money from their wealthier base than the Republicans, especially in down-ballot contests for congressional seats, where the disparity was greatest.

Nevertheless there was economics involved in these choices, only not based upon wealth but rather prices. Inflation and the economy were the prime reasons the voting public moved right. Although most people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction and that the economy was not good, there were at least some who thought otherwise, because it was working for them. These were people who were better off, with higher incomes, and were the only group to do well under the Biden administration.

There were sharp differences in perception as to the state of things. People with higher incomes barely noticed supermarket prices. With more disposable income, inflation did not affect their affluence the way it affected everyone else. Thus while economic concerns were paramount in the minds of voters, the prevailing notion of what outcomes this would produce were diametrically opposite to expectations regarding political behavior. Republicans have been transformed by this populist strain, finally becoming a true “peoples party.”

A HOSTILE TAKEOVER

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 04 Jan 2025 23:49:00 +0000

There have been instances in the past where a new regime has come to power vowing to reform government, reduce spending, and reign in the bureaucracy. The incoming Trump administration is unusually strong in its determination to achieve these goals. They may well succeed, but the historical record is not encouraging.

When an outsider takes the reins of an agency they are flying blind. They are immediately dependent upon the existing bureaucracy they have set out to reform for information, and hence are limited or compromised from the outset. In addition, the status quo exists because various interests are satisfied with it. Change under these circumstances is extremely difficult. I have seen this pattern time and again, with the bureaucracy almost always keeping the last word. The passing of Jimmy Carter brings recollections of an attempt during his presidency to implement efficiencies via “zero-based budgeting” as authored by my late cousin Peter, who worked on it at the time but, as with other attempts, the status quo resistance was too strong.

But now we have something different; akin to a hostile corporate takeover. It is quite possible that the Trump team may prove to be the exception, much in the same way the man himself is. It is true that the Trump team recognizes this problem and so they have come up with a series of cabinet nominees that are largely, and deliberately antithetical to the entities they are to control. They bring a sort of revolutionary fervor. Perhaps they will succeed, but the task is daunting unless they have someone with inside knowledge of the organization who is programmatically on the same page. They might do better with cadres who independently monitor the agency for adherence to the goals set by the administration, or some equivalent kind of compliance unit. The Musk-Ramaswami DOGE group may fulfill this function.

Some of the nominees chosen thus far possess a good deal of critical fervor but may lack the necessary knowledge to get very far with it. Others have different problems. RFK Jr. may assume office and move on his health concerns, but the other part of that agency, human services, is likely to be on the chopping block, including programs he might be sympathetic to. It is quite possible that he, or others, might wind up resigning in frustration after a few months. The most successful are likely to be those concerned with energy, natural resources, and the economy; all areas of Republican concern and expertise.

Cutting back has become necessary owing to the vast body of government bloat and expanding national debt. This has come about because all entities seek growth and expansion, i.e. the enlargement of their domain, which parallels the pattern of power distribution. Every other segment of society has limitations, such as business competition, supply and demand, or customer numbers. Government faces no such restraints, so it continually expands.

When things become so stultified the only fix is revolutionary- taking departments apart and reassembling them from scratch. Routine must be replaced by radical change in order to provide renewal, greater efficiency, and functional competence. The tasks for the new administration are daunting, but not impossible. The incoming government may not be able to go this far, but the closer they get to it, the better.

A LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Wed, 06 Nov 2024 20:51:00 +0000

Ever since Donald Trump first began seriously pursuing the Republican nomination for President eight years ago, the media and the constellation of left-controlled institutions has done everything possible to de-legitimize his candidacy, and then his presidency. Every conceivable obstacle was thrown at him, from the phony Russian collusion hoax conjured up by the Hillary Clinton campaign, to two impeachment attempts, to endless politically-motivated lawsuits designed not just to destroy him politically but personally. Lesser men might have folded, but he, almost miraculously, managed to remain standing.

While in office they refused to accept his legitimacy as President and did everything possible to undermine his administration, attacking not only him but anyone who disregarded their boycott and had the audacity to cooperate with his presidency. Prominent people were vilified for even trying to attend White House conferences on legitimate national concerns. So complete was the level of contempt that even his family was was targeted, notably Melania Trump, a former model, who never appeared on magazine covers under their control, unlike every other first lady.

The media in particular not only relentlessly attacked him, but acted in concert to suppress news that was unfavorable to their side, such as the Hunter Biden laptop, or the senility of Joe Biden. But in spite of all of this, in the end it was the media that lost legitimacy, not Donald Trump. Public confidence in the dominant media has collapsed as a result, undermine the veracity of what they are reporting. The ideological slant is obvious now to everyone outside their bubble, for rather than exert influence as intended, they have instead raised the consciousness in opposition to their intent, especially on the part of working people.

Yet despite all that was done to undermine him, and contrary to his supposed “authoritarianism” the truth is that while in office Donald Trump did not do a single thing to pursue his opposition. He did not use the mechanisms of government to abuse his power and attack his enemies. Ironically that is what was done to him, when out of office he was subjected to partisan “law-fare,” seriously damaging our legal system. It is nothing but their own heart of darkness that is at the root of the constant claims that he is obsessed with pursuing enemies while in office, when the only obsession in play is their own.

His decisive victory, including winning the popular vote, seriously inhibits further attempts to undermine his presidency this time. As long as he is judicious in the use of power and does not fulfill the Left’s worse nightmares there is little basis, or public sympathy for hysterical opposition. Democracy has worked again.

This election result was not so much a defeat of Kamala Harris as of the Left itself, which was unwisely empowered by Joe Biden without any public demand or support. Years of inflationary spending, rising prices, broken borders, weakness abroad, and certainly the imposition of “woke” policies alienated vast segments of the public, which finally found expression in the election results.

The Democrats, in a general sense, are going to have to get with the program and move back to the center. To do so they need to stop catering to the radical left, which has mistakenly been considered their “base.” But in reality there are nowhere near enough of them to provide a base for a major party and it is time to jettison their undue influence. This is basically a center-right country and it is also time for elites to adjust to this reality with some common sense.

Trump’s solid election victory now makes it impossible to continue treating him as an oddity, a menace, or an extremist. These election results have finally mainstreamed Trump and his party. They can no longer continue to deny his legitimacy, given such widespread public support.

Thus, fortunately for the American people, we should see a return to normalcy in the sense that no questions regarding the election result could possibly change the outcome. The media and related institutions will be compelled to treat the incoming administration as legitimate, and Donald Trump as a clearly legitimate president.

ALLIES ARE NOT ADVERSARIES

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:58:00 +0000

Although Trump is right on most issues and reflects majority opinion so thoroughly that the Harris campaign has flip-flopped to mimic these positions, there is one glaring exception when it comes to foreign policy. Treating allies the same as adversaries is counterproductive and just plain wrong. We share a common civilization with Europe and ought to be moving closer rather than further apart.

While some still lag on military expenditures, it is important to note that the Europeans contributed troops to Afghanistan throughout the conflict and suffered significant casualties. Despite that, they weren’t even informed in advance of our disastrous withdrawal. We have done most of the heavy lifting beginning with World War II, but it is for that very reason that we should continue to honor the sacrifices our predecessors made to give us the world we have today.

It is one thing to place tariffs on China, and something else to do so on our allies. We need to look at the big picture. If you combined the entire population of the USA and Europe, we would still be less than the population of China or India. That suggests a serious long-term competitive disadvantage on our part as well as the Europeans. It is in our best interests to have a common policy with Europe, and rather than diminishing them we ought to be working towards closer ties and synchronization. That will enable the West to remain competitive and continue to lead in the long-term.

Our adversaries are far better at long-term geopolitical thinking than we are. It is time we broadened our approach to facilitate our allied common interests. A renewed, more comprehensive Atlantic Alliance that facilitates the movement of goods and people through mutual preferences would enrich our societies. Our economies are already seriously integrated. It is surprising to note how many household brands we think of as American are actually European in origin, and vice versa. Thus, this could come about with minimum disruption.

I hope that Trump’s criticisms directed at Europe are nothing more than tactical bluster. Overall and for the benefit of posterity across the Atlantic it is time to begin discussing closer ties, not deeper division.

