George F. Will’s Dementia Increasingly Hilarious

You have to read this hilarious thing in the Washington Post to believe it. In his first sentence, Will calls President Trump the “Crybaby-in-Chief.” In his next paragraph he accuses Trump of a “coarsening of public discourse.”

It gets better. After that Will scolds Republicans in the Senate for their “Vichyite collaboration” with Trump, thus comparing them to France’s Nazi collaborationist regime during World War II, and thus calling Trump Hitler.

Having called Trump Hitler and the Senate Vichy collaborationists, Will goes on to call Trump “unhinged.” Hey, George, someone in this scenario is unhinged, and it’s not Trump. Fun game: see if you can figure out who!

And in a demonstration that moving left politically requires one to have one’s sense of irony removed, Will says, “The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony… has had many causes,” among them, perhaps, calling people you disagree with Nazis.

But wait, there’s more!

The person voters hired in 2016 to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” stood on July 28, 2017, in front of uniformed police and urged them “please don’t be too nice” when handling suspected offenders. His hope was fulfilled for 8 minutes and 46 seconds on Minneapolis pavement.

LOL. Trump said, “don’t be too nice”… and a mere three years later, George Floyd was killed! Draw the line from A to B, man!

As a side note, this “essay,” if one can call it that, is a good example of the difference between style and substance. All the old Will style from the 1980s is here… well, except for cool understatement, obviously. The vocabulary, the references to Shakespeare and T.S. Eliot, etc. are present. But the substance— reasoned analysis— is gone, completely gone. All that’s left is the vaporous spew of a bitter old man who has forgotten the proper dosage on his medications.

President Trump drives his enemies insane. I usually identify as religiously agnostic, but the last few years tend to make me think God exists and is on Trump’s side. After all, Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad… and the anti-Trump crowd is bonkers.

The Second Civil War has started

I’m calling it. Obviously the Second American Civil War started when the Deep State manufactured evidence to try to undo the Presidential election of 2016. However, some people keep talking about “when the civil war starts,” as if that’s still in the future.

Well, if you had any doubts, try this: Yesterday a member of the military command structure tried to order the National Guard out of D.C. in the face of danger from a violent mob. The blatantly obvious reason: To leave the President unprotected so that leftist assassins could kill him.

Barring that, so that the President would have to flee D.C., thus starting a “Trump’s regime is falling!” narrative.

That plan failed because it turns out the National Guard obeys the Commander in Chief, not someone below him.

As I was quite sure would happen, but still: Thank God.

But that doesn’t change the fact that they tried.

Anyone who now denies that the U.S. is in civil war is a loon.

BTW, I haven’t been posting the last few days not because there’s nothing to post about, obviously, but because every time I draft a post, it’s made obsolete by new events before I can freakin’ post it. The situation is changing so fast.

As Jim says: It happens slowly, then suddenly.

Random notes on all this, some important, some less so, but I want to get some thoughts down before the next big development hits:

(1) On Antifa strategy and tactics:


Apparently some dude disguises himself as an Antifa type, then puts MAGA bumper stickers on actual Antifa thugs’ cars and their cars get vandalized as a result. If it’s not true, it’s a great idea.

(3) Imposter tries to pass himself off as a National Guard soldier.
(As noted at the end of the article, the photo is not the guy who was arrested, who is one Gregory Wong.)

One guess is that this is part of a plan to create a false flag shooting of a “protester” by a purported National Guard soldier.

(4) May 2020 riots: Rioters attack the CNN headquarters in Atlanta.


Just accept that and suck it up.

And in Raleigh they destroy the offices of a local newspaper.

Whining newspaper employee: “I’m devastated. We are a progressive newspaper. Last night I was inside when the first brick was thrown” Awwww. Have fun eating the consequences of the hate mobs you leftists stir up. Also, maybe it’s time to let go of the bizarre delusion that if you just virtue signal hard enough, they won’t attack you. This is moronic. Did you really think that the rioters would pause before your offices, put down their bricks and matches, pull out their phones, Google your paper, see that you’re “progressive,” and leave you alone? OMG, you did think that, didn’t you? LOL.

The comments there are great, BTW; veritably 100% are saying, Enjoy your chickens coming home to roost. TONS of great comments. My current favorite: ‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party.

