[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Today I turned 50!

San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee

Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas

Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport!

Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park

Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next'

Will it ever end?

Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar?

Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version

There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: Donald Trump and the American Id
Source: National Review
URL Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic ... amson?target=author&tid=903320
Published: Aug 10, 2015
Author: Kevin D. Williamson
Post Date: 2015-08-06 17:08:28 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 2284
Comments: 28

[From the August 10, 2015, issue of National Review]

Oh, you’re goddamned right this is Vegas, baby! because the Planet Hollywood Las Vegas Resort and Casino is the only truly appropriate venue for a show like the one we have right here. For your consideration: the carefully coiffed golden mane, the vast inherited fortune, the splendid real-estate portfolio, the family name on buildings from Manhattan to the Strip, the reality-television superstardom, the room-temperature-on-a-brisk-November-day IQ. The only thing distinguishing that great spackled misshapen lump of unredeemed American id known as Donald Trump from his spiritual soul mate, that slender lightning rod of unredeemed American id known as Paris Hilton, is — angels and ministers of grace, defend us! — a sex tape. The gross thing is, you can kind of imagine a Trump sex tape: the gilt pineapples on the four-poster bed, the scarlet silk-jacquard sheets, the glowing “T” in the background, the self-assured promises that this will be the classiest sex tape the world has ever seen — that it’s yuuuuuuuge! — the cracked raving 69-year-old Babbitt analogue barking inchoate instructions off camera . . . no, no more, that way madness lies.

The awful, horrifying, despair-and-cringe-inducing real-talk truth that is causing the more mobile and proactive among us to start downloading those teach–yourself–Swiss German apps onto our iPhones and to read up on the finer points of immigration law is that the Donald Trump presidential campaign is the Donald Trump sex tape, an act of theater performing precisely the same functions as Paris Hilton’s amateur porn-o-vision escapade: exhibitionism, theatrical self-aggrandizement, titillation, etc., all of it composing a documentation of transient potency to be shored up against the inevitable passing of that potency. Trump is a post-erotic pornographer, and his daft followers are engaged in the political version of masturbation: sterile, fruitless self-indulgence.

Spend any time around the Trumpkins — the intellectually and morally stunted Oompa Loompas who have rallied to the candidacy of this grotesque charlatan — and you will hear purportedly heterosexual men working up freestyle paeans to Trump’s alleged virility — those “pussies in Washington” aren’t ready for “a real man like Trump,” as one put it — and cataloguing his praises in exuberant gonadal terms, with special attention paid to calculating the heaviness of the Trumpian scrotum relative to the equipment being packed by, e.g., Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. One says: “He is the only one that has the balls to tell the truth and to stand up for America.” “Trump’s got the balls,” proclaims the headline in a right-wing blog. “Donald Trump is a perfect example of an alpha male,” declares a commenter at (ahem!) Bodybuilding.com. “Alpha males lead for a reason,” retorted a Trump admirer when National Review’s Jonah Goldberg called for an “intervention” for the Trumpkins. Members of the GOP establishment, says another, “don’t know how to handle an extroverted alpha male personality like Trump” — ritualistic prostration of the faithful before Trump’s presumptive “alpha” social status being fundamental to the Trumpkin liturgy. Sensing the emergent theme, the left-wing columnist Michael Tomasky declared in the Daily Beast: “Trump’s got the GOP by the balls.”

Speaking in Vegas, his blood-flushed face a hypertensive moon rising against the background of a much larger photographic version of that same violet face, Trump declared: “I’m much, much richer than what they say,” one of the few complete sentences he managed to utter over the course of a performance that inspired Reason’s Matt Welch to observe: “This isn’t a speech, it’s a seizure.”

How the hell did this happen?