WE DON'T NEED A POLITICAL "DONOR CLASS"

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:26:00 +0000

In the current Democrat anguish over the fate of Joe Biden certain “donors” have threatened to withhold funding unless he leaves the ticket. This was hyped by the media, which has gone so far as to assign these donors an interest group slot, equivalent to all the others, such as identity groups, etc. that make up the Democrat’s coalition. They are also referred to as the “donor class,” as if they constituted a permanent segment of the political universe, or as the “megadonors.” So ubiquitous are they that the USA is the only country in the world with a coterie of progressive, left-wing billionaires. Indeed there are now more of them on the Democrat’s side than the Republicans.

So what do these big donors want or get? (They usually want more than they actually get). It isn’t particularly policies that favor “the rich,” but rather ego-satisfying access to address their fixations even more than their interests, such as climate change, etc. More than photo-ops, which are for the little guy, they want policy input. Big money gets them a sit-down with the candidate and chances to air their favorite notions about how things ought to be. Often enough it isn’t even their own money they are providing but an ability to make others, i.e. associates, customers, etc. cough up, so that “bundlers” get equal status.

What you essentially have is people who have been successful at one thing who are full enough of themselves to believe that their expertise translates into other areas, such as running the country. So multi-talented are they that leading politicians listen to them, at least as long as the money keeps coming. Mutual status boosting always occurs. Yet their opinions have no more intrinsic value than anyone else’s, and to the extent they are given more weight it is undemocratic. One of the most depressing things I’ve encountered is personally meeting a politician about something only to hear their main focus being about fundraising, or see how much in awe they are of money and money people.

Yet politicians are not really to blame, given the system they have to operate in. They actually hate asking people for money yet have to spend an awful lot of time doing so. But that being the case they ought to be amenable to changing the process given how unpleasant it is for them. That is the best hope for reform- when they become so disgusted with what they have to do they try and change it.

I don’t begrudge the rich for their wealth, but do draw the line at influencing government. As for the megadonors who fancy themselves more knowledgeable about how to run things, let them run for office or just shut up.

THE ALLURE OF POWER

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Tue, 09 Jul 2024 19:22:00 +0000

King George III called Washington the “greatest of men” for surrendering power after two terms. Only the not-so-great Franklin Roosevelt* broke that precedent, deciding that no one but himself could do the job. (The constitution was amended to prevent a recurrence of this). The American presidency in its present incarnation draws enormous egos able to expend four years running for office in an insane unending campaign. The British just had an election with a campaign that lasted all of six weeks and power was transferred almost immediately. Our campaigns now never end, and despite the efficacy of a very “democratic” process. Yet after all is said and done we are faced with two candidates a majority of the people do not want. This has to change to restore any kind of normalcy to the United States.

At this moment it appears that Joe and Jill intend to hold on to power to the bitter end. Unless Jill lets go the administration will continue and a mixed bag of largely radical staff will continue to run the country, much as they have for some time now. The trappings of office are too powerful an elixir to easily surrender. The 25th Amendment is unlikely to be invoked in this instance and ought to be revisited. Does it make any sense for a VP to start a process that will lead to replacing the President and then become President (in this case) herself?

It will take a large, possibly even a majority of Democratic representatives to broach the subject and right now most are sitting on their hands. It will take a fraught, monumental effort to displace Joe Biden. One of the characteristics of people with dementia is that they don’t know they have it by the time their mental state starts to decline. Consequently it is unlikely that Biden can be persuaded to step down unless there is overwhelming majority pressure, and/or Jill changes her mind. But neither she, nor more importantly, the senior staff want to surrender power.

It is imperative that we change the electoral system or we shall devour ourselves just through rancor. To get better candidates we need a better system. As far as I am concerned the best president would be someone who doesn’t want to be president and who is not consumed by pursuit of that office.

*Although routinely rated "great" by left-leaning historians, apart from clinging to power Roosevelt also mishandled things that he is usually given credit for solving. Modern economic research now shows that his policies actually prolonged the depression. When it comes to World War II if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had occurred in the face of today's media, would there not be scandalous inquiry? I am not suggesting that America's role in the war was at all bad, but rather that it could have gone differently without Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt was determined to get into the war and did everything possible to provoke the Japanese, especially by cutting off oil. But that being the case, and that being the intent the nation, should have been fully prepared for war beforehand rather than being caught by surprise. Roosevelt was succeeded by Harry Truman, whom everyone thought of as just a common man. Nevertheless he ended the war and generally rose to the position of President, hence proving that no one is indispenable and that there was no necessity for Roosevelt serving two additional terms. The only indispensable man was Washington, but such a man only comes along over a few thousand years.

THE OLD GUYS AREN'T GOING AWAY

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 06 Jul 2024 02:10:00 +0000

Implicitly there is a sense that once this election is over we won’t have two old guys running for president anymore and younger people will take over. The problem with this is that there are many people at 75 or 80 who are more like 50 or 60 year olds used to be. You can see this in almost any old movie or newsreel. People look older than they do now.

What is elderly has been rapidly changing as modern medicine and better health practices have increased lifespans. Those who demonstrate this are still “outliers” and more fortunate than others, but their numbers are increasing as a population segment. At the same time we have young people in their 20s who now seem to be experiencing prolonged adolescence.

Clearly something has changed, as the stages of life seem to have revised significantly for many people. Thus, we may expect more older active lives, still contemporary and no longer perceived as elderly despite the years. With the “baby boomer” generation this population will be larger than ever. We can only hope that the wisdom that used to come with age is not a casualty of this increased dynamism.

WHITHER THE DEMOCRATS?

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sun, 31 Mar 2024 03:36:00 +0000

JOE BIDEN’S “FIRSTS” ARE PUTTING AMERICA LAST

A few months ago Biden proudly proffered yet another “first” in the person of the first woman to head the US Navy, despite resistance from his own officials. This individual might well be qualified, but we’ll never know. For as with all such appointments, being selected in this way creates a lasting stigma. Due to blatant and unashamed policies being served up based upon attributes rather than competence, any pretense of a merit system, fundamental to our way of life, no longer exists.

But the consequences of this kind of policy are disastrous not just in performance of duties but in recruitment as well. There are good reasons why white men are not signing up for the military in ways they traditionally have.The message is clear to them, and it would be folly to join under this regime. Why does that matter? War casualties and deaths have disproportionately been white. These tend to be people from small towns and suburbs still imbued with an older patriotism, who sign up for frontline duty and hazardous assignments in significantly higher numbers than any other group. If you don’t have frontline troops in sufficient numbers you can’t win a war, and pray that we don’t wind up in one under this government.

THE TRANS DEMOCRATS

That may finally begin to change, as Joe Biden, Maker of Firsts, has really outdone himself this time. Incredibly, he has proclaimed this Sunday, Easter Sunday of all days, as “Trans Day of Visibility,” complete with color displays on national monuments. Buildings once adorned with crosses for Easter will instead now be adorned with this identity display. This tone deafness isn’t satire. It is real. Insanity is now official policy.

Democrats are expert in demography. They are a transactional party, with the message being, vote for us and we’ll give you stuff. They create and combine interest groups into “coalitions” that can win elections. But what have they done here? Church attendance and formal religion may be in relative decline, but this is still a country that has an overwhelming Christian majority. Like others who aren’t very religious I find this highly offensive as well. Throwing Christians under the bus in favor of Trans people has to be one of the dumbest missteps of all time. This is what happens when radical ideologues control the institutions and set the agenda.

Trans people, on the other hand, are a tiny minority the left is obsessed with. I recall an early Trump State of the Union speech in which he touted economic progress and things that matter to ordinary people. The Democratic response at that time was to put up a goofy Kennedy kid who began talking about the problems of trans children, and so forth. This left a lot of the audience scratching their heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about.

Now however, having been subject to constant bombardment from the establishment, the public is more aware and not at all happy with it. How on earth can a party that stresses “women’s issues” be so bent on destroying women’s sports? This ideology represents no one, yet the rotten elite across the board are all in with it. Repression and fear are the tools that keep hapless institutional employees from expressing themselves, but many are chafing under this regime and may yet express it at the ballot box. That’s assuming, of course, that opposition has the presence of mind to connect the Democratic Party directly with what they have wrought. Where are all the rational liberals, people who should know better but have allowed themselves to be steamrolled by radicals?