(5) Then the AFL-CIO building in D.C.:

VIDEOS: AFL-CIO Building in Washington DC Ransacked and Set on Fire

As is noted at that article, “The International Union Of Police Associations is an affiliate union,” but I imagine the rioters don’t know that. I didn’t. Also noted in the article by a witness:

Handful of people breaking glass at the AFL-CIO, some have run inside to continue beeaking [sic] things, as others in the crowd react:

“Aw, man, not the union!”
“No, stop! Unions are good!”

(6) This is hilarious. Pussy wimp coward gives thumbs up to rioters through his window, gets a rock thrown through it. Shouts “We’re on your side!” out the window, gets another rock thrown through it.

For the million bakijillionth time: APPEASING THE LEFT DOES NOT WORK.

(7) The broader, “normal” left is in a position where they must either embrace or disavow the rioters. They don’t want to embrace them because that will reduce their already-dim chances of winning in November. They don’t want to disavow them because they’re the left, and that’s just not what they do. Leftists never criticize other leftists, at least not ones more radical then themselves. Pas d’ennemis à gauche.

So they’re doing what leftists always do: Looking for a way to have their cake and eat it too. In this case that takes of form of saying, “It’s really all just white supremacists!” LOL. That way they can say “The rioters are bad” without having to disavow leftism or admit that it’s possible for leftists to ever be the bad guys or to Go Too Far, etc. Of course it’s retarded. No one is going to buy that this is “white supremacists” except people who were already going to vote left in November anyway. And probably not most of them. Everyone knows this is Antifa and other left-affiliated groups.

They are also shooting themselves in the foot, because you can’t say the rioters are justified, and also say they’re bad guys. Indeed, in the left-wing world view “white supremacists” are the worst of all possible bad guys. Watching them trying to argue “This is blacks taking righteous vengeance for 400 years of white supremacism” AND “This is a bunch of white supremacists” SIMULTANEOUSLY is hilarious.

(8) Media Falsely Claimed Violent Riots Were Peaceful And That Tear Gas Was Used Against Rioters

They were not peaceful; that’s an outright lie. They were throwing bricks, frozen water bottles, etc. at police and trying to seize their weapons!

And there was no tear gas, just smoke bombs (which do not contain chemical irritants).

(It’s also risible to listen to them say, “Trump cleared people, including media, out of Lafayette Park” and “Trump’s walk through Lafayette Park was a photo op stunt.” Let’s shorten that: “Trump cleared the media away from his photo op.” Heh. I know lefties don’t care whether their rhetoric is internally consistent, but come on!)

(9) Note on the enemy’s mental state: The left is looking either bold or desperate the last couple of days. Not that it matters since our ability to win this civil war depends mostly on factors other than the enemy’s fantasies of omnipotence/terror of just punishment. But I find it interesting that desperation and boldness look the same. Both can be summed up by the thought, “I can’t really lose by trying.” If you’re bold the sense of it is, “I’m bullet-proof!” If you’re desperate the sense of it is, “I’ve got nothing to lose anyway, so why not.”

In this case I actually think it’s both: The enemy is emboldened by the fact that they can commit the most outrageous crimes, like a treasonous attempt to undo the election of 2016, without suffering any punishment… yet. But it’s also desperation because they know that if Trump consolidates power with another four years, that immunity won’t last.

Furthermore, the more judges he appoints, the harder it will be for the enemy in the future to carry out an unconstitutional, anti-democratic coup under color of law. They’ve spent too long pushing the notion that “law” means “what some judge says.” Ginsberg can’t last forever, and a firm majority of honest judges on the Supreme Court will make it impossible to carry out a coup say three years from now, with the camouflage of a Supreme Court blessing that it’s all actually legal.

(10) Jesse Kelly:

You get there by playing the long game.

That’s how they [the left] got us. A thousand tiny wins and a thousand Republican concessions cause “That’s not the hill to die on.”

Look around you. The hills are gone.

Political professional wants political professionals to have veto power in elections

Well… at least a few more scraps of the mask have come off.

George F. Will says, “Harumph! Heavens to Betsy! The peons are voting!” Recently in the Washington Post, Will wailed in pain that people are allowed to select their own political candidates, and cried out for someone to do something about this. Will, who has a doctorate in political science and is a former university instructor of political philosophy, wants “political professionals” to have more say in deciding whom you’re allowed to vote for. I quote from his pile of garbage below; comments in bold.