‘I’m really rich,” Trump said during the announcement of his presidential candidacy. The scene was — what else could it have been? — Trump Tower in Manhattan, a real-estate development built in part by illegal immigrants, which embarrassing fact obliged one of Trump’s subcontracting minions to take a plea deal including jail time. (But not to worry, Trumpkins — they were Polish illegals, not abominable Mexicans!) Riding an escalator down to the lobby with his chin cocked up like Barack Obama’s or Benito Mussolini’s, Trump entered to the tired sounds of “Rockin’ in the Free World,” by Neil Young, who immediately demanded that Trump stop using his song. That created a typical Trumpian controversy: Trump responded by saying that Neil Young, a Canadian and a Bernie Sanders enthusiast, was looking for a payday. He tweeted (because that’s how we litigate political disputes these days) a message: “For the nonbeliever, here is a photo of @Neilyoung in my office and his $$ request — total hypocrite.” There was indeed a picture of a decrepit Neil Young shaking hands with a decrepit Donald Trump, but the accompanying document wasn’t a request for compensation for the use of Young’s music: It was just the signature page of a preferred-stock purchase agreement, which could indicate anything. Trump later said in sour-grapes mode that the song was just one of many on his playlist (“Music of the Night,” from Phantom of the Opera, and “Memories,” from Cats, are in the rotation, too, because that’s totally appropriate and not at all weird) and went on to disparage the songwriter. That’s the signature Trump move, right there: make a lot of noise, and, when possible, make that noise about money.

“I’m rich,” Trump says, endlessly. How rich? “Very rich.” Very? “I mean my net worth is many, many times Mitt Romney,” as he put it some time back. “Much, much richer.” Critics and opponents? Not rich. “Can’t buy a pair of pants,” he said about Goldberg. That’s most of Trump’s argument, and practically the entirety of the Trumpkins’ argument: How could a guy with that much money — so much more money than a nobody like you, loser! — not have something going on?

About that . . .

Donald Trump is not the source of the Trump family fortune. That would be Frederick Christ Trump, Donald Trump’s father, the self-made real-estate mogul who had controlled more than 27,000 New York City properties by the time of his death in 1999. Fred Trump was in many ways the cultural and financial inverse of his son: He didn’t build gold-hued towers with his name on the front, but built, managed, and developed thousands of modest apartment buildings (some of them exceedingly modest; the line between “low-income developer” and “slumlord” is not a bright and straight one) and row-house blocks, mainly in unglamorous sections of Brooklyn and Queens. Unlike his son, he never put the family name on a strip joint–cum–casino in Atlantic City and never was a party to a series of high-profile bankruptcies. But by the end of his life he had amassed a portfolio worth about $400 million in 2015 dollars.

In his most recent financial disclosures, Trump claimed to have about $300 million in cash and marketable securities. The rest of the vast Trump fortune is . . . vague. Forbes, which has been on the Trump-net-worth beat for a few decades, estimates that his actual worth is about half what he claims. Fred Trump set his son up in business, buying him a decrepit housing development in Cincinnati (what was your college-graduation gift?) and financing its redevelopment. The project went well, and Trump eventually was hired to run the family business. How well he has run that business is not clear. Trump companies have been through a number of headline-grabbing bankruptcies, prominent among them the Atlantic City casino–hotel–strip joint bearing the Trump name. Trump’s inept and debt-happy management resulted in the watering down of his stake in the casino group to about 5 percent, and he no longer serves on its board of directors or in any official capacity. These properties are TINO — Trump’s in Name Only — so don’t expect him to lose any sleep over the recently declared bankruptcy of the Trump International Golf Club or the probable backsliding into bankruptcy of the Trump Taj Mahal, once his pet project and now mostly somebody else’s problem. Trump doesn’t want much to do with these Trump properties.

That’s the odd thing. Trump is always going on and on and on about how rich he is, but his largest asset is an asset only from a certain point of view: He values the Trump brand at more than $3 billion, more than any building, resort, golf club, or financial instrument in his possession. There are more than a few financial analysts who scoff at the notion that he could actually sell the brand for anything near that amount of money. Maybe Trump, or at least his people, understands this on some level: A previous valuation had the brand worth more than $4 billion. And it’s not entirely clear who wants the Trump brand on his merchandise just now, other than Trump.