I truly loathe dividing us into phony groups but that is what the Democrats have done with incessant identity politics. Yet despite the high level of unpopularity of “woke” policies, they have paid no price and gotten away with it. That is because most of the public has not connected all the weirdness directly to the Democrats. The left loves things like “consciousness raising,” and have done quite a job of it here, only not the way they intended. They have in fact primarily raised the consciousness of people who find these things objectionable and are reacting accordingly. If this carries over to the ballot box the Democrats are in big trouble, and deservedly so.

THE KING'S SPEECH

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Fri, 08 Mar 2024 05:22:00 +0000

Our government is a national embarrassment, across the board, and beyond partisanship. This ought to be apparent to anyone with any sense of decorum or dignity who watched the State of the Union address tonight. It came across in a circus atmosphere complete with your elected officials taking selfies like tourists in the place where they supposedly work. They jostle to get into pictures with bigger fish in front of the television cameras, and walk away beaming if, say their president, deigns to momentarily chat with them.

He in turn walks down the aisle like the highest potentate in the world, giving and withholding acknowledgements as he sees fit. You have Democratic women again behaving ridiculously in common white dress, while a few on the other side engage in “colorful” political theater as well. The President gets to the podium, having been juiced with something to make him appear sufficiently aware so as to be able to make a forceful speech, which he does with a little too much force in an effort to prove he still a virile, vigorous leader. He has accomplished that much of his goal insofar as his party acolytes and the media are reassured that he is fully in command, but coming across as a kind of angry old man to most other people, I suspect.

What is disturbing about all of this, regardless of who is playing the role, is the fact that the scene much too closely echoes that of the collapsing Roman Republic and the rise of Caesarism. He says “I” an inordinate number of times; how “I” have given you this, “I” am going to do this, “I” am the one holding all the cards, and “I” am the one who will dispense benefits to you from my unlimited resources. The problem is that this is not, in fact, a king, not an emperor with command of vast resources, but rather a very ordinary man purporting to “give” you things that are paid for by you in the first place; in other words with your own money.

Would you not rather be able to spend your money the way you want rather than the way someone else thinks it should be spent, based upon the notion that they reflect the public interest and know better how to appropriate it?But they don’t know better. They know far less than they claim to, which is why their best efforts usually wind up making everything worse.

But even with this imperial spectacle they have to provide a “common” touch for ordinary people, so we have the usual gallery of special guests that are pointed to in the course of the speech. I truly wish Reagan had never started this, or at least that it didn’t get picked up by less gifted people going forward as a new tradition akin to pardoning turkeys. I think it diminishes the seriousness and solemnity of purpose that ought to accompany such events.

Yet, then again, these are not serious people.They are like children playing musical chairs and jockeying for position. The problem is that they are charged with serious matters that entail enormous power. This effects the lives of everyone else, but they are simply and chronically not very good at it. That is why things seldom work well, or worse, are totally dysfunctional. This is what happens when you assign great power without the equivalent wisdom, restraint, humility, and competence that must come with it. That is why power should be located primarily in the the most basic simple social units, beginning with the individual and family, then the community, the county or city, the state, and lastly the federal government. Not top down but bottom up, but today that pyramid has been inverted, if not perverted.

It was not always so. This began as a deliberately modest republic, where humility and probity were prized, and where men at least formally aspired to the highest level of virtue in serving the public. They didn’t always achieve it, but they did take it so much further than their descendants that they come across almost as god-like giants followed by increasingly diminished men, eventually yielding us the mediocre midgets of today. They never presumed to legitimate vast power in the hands of a few over the many. If Washington could so gracefully surrender power, ever cognizant of its potential abuse, how can we now bestow so much on the lesser people who now occupy the city bearing his name?

THERE IS NO JUSTICE IN NEW YORK

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 17 Feb 2024 03:44:00 +0000

There was zero chance that Donald Trump could possibly get a fair trial in Manhattan, which not only is out of touch with the rest of the country, but the rest of the city as well, never mind the state. Zero chance he could be treated fairly by a Manhattan jury, which voted over 80% for Biden and where there is not a single Republican elected official left. Top that off with radical prosecutors who campaigned on getting Trump as one of their main objectives. Add to that a vicious partisan judge seething with hatred for the man. It almost doesn’t matter what the charges and rulings are because of these conditions. They cannot be taken seriously by anyone, even those who intensely dislike Trump, if they have any decency, honesty and scruples left. This is a political victory they can enjoy but may learn to regret as they further de-legitimize the “justice” system in this country, which is only going to lead to black chasm that will eventually envelope them as well.

Each of the cases are ridiculous and blatantly political. They would never have happened if he wasn’t President Trump and running for office. The charges are so far-fetched and the dollar amounts so outrageous, whether it be a supposed rape and libel from decades ago suddenly turning up, or more seriously, a clear attempt to not just “get” the man, but to completely destroy him, his business and his family, and further to even prevent them from doing business where they are based. On top of that this thieving judicial system is further going to appoint their political lackeys to “monitor” the Trumps and force them to pay for it. It is blatant persecution, especially when no one complained, no one was defrauded, and all were paid back, and the very statute invoked actually applies to consumer, not business fraud anyway. There was no fraud, but none of that would matter to a partisan Manhattan jury.

I have lived here all my life and am sickened by the serious decline of New York due to rotten, corrupt officials and legislative bodies. It didn’t have to be this way, and mind you much of this has been brought about by “progressive reformers,” with a consistently dismal record of accomplishment, and worse, thoughtless destruction. I can say without a doubt that the old-line Democrat machine bosses, whatever their faults, did a hell of a lot better job at running things than these fools. They were practical people who could care less about ideology, but they got things done. That is also where Trump’s talents lie; cutting to the chase and getting things done. This was evidenced by projects he undertook that city officials said were impossible and would take years to complete. He said he could get it done in six months and he did.

He never did anything harmful to New York and in fact did a lot to make it better, something that is now conveniently forgotten by the very same scoundrels that used to sing his praises or take his money. But it’s not just Trump. This rotten, corrupt system is an offense and burden for many others, and will be even more so in the future, barring radical change, as the population hemorrhage accelerates.

Apart from the alleged legal aspects, the amounts charged, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are so over the top their intention is obvious. But the city has also changed; where some would look down on a place like Mississippi for exorbitant payouts, those are trivial alongside of preposterous, grossly excessive rewards that regularly pour out now from New York courts. The worst of them are often at the expense of the city itself, so that anyone with a lawsuit against the city basically has hit the jackpot. Lawyers love New York and big law firms are one of the few thriving institutions left in the city.. This is the same rotten system that has deliberately foisted harm on numerous residents by continuously releasing criminals back into the population, with no regard for law-abiding citizens.

As it stands now, none of these purloined decisions, and the system that enabled them, have any legitimacy left.

One way or another these blatant injustices may be reversed, but that alone is not enough. The perpetrators of this travesty, who have so badly damaged any remaining semblance of a justice system, must be pursued and punished for their misdeeds. Only then may they learn that the pendulum swings back and forth. and when they are sanctioned they will better understand the consequences of their misdeeds.

DISHONEST MEDIA ON THE USA, RUSSIA, AND EVERYTHING ELSE

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Fri, 16 Feb 2024 22:55:00 +0000

There was a great deal of hissy hysterics across the western world with regard to Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. However, you don’t have to be.a fan of either man in order to find some real value in what was presented if you look at it objectively. Would there have been such n outcry if ,say, Barbara Walters had done the interview? It doesn’t matter how salient the questions were, friendly or hostile, probing or softball, or any other “performance” criteria that stupid media are focused on. For what we very clearly saw was a fairly deep, unfiltered glimpse into the mind of an adversary, How much was truthful and how much misleading, self-serving, or completely false ought to be secondary to what was revealed in spite of those things.

We got a pretty clear idea of what Putin’s thinking is on a wide range of topics, what his feelings are, and what motivates him. That is far more enlightening than any misleading statements he might have made, or how some claims might be factually incorrect, or merely disputable. Anyone observing this with an open mind would have learned a great deal about where he is coming from, and even if you consider him an outright enemy, it is clearly valuable information to possess. His history lesson was shaded by a sentimental and prejudicial perspective, as would be the same from another side, but overall it was not historically incorrect.