Opinion: The lure of kamikaze candidates, by George F. Will
Feb. 7, 2020

The nation… needs a nominating process that minimizes the probability of kamikaze candidacies and maximizes the probability of selecting plausible presidents. Hence it needs a retreat from the populist idea that the voice of the people is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.

That idea is part of democracy. (Neurotoxin is not a Dark Enlightenment blog that thinks some other system will have better results than democracy.) Don’t worry! George Will wants to save you from choosing your own rulers! Your stupid notion, you rube, is “the populist idea that the voice of the people is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.” Will’s infinitely more sophisticated notion is that the voice of the political class is easy to ascertain and should be translated, unmediated and unrefined, directly into nominee selection.

George F. Will, doofus.
…And because I look like Gollum!

In 1972, Democrats made their process more plebiscitary — more primaries, less influence for political professionals — to elicit and echo the vox populi. This, however, produced a nominee favored by the party’s most intense minority, the anti-Vietnam War cohort: South Dakota Sen. George McGovern lost 49 states. Republicans didn’t have “political professionals” choosing their nominee either, and they WON 49 states. Twelve presidential election cycles later, both parties are still uncomfortably holding the populist wolf by the ears.

Political scientist Raymond J. La Raja and Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution recommend a recalibration. “Recalibration,” interesting word choice. They do not favor what political realities would not permit: abandoning primaries. …Rather, they recommend leavening (“leavening”) mass participation with vetting (“vetting”) by professionals That is, they want “professionals” to select the people for whom you’re allowed to vote.— “political careerists with skin in the game” What “skin in the game”? What the hell are you talking about? Do “elite” experts ever suffer any negative consequences from having made wrong predictions? From offering advice to people that hurts them? Did the medical experts who told people to gorge on carbs ever suffer for their fuck-witted and health-ruining advice? Have the eco-alarmists who predicted we’d all be dead by now been laughed out of academia? And how do “experts” have more “skin in the game” than anyone else, in elections? We all have to live in the country after we choose a President. Will’s “professionals” are the people who told us that Hillary Clinton was veritably guaranteed to win in 2016. How’d that work out for you, geniuses?

Indeed, “political professionals” plainly have less skin in the game than the average person, and the wrong kind of skin.
(1) University professors and others in that realm swing heavily to the left. They told us that communism was a wonderful system, while it was slaughtering 100 million people. Will: “Give them more political power!” Their incentive would be to pick the most plausible leftist candidate and the most foaming-at-the-mouth, obviously insane rightist candidate, to guarantee a leftist victory.
(2) They have less skin in the game than the average person, because they’re not in the private sector. Voters in the private sector have an incentive to think about which candidates are likely to be good for the economy, since their livelihoods depend on that. University professors keep drawing their paychecks in any case, rain or shine, recession or expansion. They have no incentive to think carefully about it. They laughed at Trump’s economic policy proposals, before he presided over a record-breaking economic performance (low unemployment, high stock markets).
(3) They have the wrong kind of skin because all a politician has to do to get their approval is to promise more funding for college and university political science departments.
Not only does this crowd brazenly announce their desire to rule us against our will, they insult our intelligence while announcing it.

Will actually thinks it’s an attractive idea to the average person to give more power to the “political professionals” in our Political Science departments, filled with Marxists, man-hating feminists, and terrorists from the 1960s who went on bombing campaigns and then got tenure in academia. My entire political philosophy – and I’m hardly alone in this – can be described as “keep people like that out of power.”

Continuing, these “professionals” will be
serving as gatekeepers or quality-control evaluators of candidates Tell ya what: We’ll decide candidates’ quality ourselves. before the primaries begin. “In 2018, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee worked aggressively to weed out weak and extreme candidates in swing districts.” I think Will’s unstated conclusion here is, “…and that worked well for the Dems.” Yeah, but Clinton was the professional/Establishment candidate in 2016 and that did not work out so well for the Dems.