Macy’s dumped Trump — the store had sold a selection of hideously tacky Donald J. Trump–branded shirts and ties, inevitably made in China and Mexico — when the candidate started bellowing that the Mexican government is intentionally flooding the United States with rapists, a proposition for which there is, unsurprisingly, no evidence. Trump is not very much interested in the world outside the narrow confines of his skull. When Macy’s announced that it was severing its relationship with Trump, Trump had a full-on chimp-out, proclaiming that “Macy’s stores suck and they are bad for U.S.A.” and calling for a boycott. The Trumpkins began circulating claims that tens of thousands of people were boycotting Macy’s and cutting up their Macy’s cards, another claim for which there is — unsurprisingly — no evidence. “Now, Macy’s hurts, because the head of Macy’s I thought was a great friend of mine, Terry Lundgren,” Trump said, falling into his familiar, nearly monosyllabic rhythm. “Now this is a man I played golf with. I was with him all the time. He really was, was, was — you understand, because I don’t forget things.” His response to the CEO’s concerns about the fact that Hispanics are not very keen at the moment on buying stuff labeled “Trump”? “Terry, be tough! They’ll be gone one day.”

That’s Trump’s big idea on the immigration problem: They’ll be gone one day.

Macy’s wasn’t alone in the dump-Trump movement. Trump just announced a $500 million lawsuit against Univision, because the television network, not wanting to be associated with Trump and the horde of Mexican rapists that lives in his head, has decided not to carry the Spanish-language broadcast of the annual parade of Trump-owned vulgarity known as the Miss USA pageant. A bewildered Trump protested that “nothing that I stated was any different from what I have been saying for years.” (Yeah.) Univision dismissed the lawsuit as “factually false and legally ridiculous.” Trump is just paranoid enough to believe that his opponents aren’t political critics, good sense, and decency, but rather a nation-state, namely Mexico: He has said — in public, with a straight face — that Univision, which is based in midtown Manhattan, dropped Miss USA on orders from the Mexican government. “Mexico put the clamps on Univision. Mexico has a lot of power over them.” When an audience member in Las Vegas criticized Trump’s dopey immigration rhetoric, Trump demanded: “Did the government of Mexico ask you to come here?”

Univision, of course, is not alone. NBC followed suit and dropped the English-language Miss USA broadcast. More important, NBC gave Trump the heave-ho from The Celebrity Apprentice, the reality-television show that, unlike Trump-branded casinos in Atlantic City and Trump-branded golf resorts in Puerto Rico, makes a lot of money. Trump was already going to miss one season — running for president is a full-time job, as it turns out — but NBC made it very clear that he is not welcome back. Trump had been contemplating a return to the show — “They wanted me to do The Apprentice,” he says, though who knows whether that is true — but later slipped into his usual wet-diaper-rage thing, proclaiming that NBC could not see the wisdom of Trumpism because its executives are “so weak and so foolish.”

Failing casinos and golf courses, no Univision, no Apprentice, no ugly Macy’s shirts. And still Trump insists his name constitutes a $3 billion brand. Brand of what? Canned tuna?

Nothing succeeds like success — and nothing fails like failure. Trump knows this, which is why Donald J. Trump feels the need to lie a great deal about Donald J. Trump’s success. Example: He has claimed, repeatedly, that his Art of the Deal is the best-selling business book of all time. It has been very successful, selling around 1 million copies since its publication in 1987. But it hasn’t sold a quarter of the books that the relatively recent Good to Great and Rich Dad, Poor Dad have sold, and its sales are barely a rounding error on those of such perennials as How to Win Friends and Influence People and The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. Walter Isaacson’s recent biography of Steve Jobs has sold three times as many copies as The Art of the Deal. Selling 1 million books is no mean feat, but where Trump is concerned, Trump deals exclusively in superlatives: the biggest, the best, the classiest, etc.