When it comes to the west and NATO he revealed a good deal of resentment and hurt due to what he sees as rejection from the west, and his viewpoint does deserve some consideration based upon the way things evolved that could have turned out differently. When he says that Russia and Yeltsin were seeking to join the west and were rebuffed there is enough truth to it to question some of perceptions and policies instituted in our name. Clearly policy makers discounted the very real differences between the Soviet Union and Russia, the latter of which they wanted to contain and reduce as though it were still run by aggressive communists (rather than committed anti-communists). When he points to NATO expansion despite assurances that wouldn’t happen, he is historically correct, but would clearly have been acceptable if Russia had been allowed to become part of it along with all the rest. This does not negate Russian duplicity regarding other matters regarding Ukraine, etc.or breaking agreements, but there is enough historical reality here to be considered thoughtfully, and free of our own biases and ideological sentiments. *

But the ideological propagandists that control the media don’t want you to be able to make your own judgement, because they “know better” and believe you are too stupid or gullible enough to make a sound judgement on your own. However, their dishonesty is only verified by the fact that they don’t even want you to hear anything they don’t like or that might be contrary to their worldview. They want to suppress information rather than allowing its free flow, which is absolutely contrary to everything we stand for in the west.

In current reading it is easy to find numerous instances of this malignant perspective. In The New Republic, (which used to be a thoughtful, serious publication I used to subscribe to until they descended into progressive leftism) they are still writing about ways to get rid of Fox News, to literally shut them down because they don’t like its content. It is telling that people who used to feign open-mindedness cannot abide even one outlet that has different viewpoint than the media cartel, and are apoplectic because of its dominant audience statistics. Then you have the current issue of The Atlantic, that once made at least some effort at fairness, devoting an entire issue to nothing besides anti-Trump articles that are more revealing of their own paranoia and ideological limitations than anything meaningful we don’t already know.

But at the pinnacle of the toxic garbage heap is the New York Times, due to the extent to which it still dominates the media cartel. Yesterday they ran a really juvenile article purporting to show how the Republican party is “racist,” based upon a handful of fairly innocuous comments, so beneath journalistic standards it is only comprehensible when you do a careful reading of at least half of all articles in the Times every day. They constantly and consistently view everything through race-based ideological blinders even when the topic has little or nothing to do with race. This in turn leads to defining people in identity boxes that are then ideologically interpreted to portray individuals and populations that simply don’t exist in the real world. I’m not even going to bother with all the factual errors and conceits in this case, if only because the practice is so continuously widespread in the Times.

For a broader view on this topic and its implications see Russia, the West and the World following this.

AN EVENTFUL DAY IN WASHINGTON

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:42:00 +0000

Two events of this day in Washington will resonate for years to come. One was unexpectedly reassuring for anyone concerned about the state of our political institutions. The other was, unfortunately, depressing and potentially disastrous.

Listening to the Supreme Court justices question the man trying to defend Colorado’s (and for that matter other states) arbitrary removal of a presidential candidate from the ballot was informative, even enlightening and inspiring. All of the justices asked cogent questions, and postulated “what-ifs” were this kind of action was to be allowed. Needless to say other states could then go their own way on balloting as well.

They all were clearly being detached and objective in their statements, and devoid of any political or ideological blinders. I was pleasantly surprised to see both the liberal and conservative justices mostly consonant in their queries, and treating the subject at hand as a matter of law and justice without regard to the particular political context. It certainly reassuring to see this level of professionalism in our justice system, at least at the highest level. There is clearly a lot more to be done to restore confidence in lower levels where power has been abused, or inconsistently applied.

Attempts to alter or restructure the court because some people are upset about a particular decision, is ill-advised. You don’t upend the overall constitutional design because a case didn’t go your way. Now, more than ever, we can see the value of the wisdom of our founders in making these lifetime appointments. That is the only way to assure that personal interests or beliefs are set aside when external pressure manifests itself, because the justices cannot be easily threatened with a ruined career. That is what enables them to step back and see things from a broader, long-term standpoint.

This is clear in the way the court deliberates. They necessarily must see things from the position of how it effects the overall process, rather than the particulars of a case. For the pendulum often swings from one side to another. Even though a particular case outcome may be perceived to be detrimental to a particular heated stance, the justices know that things can change over time, so that the roles of the disputants can be completely reversed over time.

Consider where this particular case positions each side. There is a clear ideological anomaly. The Democrats are essentially arguing for state’s rights vis a vis the federal government, which they usually oppose, while Republicans are arguing for federal primacy in this instance, which is inconsistent with their usual position. Only the Supreme Court can be detached enough to see this in a broader, constitutional context. The court took a major step today in demonstrating how the system should work, and though a decision is still pending, the overall sentiment of the justices is fairly clear.

The other item, the report of the Special Counsel on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, is far more disturbing. It is not the particulars of the documents that is troubling, but rather the devastating conclusions regarding his mental health and competency. It was only further compounded by his blustering press conference this evening. My own sense is that his handlers couldn’t control him this time because of how angry he was, so he ignored their advice and decided to storm out to the podium. But rather than setting the record straight the way he thought he would, his dismal performance only made things worse by confirming the efficacy of the observations made in the report.

It isn’t necessary to deliberate how precarious he has made things, not just for the USA, but for the entire world. It is compounded by the fact that we really don’t know who is running the country now, or perhaps even for much of his term. What he did do was enable what effectively has been a radical coup over the Democratic Party, with disastrous policy consequences that have seriously alienated a solid majority of the country. This is all on the leadership of that party for failing to address this problem, and especially on his selfish handlers, for hiding the truth and propping him up in order to maintain their own grip on power.

There were already ample conditions based on his action or inaction in maintaining the territorial integrity of the country, but the votes aren’t there for impeachment. However, they should at least see this crisis as an opportunity to now deal with a very serious problem. If they instead go about attacking the prosecutor, (who was appointed by his own justice department) in an effort to delegitimize his report, or attempt to ride it out, relying on a pliable media to make it disappear, it won’t work. They will not only seriously erode their own prospects, but also make them culpable in this disaster.

Even if you loathe Donald Trump, who by no means is empowered by these conditions, that is not the real choice that has to be made. Indeed it is conceivable, if not likely, that neither man will be on the ballot by November. The problem is more fundamental, and apolitical. We have a President who clearly lacks the cognitive competence to remain in office. We see him further deteriorating before our eyes, as does the entire world, including a number of powerful bad actors. They would be foolish not to seize the opportunity afforded them by a dysfunctional government, and worse, if they do act, we are not in a position to do a damn thing about it. We may further stumble into a war that no one wants, and which we are simply not prepared for. If this situation is not ameliorated soon, there are surely darker days ahead.

ADDENDUM:

The likelihood of different presidential candidates in November is increasing. If Biden stetps down and the Supreme Court refuses to consider Trump's immunity claim it all may change.

AIR TRAVEL MISERY

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Mon, 05 Feb 2024 03:59:00 +0000

I’ve just gotten back from Aruba, after several days, for the seventh time, because the weather is always perfect there. But as with airline tripS these days, getting to and from any destination is consistently awful. What really infuriated me this time is that I am TSA pre-cleared, paid more for better seats, had lounge access and whatever other insulating perk there are, and still wound up basically enduring the same lousy experience as everyone else anyway.

Years ago it used to be pleasant and simple. For example one time I was late for a flight to Chicago on American Airlines, but was able to easily walk over to United Airlines and catch another flight with the same ticket and no fuss. You could go up to a counter anywhere and still get a ticket for an imminently departing flight. There was a lot more comfort and space without any extra charges. There was a time when you could even go to the top of the Pan Am building in New York City and take a New York Airways helicopter flight straight to the airport. Those days are long gone now, compounded by the massive security apparatus now in place.

After countless billions poured into the ridiculously named “Homeland Security” department, It would be one thing if all of the convoluted processes involved actually improved anything, but they clearly don’t. I’m not talking about the non-existent border here, but just basic safe and convenient travel. This really struck home when I opened my luggage at my hotel and found a box-cutter I’d forgotten about in my carry-on luggage. That should have been readily spotted with all the machinery and personnel deployed, but it wasn’t. Given that was the instrument of of choice for the 9/11 monsters and how much they were able to get away with, I am left wondering if anything works right anymore. What is the point of having to arrive hours before your flight, stand on line to pass through a series of security checkpoints, if in the end it still can simply be breached anyway?