Doing something similar in presidential politics is difficult. The process has no gatekeepers. “Harumph!” … The 2016 process illustrated the difficulty of aggregating voters’ preferences when there are many candidates: A demagogic charlatan won Jesus! Will’s butt is still chafed because someone from outside the Beltway won the Presidency. Will, this is a feature from the average American’s point of view, not a bug! Also, it’s been more than three years since November 2016. Get over it, man. without winning a majority of primary votes until after the nomination was effectively settled…

In 1924, the parties’ professionals blocked the presidential ambitions of industrialist Henry Ford, a racist and anti-Semite. Oh Lord, here we go with “racist.” People in the political class nowadays really do regard that word as a kind of magic incantation. Also, EVERY white person in 1924 was a “racist” by the standards of today’s chattering classes. In 1976, Democratic insiders helped clear the field in Florida’s presidential primary to enable Jimmy Carter to end the candidacy of the racist Abracadabra! George Wallace…

LOL. Seriously, “racist”? Will: “I’ve got an ironclad weapon; I’ll just say something something RACIST! No one can resist that incantation!” Will, the left calls every white person racist these days. Many explicitly say “All white people are racist.” White people’s increasing anger at this horseshit is one of the reasons Trump won.

Also, your argument amounts to, “Without my plan, sometimes candidates you disapprove of will be elected.” But in both your examples, they weren’t elected. You can’t even come up with one example in which your alleged problem even exists! Also, all systems will sometimes pick people I abhor. Also, is it the case that in the entire history of non-democratic governments, no “racist” ever took power?

La Raja and Rauch suggest various “filters” by political professionals to mitigate the “democracy fundamentalism” i.e. democracy of today’s nomination process: e.g., more political professionals as “superdelegates” eligible to vote on conventions’ first ballots; pre-primary votes of confidence in candidates by members of Congress and governors; OH DEAR LORD! THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TELL US HOW TO ALTER THE GOVERNMENT!? Right, bloody brilliant! Will, you are a fucking idiot. Isn’t it sad how the least qualified people get to be prominent members of the chattering classes? Every person on my blog roll, including Bauer Hockey Equipment, is a better political thinker than George Will. Let’s let people in government decide who gets to be in government. What could go wrong?!

…Limiting and influencing voters’ choices by involving professional politicians early in the nomination process would require risk-averse political professionals to go against today’s populist i.e. democratic sensibility. But if this November the choice is between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, the professionals might consider letting go of the wolf’s ears.

Sanders is an unrepentant admirer of the most genocidal regimes in the history of the human species. Trump sometimes tweets things that George F. Will thinks are coarse. Will treats them as if they’re equal, as if Trump calling someone a loser on Twitter is equivalent to Sanders praising Mao, the most murderous person ever to live.

Will, if you had the self-awareness God gave a flatworm, you’d realize that sentences like that are EXACTLY why the average person will never let people like you decide whom they can vote for.

We Must Protect Children, By Which We Mean 35-Year-Olds!

One of the recent Republican immigration proposals: We need to protect children!

Defined as everyone up to 36 years old!

Think I’m kidding?

Try USA Today:

On one of the most contentious issues, the draft proposal would allow an estimated 1.8 million “Dreamers” to apply for “nonimmigrant status”– essentially a conditional legal visa – if they meet certain conditions. They must, for example, have a high school diploma or GED and must be under 36 years of age as of June 15.

Just in case you were wondering why this blog has a “GOP traitors” tag.

Trump Strategy in an Impeachment over “Stormy Daniels”

The short version:

The bad guys might try to impeach President Trump over an alleged violation of campaign finance laws. The BS is that if his lawyer paid off Stormy Daniels and that wasn’t listed as a “campaign expenditure,” it’s a violation.

Yes, it’s retarded, but it doesn’t matter: Many politicians who run for office have this sort of (intentional or unintentional) violation of pointless minutiae. So…

All Trump’s team has to do is find similar “violations” committed by unfriendly members of Congress and shout those violations out to the public.

That forces a hostile member of the House or Senate to answer this question, in voting on Articles of Impeachment:

“Is this action, which you yourself are known to have committed, an impeachable offense?”


The details version:

The impeachment thing cannot remove Trump from office because that requires a majority in the House and two thirds of the Senate. But the left of course wants Articles of Impeachment anyway to distract and politically damage the President. In this post in March, I wrote,

I’m not saying they won’t try to impeach him [President Trump] over something – of course they will, if they have the numbers in the House; Trump’s election has them absolutely frantic. I’m saying that it won’t be about the retarded “election meddling” thing.

It looks like it’s going to be either “Firing Comey was obstruction” or the Stormy Daniels thing. The bad guys are trying to argue that under certain circumstances, Trump’s lawyer paying Daniels and not disclosing it would be a violation of campaign finance laws.

The Comey option is hobbled by the videos of dozens of Democrats themselves saying that Comey should be fired or step down around the time of the 2016 election. So it’s more likely to be the absurd Daniels thing.