None of that is ever true, of course. Trump-branded shirts and ties at Macy’s weren’t the best, finest, classiest, most stylish shirts and ties to be had; they weren’t even the best shirts you could get at Macy’s. Trump-branded casinos and hotels are not the best, most luxurious, most high-end accommodations in the world — they’re embarrassing, and the people sipping cocktails at the Sky Lobby bar at the Mandarin Oriental in Vegas are not secretly wishing they were at the Trump. Trump Tower is far from the nicest residential building in its neighborhood, much less in all of New York City. Trump-branded golf courses are not the greatest golf courses in the world. The Apprentice isn’t the top-rated reality-television show in the history of that sorry genre.

This is what rich-kid’s disease looks like when the rich kid is pushing 70.

Trump’s admirers believe that they have found in their champion a man who tells it like it is, but he is the opposite. A literal Republican in Name Only, Trump holds political views that were, until the day before yesterday, up-and-down-the-line progressive: pro-abortion, pro-Kelo and supportive of other tools of crony capitalism, and, if the words of Donald J. Trump himself are to be believed, pro–amnesty for illegal immigrants, too — not for 11 million, but for the fictitious 30 million he discussed with Bill O’Reilly:

You have to give them a path. You have 20 million, 30 million, nobody knows what it is. It used to be 11 million. Now, today I hear it’s 11, but I don’t think it’s 11. I actually heard you probably have 30 million. You have to give them a path, and you have to make it possible for them to succeed. You have to do that.

Trump has switched between the Republican and Democratic parties more times than he has switched wives (you think his ex-wives would call him a truth-teller?) and is a longtime political and financial patron of Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman against whom he presumably would be running if the Republican party were to lose its damned mind and nominate him.

That Trump for a hot minute is leading in the GOP-primary polls may tell us something useful about the Right, its constituents, and its internal politics, namely that the problem with populist conservatism is that it is populist but not conservative. But what it mainly tells us is that P. T. Barnum was right, and that he has not been forgotten. If Planet Hollywood is booked next time, Trump can always go down the road to Circus Circus.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review. This article first appeared in its August 10, 2015, issue​.


Poster Comment:

Well, well, apparently National Review's top essayist (other than Steyn who is something of an independent brand name) is still on a jihad against Trump. This follows on his earlier attack on Trump after his announcement in his June 16 article: Witless Ape Rides Escalator.

Trump must really have upset the applecart at NR. This is shrill, pretty much a rant. Not the usual cool prose you expect from NR. And they even made their Trump attack piece from the print mag available free in advance of the print edition. Since they don't know the outcome of the debate, they're taking a big chance with this hit piece. If Teh Donald does well or holds his own in the first debate, NR will be way way out on a limb.

I'm no Trump fan but I think NR went a little too far with this piece, especially to release it just prior to a big debate where there are such low media expectations for Trump's debate skills.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: TooConservative (#0)

I'm no Trump fan but I think NR went a little too far with this piece, especially to release it just prior to a big debate where there are such low media expectations for Trump's debate skills.

Yes, would not expect this from the National Review. It is more akin to a Jon Stewart skit.

They could have pointed out all the boycotts against him and his financial failures professionally. They chose the low road.

"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan

redleghunter  posted on  2015-08-06   17:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: TooConservative (#0)

That Trump for a hot minute is leading in the GOP-primary polls may tell us something useful about the Right, its constituents, and its internal politics, namely that the problem with populist conservatism is that it is populist but not conservative.

The conclusion shows some more unprofessional 'venting.' Now for the author, not only is Trump the problem, but those who support him. As if NR view themselves as a "Samuel" annointing the next GOP candidate.

I have to figure someone from the Bush campaign probably spent a few bucks of the $111M to make this article happen.

"When Americans reach out for values of faith, family, and caring for the needy, they're saying, "We want the word of God. We want to face the future with the Bible.'"---Ronald Reagan

redleghunter  posted on  2015-08-06   17:33:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: redleghunter (#1) (Edited)

Yes, would not expect this from the National Review. It is more akin to a Jon Stewart skit.