As with so many other aspects of our lives, we have surrendered a significant amount of our personal liberty over the years based upon false promises. Of course we need security, but how about some smart security, with better equipment, that doesn’t require an army of personnel controlling everyone? Security is important, but it is only one consideration among many that could so easily improve this process. Most other businesses strive to maintain good customer satisfaction. Not here. How little attempt has been made to increase comfort and convenience.

It’s as though passengers are just an afterthought, a given, and without any other real options. Arranging seating to maximize the number of people that can be squeezed into uncomfortable seats shows no consideration for human beings at all. Of course, if you don’t like that you can shell out more money for basically the same seat with just a few more inches of legroom. Worse, how about significant differences in price for passengers purchasing the same seats?

It’s past time to put together something that could evaluate the system from the standpoint of people first. I’m still astonished at what I thought the future of aviation was going to look like fifty years ago. It should have been indescribably better, but instead it is sadly far worse than we could possibly have imagined.

CARS AND CLIMATE

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 20 Jan 2024 05:57:00 +0000

After a couple of relatively mild winters, cold and snow have returned here to the mid-Atlantic USA. People in other places, particularly Europe, and for that matter California, simply don’t grasp how severe weather conditions are in much of this country, and hence how important SUV’s are to a good segment of the population. Or worse, how the present regime doesn’t care and wants to punish people for the rational choices they make thanks to their prevailing ideological lunacy.

As a result we have been forced to provide billions of dollars in subsidies for wealthier people to purchase electric cars that are virtually useless in these kinds of weather conditions, and will be so for the foreseeable future. Our tax dollars have been further diverted to enrich their green, crony capitalist supporters and at the same time to attack and undermine the basic natural resource industries that created much of the wealth in this country. Our greatest advantage is our abundance of these materials, which they have done everything possible to discourage and raise the cost of. They are happy with the increased cost of oil even though it permeates our economy and is the most important driver of inflation apart from out-of-control government deficit spending.

How much more will it take before people fully realize how wrong these charlatans have been and the extent to which their claim to know far more than they actually do know has caused so much needless pain among ordinary people?

In a rational world if a climate problem were perceived and it was decided to “transition” away from fossil fuels that power everything, would it not make sense to do so only when the technology was easily and widely available at minimum additional cost? Would it not make sense to have instead focused on encouraging a truly transitional technology, like hybrids, that are far less disruptive, inconvenient, or costly for people who live in the present world? Would it not make sense to encourage, but not subsidize the development of electric vehicles that simply are not ready for the day to day reality people live with now, and before they are anywhere near as cost-efficient as gas powered vehicles? Is it not possible that in the not -too-distant future even better alternatives may be found, given constant technological change?

The government has essentially taken control of the American auto industry for years now with disastrous results for those once great companies. Great change only makes sense, and only works if it is developed organically in response to an actual need of the user population. In other words, if something comes along that can run more efficiently, more economically, and less costly than the present mode of transportation it makes sense and is to be welcomed. But when it is something that costs more, not less, provides no real benefit to anyone other than those receiving government funds, and on top of that doesn’t even work as promised it is utter lunacy, and as wrong-headed as every other policy of the current regime.

PANIC IN THE FLOUNDERING PRESS

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 05:50:00 +0000

The other day I was reading The NY Times opinion and editorial pages. These have been the work of pretentious mediocrities for some time now, but it has gotten worse, It was mind-boggling to find virtually every opinion piece playing the same note- that Trump will be a dictator, destroy democracy, etc. The issue here is not Trump and what we think about him, but rather the lockstep monotone groupthink that too many people are uncritically swallowing.

This is literally a party line that was also echoed in mainstream magazines, as though someone gave a signal and everyone followed. It is really rich to hear cries and “warnings” about the ominous return of Trump by supposed professionals who have lost any capacity to think independently or objectively. These are stupid people who fancy themselves accomplished seers that never get past their navel.

What is clear is that there really are no mainstream publications left that are even nominally independent of any consequence., so it is hilarious to hear that Trump is a threat to the “free press” when it basically doesn’t exist anymore. In the past there was at least some diversity in publications, with alternatives to this cabal, mainly due to the presence of the founding owners. But once departed they all degenerated into the same corporate media structures that now dominate the “news” and there is little to distinguish one from another. As a result you have a bunch of well-versed ideologues who are otherwise abysmally ignorant of the real world, and having such people control the flow of information has lead to an ever-increasingly dumbed down public. But that is how they want it; they want to control the agenda with skewed information, along with the direction of things.

What is even worse is that there is no single sinister figure or group behind the scenes to expose. It is rather a shared mindset that is so governed by ideology and narrow-mindedness that it predetermines the same judgements and conclusions they all make. This is the sort of obtuseness they are constantly projecting on others, when they are the worst practitioners. These are people who should know better, but having been cranked out by radicalized “higher education” they have learned nothing, lacking even the critical thought capacity of ordinary people with simple common sense, which is why they have lost all credibility with the public. But it doesn’t matter to them because they are myopic enough to think that what is important is what is floating around in their bubble. In other words they are more concerned with validating and pleasing their peers than any sort of actual “journalism.”

Contrast this with other countries, including most of our allies. In the U.K. for example, there is a rich variety of publications that reflect the full political spectrum, along with special interest publications that exceed ours in quality beyond all measure. In the rest of Europe there are a variety of publications that are generally affiliated with, or sympathetic to various political parties. In truth that is the historical norm, and effete notions of journalism above it all has never existed here apart from the mid-twentieth century period. Our newspapers in particular were started by political partisans with opposing points of view, usually contemptuous of whatever other side there was. This goes all the way back to the founding of this country with figures like Jefferson and Hamilton, with even more vitriol than we see today. But here they have use of the phantom of “journalism” to cover their ideological monopoly.

Everyone is for “democracy” based on their own interpretation of it, and while people may express devotion or concern about it, they for the most part have far more immediate concerns, like how they are going to get by, feed themselves and their families, have a home, basic transportation, all the necessities of life, as well as a little left over for discretionary spending. When inflation has driven prices and credit card debt up, it is the latter that gets cut off first, and they are not at all happy about it. People who are affluent enough accept higher taxes and prices because they have more than enough left over for their pleasurable pursuits, but most people today do not have that luxury. Still the media may be shocked at the extent to which the public could care less about their free press/free speech mantra (that they have themselves disregarded) when faced with basic standard of living questions: food, shelter, transportation, health care, spiritual matters and at least some recreation. If they are provided with that, if their living standard is uplifted at the cost of freedoms mostly exercised by the elite that they themselves have no real means of enjoying, they will opt for safety, security, a brighter future for themselves and their families over anything else. The resultant choices between an affluent life and vague principles should be clear.

That is why totalitarian or even mildly authoritarian regimes have failed; not because of the repression, supposed lack of freedom, etc. which really only matters to those who have the luxury of meddling in politics. They collapsed because they failed miserably to deliver for the people. That is why communism failed, and why the Chinese regime’s grip on power is more tenuous than we realize because they can only maintain legitimacy as long as they can deliver. People easily forget that even Hitler was quite popular in the early years because his government did deliver for the people before stupidly going to war and degenerating into hideous mass murder. People making words just don’t seem to understand that actions speak louder than words, or that the every day reality people face is what determines their outlook and preferences.

So those who are so fearful of Trump have thrown everything at the man and nothing sticks, and the more they rage this way the more they are tuned out. They still don’t get the big picture. They created the pathway for Trump in the first place, and it is the incompetent, self-serving rotten elite that have made his rise possible through their miserable failure to get virtually anything right. While I doubt that the doomsday retribution scenario they envision will ever be realized, and may in fact be more reflective of their own guilt in mismanaging all the privileged affairs they have had control of, they sure as hell deserve it.

BLATANT, OPEN ANTI-SEMITISM EVEN IN NEW YORK

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sun, 03 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0000

I am truly astonished at the spectacle of anti-Semitic demonstrations in the 21st century, in New York City of all places. These appalling activities are yet another indication of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of what passes for “higher education” in this ever more dumbed-down society, and that entire system needs a complete overhaul.