No problem.

IF any such thing happened, it’s the sort of thing that many politicians do, so Trump’s team should simply do the following:

Research unfriendly members of the House and Senate for possible violations of such pointless minutia. Focus specifically on: (1) Democrats, and (2) Republicans who are likely to cuck in an impeachment vote. Shout these violations from the rooftops so that the public knows all about them.

I think that in this case, it’s better to make the violations known before a possible Articles of Impeachment vote, because that forces Dems and cucks into the hilarious position of saying that something they themselves are known to have done is an impeachable offense. That will discourage some of them.

If there is a threat that damaging info will be released after, it won’t matter to Dems, who will just believe (rightly or wrongly) that the media can protect them. They might be wrong, but it’s their beliefs that will determine their vote. Additionally, bad guys like Dems and cucks don’t mind being flagrantly hypocritical; indeed, all indications are that they like it. So they won’t mind voting to impeach Trump over some alleged violation, and then voting not to impeach a Dem or cuck over the same violation. But it’s different if the public knows before and during the vote that you did the same thing you’re voting on. There’s no hiding from the glare of that spotlight.

Alternative timing is to quietly make it known to unfriendlies that their violations will be broadcast if they vote to impeach. The idea here would be the old chess adage, “the threat is stronger than the execution.” However, that doesn’t apply in this case: What’s relevant here isn’t a threat to disclose a violation (it’s not blackmail). The idea is to put them in the position of voting “This thing which everyone knows I did is an impeachable crime.” That would lose its force it the revelations came after the vote was a fait accompli.

Ideally, the revelations are made known to the public, and if Articles are proposed against Trump, then the faithful GOP members of the House propose Articles against the unfriendlies, and before the vote on Trump’s case.

Do You Believe in Republican Traitors NOW?

I mean “believe in their existence,” obviously, not “trust them.”

Fills me with seething rage:

Republicans considering bill to admit millions more replacement workers:

Un-fucking-believable. This is them giving us, their base, the finger and saying, “What are you going to do about it?”

They are literally laughing in our faces and saying, “What are you going to do about, pussies?”

We must primary at least one of these traitors. Failing that, it’s getting closer to time for non-standard options.

Roy Moore, DON’T Withdraw from the Alabama Race!

I don’t know much about Moore, except that the left and the GOP traitors are against him. That’s enough for me to conclude that the man must be awesome.

The accusations against him are obviously false. The Uniparty’s line on this is “He has to prove his innocence! We must assume that he’s guilty unless he can definitively prove his innocence!” Boom. The fact that they’re forced to resort to that proves there’s no real case against him. By the way, if you think I’m exaggerating about that party line, read Ted Cruz’s statement on Moore:

“As it stands, I can’t urge the people of Alabama to support a campaign in the face of these charges without serious, persuasive demonstration that the charges are not true.”

In other words, anyone should be able to make a random accusation against a candidate and that should be sufficient to force the candidate’s withdrawal from a race. Well, a Republican candidate. I’ve never heard Cruz say that mere accusations against a Democrat should induce the Democrat’s withdrawal.

This is what we mean when we say that the GOP establishment are traitors to their base. That’s not rhetorical color. It’s the reality.

Cruz went on:

“Both last week and this week, there are serious charges of criminal conduct that if true, not only make him unfit to serve in the Senate but merit criminal prosecution.”

Fucking seriously!? Where were all these Law N Order Republican traitors when Hillary “I’m the most blatantly corrupt criminal in the history of Congress” Clinton was in the Senate?

If you think that’s an outrage, try this:

Head of Senate Republican campaign committee says Moore should be expelled if he wins

Sen. Cory Gardner, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Monday that if Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore “refuses to withdraw and wins, the Senate should vote to expel him.”


Earlier Monday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters that Moore should step aside.

It’s literally out in the open now. The Republican establishment is no longer trying to hide their treason. No, really, they’re not. Read those quotes from Cruz, Gardner, and McConnell again.

That’s why I’ve belatedly created a new tag for my blog posts, “GOP traitors.” I should have had it from the blog’s birth, of course, but better late than never.

As Vox Day says in the comments at the above Vox Popoli link,

Notice the media is not saying anything about how Moore can’t win the Senate race, because of the polls. They’re just shrieking at him to drop out. Then ask yourself why that might be.

Remember the rules for how to deal with an SJW attack: NEVER quit because they are pressuring you to do so.