It's shrill, almost hysterical.

I doubt this would have made the pages of the print edition back in WFB's day. He would have despised Trump but held his cards closer to his chest. I can't imagine what Rich Lowry was thinking, letting this go into print.

My only thought is that NR has some inside info that one or more candidates are going to puncture Trump's balloon and they're betting on that, making these Trump hit pieces look more reasonable and mainstream. As it is, they sound way over the top, even to a non-Trump fan like me.

The conclusion shows some more unprofessional 'venting.' Now for the author, not only is Trump the problem, but those who support him. As if NR view themselves as a "Samuel" annointing the next GOP candidate.

It does sound like some kind of elitist spouting off. I notice the writer recycled and tried to sharpen some of his attacks from his earlier "Witless Ape Rides Escalator" piece.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   17:45:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: TooConservative (#0)

"Well, well, apparently National Review's top essayist ... is still on a jihad against Trump."

I don't see Trump granting NR any interviews in the near future.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-06   18:05:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: TooConservative (#0)

For a conservative publication, they seem to be pretty satisfied with the status quo. Get Trump out of here so we can get back to playing our political games.

F**k the country, we've got interests to protect.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-06   18:10:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: TooConservative (#0)

Spend any time around the Trumpkins — the intellectually and morally stunted Oompa Loompas who have rallied to the candidacy of this grotesque charlatan — and you will hear purportedly heterosexual men

Well, here's one intellectually and morally stunted PURPORTEDLY heterosexual Oompah-Loompah checking in: the National Review has come down with the vapors.

I've never heard Donald Trump lose control of himself like that.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-06   18:49:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: misterwhite (#4)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-06   18:50:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#4) (Edited)

I don't see Trump granting NR any interviews in the near future.

A safe bet.     : )

For a conservative publication, they seem to be pretty satisfied with the status quo. Get Trump out of here so we can get back to playing our political games.

More likely, the NR pundits think that Trump is poisoning the GOP's reputation with the indy voters and they want to avoid that, given the Dems' electoral map advantage.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   19:34:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

Well, here's one intellectually and morally stunted PURPORTEDLY heterosexual Oompah-Loompah checking in: the National Review has come down with the vapors.

A bad case of it. At least this writer but Rich Lowry has to share the blame when he's agreed to run this in NR's shrinking print edition. That makes it final, puts an editorial stamp of approval on it.

I've never heard Donald Trump lose control of himself like that.

Maybe you haven't been listening.

Let's see how good your recall is. Do you recall Teh Donald sexually assaulting this notorious tranny back in 2006?

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   19:39:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: TooConservative (#9)

The difference between that and the NR piece is that that comedy sketch was a comedy sketch. It was funny. It played on "Donald the playboy", and it played on Giuliani the hard-assed cross-dresser (?!)

It's funny.

The NR piece wasn't funny. It wasn't intended to be funny. It was a full-on, Kerry-esque "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot!" scream.

Trump and Giuliani were amusing, and playing at a schtick. And it was just that - comedy. Trump wasn't running for office, and Giuliani was already Mayor.

The NR was serious.

Nobody is offended by the Trump/Giuliani comedy skit. It's purpose was to get a laugh, and it did.

NR's screed wasn't funny, and it was intended to make a political point. It did - the NR has declared war on Donald Trump. That's the point they made. Do you care? I don't. Who cares what the NR thinks? I'll remember this bit of "quality journalism" and won't be reading them (didn't before, but thought they were serious. Now I know they're not.)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-06   19:46:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

The NR piece wasn't funny. It wasn't intended to be funny. It was a full-on, Kerry-esque "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot!" scream.

Well, Williamson is by far the most strident against Trump.

Maybe the NR readership is a hotbed of Trump haters.

This piece, like his earlier one, wasn't just mean-spirited. It was deliberately and egregiously mean-spirited.