Having been born and spent much of my life here, including college and graduate school, at a time when there was a very substantial Jewish presence among both students and faculty, it never occurred to me that things could possibly change so much. It is just mind-boggling to see the extent to which these failing institutions have degenerated into wellsprings of anti-semitism. Anti-semitism New York! That is absolutely is what we are seeing because there is no rational analysis going on here. For even if a normal person disapproved of some aspect of Israel’s strategy they would express it in a civilized fashion. This is something else, something very sinister and deep.

On top of that they are already claiming that the atrocity photos, that Hamas themselves took are “fake.” Worse there are people dumb, blind, or hateful enough to give this nonsense possible credence. Given these tactics this is not ordinary people objecting to a policy, but dedicated, despicable, unapologetic campaigners for evil.

Whatever moral legitimacy of human concern might once have been there on the left, it is gone now. I have been struggling against them all my life, but in earlier times you could at least take them seriously and even have a civil discussion. That hasn’t been true for a long time now, and in graduate school I had my own problems with them, had to abandon an academic career, and saw all this emerging decades ago. What we have now is beyond even that; it is pure evil and the political will must rise to crush it once and for all.

If nothing else all of this certainly confirms the utter lunacy of believing in nefarious Jewish cabals, secretly all-powerful and controlling things behind the scenes, etc. It isn’t there, never was, and the way these events have unfolded, it is clear that “the Jews” are nowhere near as powerful as hateful psychopaths have imagined over the years. Not when anti-semitic demonstrations are blithely accepted in New York. Not when there is no retribution, no sanction, no cost, no strong pushback.

But beyond that it isn’t just the Jews, it’s Christians as well. You can’t have a public event even as innocuous as lighting a Christmas tree without it being ruined, or attempted to be ruined by these devils. This is nothing less than a civilizational struggle directed against everything we have achieved and built over many centuries- our exceptional, and yes great, western civilization. This is not only an assault on religion of ages, but everything that came of Greek rationalism, considered critical thought, and reason itself. We’ve sat still for more than a generation of academic nonsense and relativism disparaging the concepts of reason and truth which is the fundamental basis of anything being “academic” in the first place. Along with this fuzzy-headedness our standards not simply degenerated, they have collapsed.

For too long we have allowed people who don’t represent anyone take the initiative and set the agenda. This has to end now, once and for all. What has been unmasked in all of this is the darkest impulses of human experience, always festering below the surface, now arisen nakedly in the open and spreading. The solution is not in passing more laws or resolutions on these things, which only address symptoms of a deeper malady rather than the disease itself. It is a cancer, and like a cancer it must be completely excised. That can only be done at this stage with the re-establishment of legitimate authority that people can again trust, with confidence to resolutely act strongly and decisively to root out this evil wherever and however it appears.

UNIVERSITIES, ANTI-SEMITISM, AND OVERDUE REFORM

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Mon, 06 Nov 2023 19:57:00 +0000

WHO ARE THE ANTI-SEMITIC DEMONSTRATORS?

Demonstrations have broken out against Israel, Jews generally, and for Palestinians around the world and especially at universities in the U.S. These are often photographed with many hijab-wearing woman near the front, but there are simply nowhere near as many Palestinians in this country to assemble such crowds.

So obviously there are others. Just who are they? First you have a coterie of old-school peace demonstrators who turn out for any war. But beyond that, and most significantly, these crowds are primarily composed of left-wing white radicals. These are the same sort of people we’ve seen at “anti-racist,” “anti-imperialist,” anti “fascist” BLM, anti-American, and anti-western demonstrations. They are the same ones that dominate American universities, even though they are far from a majority but possess a noise machine and “actions” that tend to intimidate even non-left liberal administrators, and who have managed to too often silence any opposition or other voices.

TIME FOR REFORM

I watched this university degradation accumulate over five decades, beginning with the 1960s generation who then became tenured radicals and undermined beyond repair the whole, supposedly open and rational undertaking. At this point things are so far gone that just having some newly and belatedly alarmed alumni withdraw support is simply not enough. A wholesale reconstruction and reform must take place, hopefully under the next administration. Thanks to the way the left has brought about government intrusion into more and more aspects of life, mostly via federal funding, followed by regulation on those funds, it will be possible to use these same tactics to undo all the damage they have done.

Then there is the sheer hypocrisy of people oh-so-committed to “social justice” participating in the most unjust, exploitative, labor situation anywhere, with much of the actual work shouldered by underpaid graduate students and adjunct faculty rather than the privileged professoriate.

American universities now enjoy a better reputation than they actually deserve, especially in supposedly “elite” quarters. Outside of science, engineering, music and art, “education” consists largely of basically bullshit courses and preposterous, laughable topics, reflecting narrow faculty interests, political brainwashing, intimidation, and far from vigorous standards. Tuition costs have skyrocketed far beyond the rate of inflation thanks largely to the massive infusion of federal funds and loans that have brought this all about.

Serious, challenging, traditional course requirements that were the basis of a solid education for centuries have been broadly abandoned, with few exceptions. They have been replaced by trivial, nonsensical, and otherwise useless courses resulting in a current college graduate population that is far less literate than a 19th century high school graduate. They have developed little in the way of critical faculties, and worse share alarming totalitarian sentiments.

Universities, whether private or public, have gotten a free pass for far too long. Under the guise of non-existent “academic freedom” they have claimed special rights that are unwarranted. They have been allowed to essentially regulate themselves via certifications, approvals, etc. We either have to disassemble the whole system and build it from scratch, or totally revamp what is funded and how. Why should those charged with one of the most important social functions have unaccountable, self-determined practices and standards, especially where taxpayer funds are involved. Therefore we can start with the following reforms:

There must be national minimum standards for colleges and universities established independent of the direct participants.

Federal funds will come with strings and new regulations just the same way the left filled them up with socially-conscious baloney, but now addressed to how the funds can be applied, what actions and processes are legitimate, etc. in the form of more rigorous requirements and basic standards and competencies.

With many degrees that are useless, with many working at something other than what they studied, the continued reverence for them is misplaced. In fact if it were not a barrier to a better job and income it is probable that the university population would seriously decline. Consequently employers should be discouraged from “educational discrimination,” requiring degrees for no rational reason or in any way related to a job opening.

Degrees are a symptom of excess “credentialism” across the board that needs to be reduced. It makes sense for say, a surgeon who is going to operate on you, but for many, if not most other things they are ludicrous and primarily serve the purpose of protecting the interests of practitioner guilds.
With student loans, which should be less and less necessary, there should be greater accountability as to just what is being financed, at what cost, etc. within reasonable parameters. Banks don’t lend money without knowing what the actual use of it is going to be, and neither should the government.

—end part one—-

WINDS OF WAR

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 28 Oct 2023 21:40:00 +0000

Many, if not most people realize that we are now at war with Iran, except for Joe Biden, who instead thinks we are at war with Russia, even though no one declared it. Worse, this administration continues to believe that they can still deal with the mullah’s regime, after replenishing them with funds and getting nothing in return except contempt and even worse behavior. But the reality is while we may think otherwise, or don’t want to become involved in a wider war, Iran is already at war with us, whether we like it or not. They have been for some time, and already have the blood of hundreds if not thousands of Americans, Frenchmen, Arabs, and others going back to the Beirut bombing. There have already been numerous attacks on our troops by all of their proxies, who have clearly been organized by Tehran. Do they not understand that the mullahs actually mean what they say; to drive the “Great Satan” out of the region, and exterminate the Jews? What more will it take?

Retaliating on the proxies accomplishes little because they are simply puppets who would collapse without Iranian support. Our response now should instead be directed at the mullahs, with the targeted aim of taking them out, which would bring joy to a people living under repression over so many years. That is where “regime change” is truly needed, and where we have a case for it, not with the Russians.

Unfortunately we could not possibly be in a worse position than we are now with this weak and bumbling administration, which itself has enabled all the problems we now face around the world. But as disastrous as these developments have been they have become a far worse harbingers of world spinning out of control and into a major war.

Ominously, ill-conceived policies have brought us to a situation disturbingly similar to the outbreak of World War II. Germany and Japan had nothing in common apart from an appetite for expansion and a shared aversion to the one power standing in their path to world domination- the USA. Now we find the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians coalescing in an alliance of convenience. The easiest pillar to remove is Iran, thereby eliminating a menace without triggering the others.