You'd think that NR would realize that putting this in print is far more likely to damage them (and their shrunken magazine) than to be even an annoying fly buzzing to Donald Trump. Trump probably won't even take notice of their little screed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   20:00:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: redleghunter (#1)

Yes, would not expect this from the National Review. It is more akin to a Jon Stewart skit.

They've long been a platform to enforce the ideological orthodoxy of the RINO wing of the ruling class oligarchy. Kevin D. Williamson is a RINO version of Mikhail Suslov, mouthpiece of an intellectually bankrupt movement. The cuckservative establishment has the moral authority of Leonid Brezhnev, it rests upon a foundation of untruths and so cannot stand. It has forfeited the mandate of heaven, and American's who wish to restore their nation to greatness have no use for parasites such as Kevin D. Williamson.

Kevin D. Williamson spouting RINO nonsense about Hispanic immigrants being natural conservatives cannot make it a truth, no more than the party could decree that 2+2=5, for the truth is 2+2=4. Truth cannot be decreed, it must be discovered, the pride of fools such as Kevin D. Williamson who think otherwise goeth before the fall.

nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-08-06   20:06:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

You might like this bit on the French Vendee massacre over at AoS. Really takes a Lefty apart on the history of France. I thought you might enjoy browsing it. Or realize that you could easily churn out articles that entertaining if you even tried.

Ace is totally soured on the GOP, considers them the enemy. DrewM has concluded Bush will be the nominee and Kasich his VP and will lose to the Xlintons. So, not exactly a hotbed of partisan loyalists these days.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   20:12:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: TooConservative (#0)

National Review isn't what National Review once was.

rlk  posted on  2015-08-06   20:31:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: TooConservative (#13)

You might like this bit on the French Vendee massacre over at AoS. Really takes a Lefty apart on the history of France.

Thanks.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-06   22:39:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

You should look around over there some. They do some interesting stories. And anyone can register but it is a strange commenting system. You can change your name there any time you like (but have a "tag" that reveals who you are consistently). Kinda odd. They do food, gaming, gardening, history, etc. Look at their coverage of the old Thank God For The Bomb essay, written by one of the guys who would have died invading Japan; you probably know it.

Their top writers are Ace, DrewM and Gabriel Malor.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-06   22:57:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: TooConservative (#16) (Edited)

Thank God For The Bomb essay, written by one of the guys who would have died invading Japan; you probably know it.

A great many more Americans would have died if it hadn't been been for the atom bomb. Leftist revisionists have concocted fantasies about about the period that makes it look like a cake walk and that the nuclear bombs were unnecessarily used by by the bad guys, us. Revisionism is treated as fact and quoted as fact.

rlk  posted on  2015-08-06   23:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: TooConservative (#16)

The bomb saved my dad and my uncle from having to invade Japan. Saved a lot of US prisoners of war too.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-07   8:21:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: All (#18)

It also saved hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Chinese lives. The Japanese in China were monsters, and every day that war went on, the Chinese lost thousands.

To not drop the bomb on Japan and end the war meant thousands of innocent Chinese being devoured every day by the Japanese war machine. Why should Chinese civilians have to die to give the aggressor Japanese a softer landing?

Huge numbers of civilians were going to die no matter what. The question was whether or not it would Chinese civilians, at the hand of the Japanese, or Japanese civilians, at the hand of the Americans.

Dropping the bomb ended the war. It saved some lives at the cost of others. On balance, it saved more.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-07   8:34:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)

The bomb saved my dad and my uncle from having to invade Japan.

My dad too. He was already crossing the Pacific on a troop ship 70 years ago this week. Said he was seasick most of the time. Went through Nagasaki on an armored train in early September 1945.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-07   9:34:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)

Dropping the bomb ended the war. It saved some lives at the cost of others. On balance, it saved more.

It saved 3-4 times as many other suffering conquered Asians (mostly Chinese). To have spared Japan from the Bomb would have rewarded them for their brutality to all their neighbors.

Anyway, it's a recurring historical debate. I don't think the Lefties have ever made a serious case that peace could have been had without a massive invasion of Japan or using the Bomb. In the meantime, almost another half-million people would die per month until Japan finally collapsed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-07   9:39:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: TooConservative (#21) (Edited)

The only person I've ever seen do an actual body count comparison, of what the Chinese were losing every day the war lasted, to what the Japanese lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then extrapolated those losses out to what the Chinese losses WOULD HAVE BEEN had the war continued until the Americans were about the actually land in Japan, is me. The usual arguments are all about American lives saved, and Japanese.

Some have argued that Japan was ready to surrender anyway, and that there would have been no real need to invade. That's unprovable.

What isn't debatable is that the Japanese would not have surrendered as suddenly as they did had the Americans not dropped the atomic bomb. The first bomb did not force them to immediately capitulate. It took the second bomb to speed them up to an immediate surrender.

I no longer have my analysis, but had the war gone on another two months or so, without the American invasion, the Chinese would have lost as many people from the ravages of Japanese-imposed war as the Japanese lost in those two cities.

I did the Chinese analysis specifically to make it not a self-serving argument about American lives - because then you get into the "Well, the Americans brought on the war" argument.

By focusing on China, I focus on a country that had absolutely zero moral guilt in the war, that was invaded, without provocation, by the Japanese, and that was treated with an inhumanity that paralleled the Nazis in Russia.

Every Chinese death at the hands of the Japanese was an innocent death. And every day the war went on, the Chinese were losing thousands more innocent liveds.

So it's a case of one side - the Japanese - being 100% wrong and 100% evil, and the other side - the Chinese - being 100% innocent, with every single death they were experiencing an act of pure indefensible Japanese brutality.

There are no shades of grey here. China had no fleet, and did not threaten Japan in any way. The Chinese were completely innocent. The Japanese were completely guilty. White and Black. And every day the war went on, in order to give the Japanese "time", Chinese lives - wholly innocent, zero guilt Chinese lives - were being slaughtered by the thousands by imperialist, nationist, racist Japanese barbarism.

The Japanese were never going to let up on the Chinese. The atomic bomb cut off the snake at the head, brought the war to Japan in a way that the brought the arrogant, barbaric, racist Japanese to their knees inside of a week. More completely innocent, non-Western, non-imperialist, blameless Chinese lives were saved by attacking two Japanese cities and bringing the war to a swift and calamitous close, than by giving the Japanese barbarians time to brutally and casually slaughter more Chinese, while they got around to negotiating with the Americans. (The Japanese were not negotiating with the Chinese.)

I like to put it just exactly in those non-Western - not-caring-about-the- Whites - oppressed innocent native victims of imperialism (JAPANESE imperialism) terms, because the numbers are true, the Japanese were that brutal and deadly, and because it takes every trace of self-interest and American patriotism out of the argument.

Dropping the atomic bomb on the racist Japanese imperialists saved more innocent Chinese lives than it destroyed racist imperialist Japanese lives. Therefore, dropping the bomb was a morally acceptable thing: it protected the wholly innocent from slaughter, and it saved more innocent lives than it killed guilty lives.

By leaving Americans out of the picture completely, it forces the acknowlegment that the Japanese were committing genocide, were racists, were imperialists, and were purely evil. The Chinese were entirely innocent victims.

It means that the dropping of the atomic bomb, from that perspective, was the killing of racist genocidals in order to save innocent third world victims of violent imperialism.

And it leaves the Left speechless.

There is nothing to say in response to what I have said, because it is totally true, and I am totally right.

The ONLY position one could take against the dropping of the bomb to save Chinese lives would be a tremulous Christian one...one which I might myself very well take IF anybody ever presented me with the argument.

But, as I said, I'm the only person I have ever met or heard of who has ever advanced this particular argument, who stepped out of an American skin into a Chinese one and who presented it from the perspective of an Asian under Japanese domination, so I would just be arguing with myself.

So I'll be content knowing the Christian arguments against the bomb, but leave those who oppose the bomb on any other grounds unable to mount any argument at all that defeats what I wrote about innocent Chinese lives having primacy over the lives of their genocidal conquerors.