Our overall strategy should have been focused on containing the Iranians, and further undermining them, given their lack of legitimacy with their own people. Yet when the people rose up we provided no help or encouragement that might have dramatically altered the strategic situation in the region. Instead they pursued an idiotic, ill-conceived strategy of containing not Iran, but Russia. The wisest overall strategy for the US and its allies would have been to re-engage and bind Russia to the West, where it truly belongs. Instead they have been driven into the arms of China, which everyone agrees is now the major threat to this country. This is not to ignore what they have done in Ukraine, but who green-lighted that “minor incursion” in the first place?

Our overall policy should have been, and now going forward must be, not just containing Iran, but undermining and overthrowing the regime, that will otherwise continue to pose a major danger to the world. They have not changed at all over several decades now. How much longer will it take to fully understand that when they say death to America, death to Israel they really mean it? There is still an opportunity to make this Iranian plot blow up in their faces and even face the ire of their own long-oppressed population. We must somehow develop the will and determination to win this war once and for all. If we fail to do so the prospects for world peace will be far worse than they are now.

AN IRANIAN TRAP

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 28 Oct 2023 21:26:00 +0000

I increasingly believe that Israel may be in danger of falling into a trap contrived by the Iranians. The mullahs have clearly shown their hand when every other proxy they have starts attacking Israel. It is quite likely that they planned and encouraged the hideous Hamas attack on Israel that was so over-the-top in its evil brutality that it would certainly force Israel to respond. In this case then Hamas are nothing more than disposable, albeit all-too-wiling puppets, of Iran, which clearly has no qualms in sacrificing Palestinians to advance their overall strategy.

It is both proper and just that Israel has responded to this atrocity, but at the same time it is for the better that they have slowed a massive incursion into Gaza. It is not that punishment should be put off at all, and they should continue to destroy Hamas as a military force, but the far more dangerous, and far more direct Iranian threat is really via Hezbollah. If they can keep Hamas at bay with the current effort, I think it would be wiser to continue to fake preparation for a full invasion and instead prepare to use maximum force against Hezbollah.

That is something the US can and should support directly. They have an overdue reckoning for the murder of so many Americans over the years that must be avenged. Furthermore they are a clear extension of the rotten Iranian regime, which almost certainly obtain a nuclear weapon if they are not prevented here and now, and furthermore they are the most likely entity to actually use the bomb were they to get it.

We don’t know what the Iranian intentions were, but there is no question that they have orchestrated the present conflict, knowing there would be retaliation. So it would be wise to move more cautiously before a shoe drops from the other foot in order to get a better handle on what their true plot consists of. That there is one, carefully contrived, is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Once there is clarity it may be time to kill the snake at its head.

WHEN THINGS AREN'T WHAT THEY SEEM TO BE

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Thu, 19 Oct 2023 02:05:00 +0000

Yesterday I received an email news headline from The NY Times stating that Israel had bombed a hospital in Gaza killing 500+ innocent people. Other rotten media outlets also ran with the story, which turned out to be patently false as Israel then produced clear evidence that the rocket came from Islamic Jihad in Gaza itself.

But by then the truth didn’t matter as Hamas seized upon the phony story in a propaganda push leading to hostile demonstrations around the world. Even though the truth is clear, there are many people who believe what they want to believe, obvious to factual reality, as well a more sinister parties who deliberately ignore the truth.

The media again is clearly at fault for not bothering to fact check, accepting Hamas propaganda as truth. But far worse is the doubling down and prolongation of the lies. We see this over and over. The stories claiming Donald Trump was a Russian operative were patently false, but they were repeated over and over again as gospel truth because people who virulently oppose him want to believe it to be true, regardless of the facts. To this day, despite conclusive evidence, there are politicians and other people repeating this big lie. On the other side you also have people who continue to believe that the election was stolen without any clear evidence of anything that would have altered the election outcome.

These kinds of things go on now constantly beyond mere credulity to beliefs that if it’s not true it ought to be, given that whomever or whatever is so bad. When stories circulated that people from Asia were being targeting and assaulted many liberals wanted to believe it was the work of white racists, becoming deeply disturbed or in denial when it became clear that most of these activities were propagated by black people. Unfortunately this mentality is more widespread than it has ever been despite supposedly higher education, which is now failing miserably in teaching basic deliberative thought processes, critical analysis, and virtually any rational process so that no one is made to feel “uncomfortable.”

Ordinary people may respond to what they are fed, but what is unforgivable is the extent to which peopled who ought to know better, and who are in positions that enable them to find the actual truth if they bother to look for it, continue to uncritically or deliberately promote and reinforce lies. The extent to which ideological comfort or preferences trump factual reality in American media is appalling. Here we have the NY Times, presuming to be the gold standard of journalism, frequently and unashamedly promoting this kind of nonsense, and when the truth emerges beyond question the corrections or retractions are only to be found deep within paragraphs and pages of the paper. This is true of virtually all major news media; seldom if ever will they tell you that they were wrong or misrepresented the truth. It is clear that today “journalism” doesn’t exist.

It is no wonder that the media is at an all-time low in public respect and approval, because even people who engage in wishful thinking know that there is constant distortion and fabrication. This is going to continue as long as no price is paid for lax standards, minimal effort, and flagrant transgressions.

Under these conditions we can expect more and more stories casting Israel in the worst possible light as this conflict expands. The initial cause of it all will be forgotten and calls for cease-fire and "peace" will grow louder. Intelligent people will know enough to critically examine stories before jumping to conclusions, and discount the words of those who do. For it is just as likely for things not to be what they seem to be initially as they are to be true.

DISASTERS ABROAD AND AT HOME - 2

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:23:00 +0000

2. CLOSER TO HOME

Those who remain baffled as to how so many lower income people have gravitated towards Trump are simply oblivious to the facts on the ground. For them rising prices for basic necessities are not at all burdensome, and even welcome to the extent that it facilitates the realization of their loftier social goals. This really registered on me yesterday when I went to the supermarket with my wife, with the same sort of dread that undoubtedly is shared by these very same people.

But it is impossible to ignore the higher prices of basic necessities that is so apparent to people who are now barely getting by paycheck to paycheck, and who must studiously consider every purchase and how it impacts their resources. They continue to work and pay taxes while an increasing share of the people in this country do neither. It is really rich to hear over the supermarket loudspeaker about how this or that product being promoted is “sustainable” in origin, as if that mattered at all to people who are concerned far more with how produce prices have doubled. Then “Hispanic Heritage” is duly noted in emphasizing products from Puerto Rico, which is about the only homeland of people appreciating this sort of patronizing nonsense, in a country where the preponderant population with Spanish surnames is Mexican in origin, as are the promoted products.

That sort of detail is inconsequential for those who have the privilege of forming words that others must hear; words that are even more inconsequential to the life they are living day to day. So of course these are people who, as Hillary Clinton stated outright, need to be “reprogrammed,” the sort of notion you increasingly hear in left-wing circles. They have already accomplished this to a disturbing extent with our young people.

But what these enlightened idiots fail to realize is that dismissive contempt flows both ways, or that they have opened the door to being reprogrammed themselves, which they richly deserve. All of the institutions they have taken control of and perverted can now be purged by the rising tide of anger they have precipitated. Given how clear their intentions to control others has become, and how awful the consequences have been, their just rewards are overdue.

The only saving grace for those at fault is the ineptitude of the Republicans in articulating what is a very clear case. Public disenchantment is palpable but they have thus far failed to explain the connection between Democrat policies and the consequences people are facing. Unless and until that responsibility is clearly established things will remain muddled and we will continue to flounder at a time when we can ill afford to. Things are still likely to get worse before they get better.

DISASTERS ABROAD AND AT HOME - 1

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Tue, 10 Oct 2023 14:19:00 +0000

THE WORLD

It is fairly obvious to people outside of the Biden administration that the Iranians are behind the vicious, savage attacks on Israel, which has justly responded accordingly in what is likely to be an ever-expanding war. Only now do they say they stand unwavering with Israel, notwithstanding the dangerously diminished capacity of our military to help as we are stretched thin around the world.