Somebody ELSE has to refuse that argument first, or at least take up the Chinese lives argument clearly, and then go over the top with it, for me to raise the thorny Christian question.

(It does come down to this hard, direct question: If you are Harry Truman, or Col. Tibbets, or one of the aircrew, and before the decision is made and the flight is flown, the Lord Himself appears to you, manifesting his power and awe, and tells you simply that you must not kill innocents to avenge or protect other innocents, that you must not attack with this bomb, and that if you do, you will irretrievably lose your salvation, with no prospect of repentence - that if you attack with it, you will be thrown into the fire on your death and never be redeemed. That if you do not, you will be saved, but if you do, that he, God, rejects you permanently...would you then order the attack or deliver that bomb?)

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-07   13:25:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#22)

I no longer have my analysis, but had the war gone on another two months or so, without the American invasion, the Chinese would have lost as many people from the ravages of Japanese-imposed war as the Japanese lost in those two cities.

Actually, I've always presented the ongoing Chinese losses as a main justification for the Bomb. They lost 20 million people to the Japanese occupation.

Far more Japanese lives and far more American lives were saved by preventing an American invasion.

I know that some people think the late mining of Japanese harbors would have finished them off in a matter of weeks but they had mountain factories, over 10K airplanes and a fanatical population. They weren't going to just quit, no more than Hitler did.

The war was not going to end without some major civilian deaths. Period. The faster, the better.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-07   13:35:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: TooConservative (#23)

ctually, I've always presented the ongoing Chinese losses as a main justification for the Bomb. They lost 20 million people to the Japanese occupation.

Good. We see eye to eye.

It was expedient to drop the bomb.

But was it right in a Christian sense? Can you intentionally kill some innocent people in order to potentially save other innocent people?

Do the numbers matter? Can you kill one innocent to save three innocents? Can you, for example, kill and dissect one healthy young man for his organs so that three other innocent people can have the organs to save themselves from deadly illness?

Every Christian would say NO!

So, then, can you kill 40,000 innocent people (a guestimation of the number of children that died in the two attacks - assume that adults are guilty) in order to save 80,000 innocents somewhere else?

Why?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-07   14:02:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: TooConservative (#8)

"is poisoning the GOP's reputation with the indy voters"

Perhaps. But I think Trump will turn out more registered Republicans than Romney did, plus he's popular with evangelicals.

Couple that with a low Democrat turnout and it may work.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-08-07   14:08:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#24)

But was it right in a Christian sense? Can you intentionally kill some innocent people in order to potentially save other innocent people?

Yes. But war is a poor place to practice your theology.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-07   14:35:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: misterwhite (#25)

Perhaps. But I think Trump will turn out more registered Republicans than Romney did, plus he's popular with evangelicals.

Romney pretty much maxed out on evangelicals and all GOP voters within reach.

When the Dems start the election with 240 EC votes and the GOP has well under 200 gimme votes in the EC, the GOP has to grow or die. It's that simple. And this mass import of illegals and slow-motion amnesty is pretty much suicidal behavior by the GOP and their paymasters, the Chamber.

Tooconservative  posted on  2015-08-07   14:38:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: TooConservative (#26)

Yes. But war is a poor place to practice your theology.

Well, war is part of life. And God's law and standards do not change because we say something is war.

So when the temptations of war pull at men is PARTICULARLY the moment when men have to practice their theology.

Unless their attitude is "Well, fuck it, we're at WAR now, so my nation comes first, and I'm not only willing to sacrifice my temporal life, but my eternal soul, in the service of something that isn't God."

Which, when you get right down to it, is what most men do.

That final quatrain of the Coven song from the Vietnam protest era really is pointedly on point:

"Go ahead and hate your neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of Heaven - you can justify it in the End. There won't be any trumpets blowing come the Judgment Day. On that bloody Morning After...one tin soldier rides away."

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-08-07   16:14:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com