In re-establishing the Obama policies of bolstering Iran in return for “cooperation,” to the detriment of our allies in the region, they have only brought about yet another catastrophe on the world. The destruction they engineered in this country is bad enough, but even worse is how they have managed to botch virtually everything everywhere else in the world. They managed, to our everlasting shame, and without consulting with our allies, to get away with the obscenity of the Afghanistan debacle they caused, as well as green-lighting a “small incursion” by the Russians into Ukraine.

They cut off Netanyahu, the most dynamic and effective leader in the western world, and insulted and alienated our Arab friends, whose relations and cooperation with Israel had been warming thanks to the Trump-inspired Abraham Accords. Then they debased themselves by going back and begging the Arabs to mitigate the oil crisis they themselves had created.

The prime beneficiaries of all of this has been the Iranian mullahs, who clearly fear and seek to disrupt Arab-Israeli cooperation. If we had stuck to our principles the popular uprisings in Iran might have succeeded had we provided aid and encouragement. Instead no help or support was given, leaving the evil regime intact and empowered. Instead of seizing the opportunity ourselves, it is the Iranians who have done so in the vacuum we have left, and there will be no peace in the region unless and until that menace is eliminated. They again outmaneuvered the Great Satan.

This fumbling weakness and inconsistency has resulted in a far more dangerous and unstable world than the one they inherited. It is also now clear that the Chinese Communists will never have a better opportunity to seize Taiwan given that we are now getting bogged down in wars in Europe and the Middle East while our military capabilities have been seriously degraded. There is virtually no chance at the present time that we can prevent this. Whatever you may think of Donald Trump, none of this would have happened under his stewardship.

This administration will likely now backtrack and do the opposite of what they were steadfast in before now that the wind has conflated into a hurricane, and yet once again they may be able to spin this to their advantage and obscure their seminal role in generating it all, just as they have on the border. But what is desperately needed is a clear and consistent strategy to oust the mullahs once and for all. Unfortunately that is probably beyond their capabilities, no matter what they may now say, but at least Netanyahu has the presence of mind to not trust them. Consequently he is the one who is going to be determining the direction of things thanks to the confusion and lack of clarity in our present regime, which will now be too sheepish to buck the congress and Israelis on these matters, and that is not a bad thing.

What if the Roman Empire never fell? How would this change most of our history today?

noreply@blogger.com (gsarant) — Sat, 26 Aug 2023 20:30:00 +0000

(Here is some history you probably never knew. I quickly drafted this response to a Quora question, but thought it might be of more general interest).

The Roman Empire did not fall until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople. Emperor Constantine had moved the capitol to the Greek city of Byzantium because of its excellent geographic, strategic, and central location, calling it New Rome, although at that point the empire was then split between eastern and western halves until the west collapsed in the fifth century. Subsequently renamed Constantinople, it then became the center of the world and continued long after the city of Rome itself declined sharply as the locus of empire shifted. Attempts, sometimes successful, were made to reclaim parts of the west. Indeed the name of the city itself continued until the cataclysm of World War I.

In addition, Justinian was the last Emperor to use Latin rather than Greek, which prevailed for another eight centuries, or far longer than Rome itself. There was never a “Byzantine Empire.” That was a far later German concoction in order to legitimate their own “Holy Roman Empire, which, as Voltaire once said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire, What actually existed, as I have suggested elsewhere, was not something “Byzantine,” but rather a Greco-Roman Empire that lasted for a millennium. This is still confused and not well known due to the ignorance and prejudice of northwestern Europeans towards the south.

Thus, the Roman Empire did not fall or disappear the way you have been led to believe. In fact, if the empire began with Augustus, the Rome-based portion only lasted for a bit more than four centuries, while the Eastern Roman Empire continued for another thousand years, and all the people in the empire, including the Greeks, referred to and considered themselves Romans until the very end. The empire itself was polyglot as it always was, but the dominant language was Greek. Thus, while the “Middle Ages” or medieval period happened in the west, which was still backward, that was not the case in the east, in what in fact was the bulk of the empire, which continued a thriving, but heavily Christianized civilization. Thus, in the year 1000 Constantinople had a population of over a million people.

The original Roman Empire was far better at practical things, particularly organization, administration, functional engineering, etc. than the quarrelsome Greeks, who otherwise brilliantly developed and dominated culture, art, science, philosophy, etc. Romans provided the critical stability, legal and social infrastructure that was previously lacking in an otherwise largely Greek world that had been established by Alexander and his successors. As a result, Roman law, justice and organization provided the framework which sustained an otherwise largely Greek cultural entity.

The empire would not have fallen had it not been for the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) which, instead of going to Jerusalem to fight Muslims attacked other Christians via Venetian ships and encouragement. The barbarian Knights/Crusaders literally destroyed the city of Constantinople, pillaging and worse, burning down much of the city while the Venetians, at least having some artistic sense, carted off a lot of treasures that you still see in St. Marks to this day. The crusaders took over what was left of the city setting up their own “empire” for a few decades until the Romans finally reclaimed it, but in a much-weakened state. Thus, by the time the Turks finally conquered the city in 1453 with new long-range cannons, there were only about 50,000 people left there. That is when the Roman Empire finally fell, in its Greco-Roman-Christian incarnation.

Given true history then, if the empire hadn’t fallen it is quite possible that Greek would still be the common language, you might be speaking it, and the European world would be very different. The “old” nations of Europe after all, have only existed for around five centuries. They really ascended after the fall of the City and the “renaissance” that followed, (another retroactively coined term), instilled to a considerable extent by Greek refugee scholars who fled to the Italian city-states, which welcomed then as teachers, given their thirst for knowledge and ancient manuscripts.

Many other things would be different, starting with religion. In the empire the church was subordinate to the Emperor, and less powerful than in the west, where given the power vacuum, the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, was able to claim supremacy. Consequently, if the empire had continued the church would not have had so much power, and it is likely there would never have been a Protestant Reformation. Regions would have had their own Patriarchs. There is no way to know how geography would have taken shape, given uncertainty as to how far the empire might have reached, or how competent it would have been, but at its maximum it could have stretched over all of Europe. Alternatively, it could have been smaller, as it continued to fend of endless barbarian invasions from the east, allowing other powers to emerge in the west anyway, but possibly without the virulent nationalism that eventually developed and led to catastrophic wars and mass murder in the last century.

Much would depend on whether the empire could regain Italy, which was essential to the emergence of modern Europe. (In 1500 Italy was richer than all of western Europe combined and more culturally advanced). Since it was then divided into competing city-states in the fashion of ancient Greece, that might have transpired if the empire was relatively free from barbarian invasions. Slavs, at least in the south were already being absorbed before the fall of the empire and thus would likely still be integrated. Unknowns are how the Russians, or more importantly the Germans might have emerged. But generally, the empire had always done a great job of absorbing and integrating other peoples, until the rise of Islam.

If the empire had remained strong it is unlikely that the Arabs would have conquered what was then European Christian north Africa and Egypt, or even much of what is now called the “middle east,” which would have remained Christian and Roman, linked to the west via Constantinople. The empire took the brunt of Muslim invasion, thus protecting the west for centuries, and if not for the Fourth Crusade could have grown stronger and more powerful and Europe would not have been threatened or invaded. In addition, Persian culture might still exist, possibly as yet another empire.

Greek rationalism did not disappear as the church in the east largely reconciled itself with it and focused on spiritual matters. Consequently, the church would not have been able to significantly thwart scientific progress.

Europe, including a good portion of the east would still dominate the world. and remain centered in Constantinople. They would likely still have found the Americas, but development might have been different, possibly without African slavery, among other things. The culture would be more advanced and sophisticated, but economic growth might not be as robust, given a different emphasis and outlook, and without a “Protestant ethic” but rather a sort of merchant mentality. Higher education might not have been found in universities as we know them, but rather closer to the academic format of the ancient world, more focused on the development of the mind and learning.

Ultimately we cannot know because of vicissitudes of one-man rule. There can be a great ruler and then a terrible ruler. You can have a Marcus Aurelius or a Caligula. So given different personalities there is no way to know, and that can be precarious and lead to instability or conflict until someone else consolidates power. What we can learn clearly from history is the less power we surrender to others over us the better off we are.

Finally, the Fourth Crusade was clearly the worst disaster in western history even beyond World War I if only because the latter might never have happened if the empire hadn’t fallen. Such a general and vague question can lead to endless possibilities and alternatives, but in the end all that is left is what actually happened.