Friday, March 18, 2016

The Wages Of Sin Are Trump, Clinton and Sanders

First, a bit from Kipling.
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbor and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”

In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Kevin Williamson has penned a volcanic, brutal piece about the white trash component of Trump's legions. Using the depressed, dysfunctional town of Garbutt as an example, it thunders wonderfully with Copybook Headings goodness like this.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

If you want to live, get out of Garbutt.
In paragraphs prior, Kevin details the destruction of the white, traditional family which lags the obliteration of the black family only by years. It's a difference in amount, not in kind. Kevin's received a lot of flack over this, but methinks that if it was yet another piece on the effects of 75% illegitimacy in the black community, who support the Democrats, that would have been just fine. That he went after whites who support Trump is another story entirely.

To me, this election is indeed a paragraph from Kipling's The Gods of the Copybook Headings. Add up the voters for Sanders, Clinton and Trump and you get a majority of America voting for free stuff bought with printed money and a political strongman-Daddy. This is what you get when you wipe out the foundations of civilization, but you haven't yet had the Gods of the Copybook Headings return. We want our treats, but we don't want the self-denial they require.

So that was Kevin Williamson whacking the Trumpkins. Here's Ben Shapiro obliterating the Democrats' pet constituency whose horrific self-destruction has been excused and excused and excused.

Note how the BLM folks have no response. They're so used to being treated like privileged children and they've never encountered a dissenting opinion. The whole experience of someone like Ben tearing their fundamental arguments to shreds is new to them.

So on the right we have self-destructive whites angry that reality doesn't reward indulgence and on the left it's the blacks. Hurrah.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began —
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire—

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


tim eisele said...

I just wanted to take a moment to marvel at the massive change in tone between this post and the previous one. Wow.

Ilíon said...

Please, allow me to correct this for you --
"The Wages Of Sin Are Trump [and Cruz], Clinton and Sanders"

K T Cat said...

Tim - yeah, I thought that, too. :-)

In all seriousness, it's two sides of the same coin. I've spent an enormous amount of time and energy loving, mentoring and supporting children from broken families. So on the one hand, there's the love for the victims and on the other hand, there's fury at the people and ideas who caused the pain.

K T Cat said...

Ilion, not seeing the Cruz thing.

Ilíon said...

That's because you refuse to see it. Cruz is not a natural born US citizen; a Cruz "presidency" would be just as destructive of Constitutional government as a Sanders or Clinton presidency would be.

Even if Cruz *were* a natural born US citizen, just look at the man. There is something about him -- about his visage -- that is as repulsive as both Carter and Bill Clinton (and Al Gore) were. How can you not see this? Or, perhaps you didn't even notice it with the other two (three).

It's not just that Cruz looks goofy. Both Carter and Clinton were handsome men -- "beautiful" wouldn't have been too out of line for Clinton in his prime -- but both men were reptiles, albeit different sorts, and it *showed*: in the things they said, in the things they did ... and on their faces.

Is a man's character reflected in his face, or is it not?

Foxfier said...

I had the "fun" of explaining to someone that no, the white underclass aren't "the working class" and they haven't been in my life time. They're the folks that you tried to avoid because they'll "borrow" your last dollar to buy themselves a coffee, then whine that you can't let them crash on your couch because that was the rent.

K T Cat said...

Ilion, you may be right about the natural born thing, but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue. As for his looks, yep he's got problems there. In any case, given who remains, he's the only one I think is worth a vote.

K T Cat said...

Bad behavior and poor habits know no race.

Foxfier said...


Anonymous said...

My comment at Facebook about KW's column:

It's not just welfare culture and the over prescribing of pharmaceuticals. It's the split between the coasts and flyover country. Corporate leaders used to live in the community -- Garbutt was named after its own gypsum king. He lived there! And when the leaders lived in their communities, they cared about the communities -- they knew the people, and it was in their own self interest that the community as a whole did well. Well, slowly, companies gobbled up companies, drove other companies out of business, and sold off more and gobbled up more. Now the movers and shakers live on the coasts, and have such complete and total disdain for the people in flyover country. It's all about the bottom line, because there's nothing but the bottom line.

Local-ish story of a small scale example: a man who owned a very successful restaurant died intestate. He had three adult children, all of whom were quite wealthy, two of whom lived locally-ish, one of whom lived in LA. The two local-ish kids wanted to keep the restaurant going -- it was in a tiny town, employed a lot of the townsfolk, attracted people from all over the two states. The third kid in LA just wanted to sell it. They offered him money for his share. He declined. A suit ensued, LA boy won. The restaurant was ultimately sold off in pieces: the kitchen equipment, the furniture... No one wanted the empty shell -- it still sits there, unsold. The town is now totally dead. The death of the restaurant killed off other businesses. LA boy could have afforded to just give his portion of the restaurant away and not notice the money. If you think it's because of some deep seated resentment -- LA boy never lived there. His parents bought the restaurant after they retired and long after he found Hollywood success.

So, Problem One is no one who has the power and money to do anything gives a rat's a$$ about the folks in flyover country.

Problem Two is related to the welfare culture. For decades, our American "culture" had been killing off morals. Church is for Idiots! There's no shame in being unmarried and pregnant! There's no shame in having served time! This has trickled down into the mindset of flyover America. In my youth, there was shame associated with getting knocked up in high school. My classmates have gone on to celebrate their illegitimate grandchildren with great fanfare and pride. (Because TV shows just love to! Hell, Facebook clickbait had a story about a pregnant single politician.) And while I do feel for a teen who gets knocked up -- I know it's difficult, but the death of the American Family is more important. It's killing of communities.

CEO's with no stake in the modern Garbutt's don't care what happens there. The progressive crazy clowns push attitudes that kill off the family -- because they basically despise the modern day Garbutts. (It's funny how Marxists "celebrate" the worker, but there's nothing they hate worse than blue collar America.)

Combine that with the welfare state and overprescription of opioids, and you've got this:

Ilíon said...

K T Cat: "Ilion, you may be right about the natural born thing, but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue."

Hmmmm ....

Ilíon: The so-called Affordable Care Act is a blatant violation of the US Constitution; moreover, the means by which the supreme Court papered over *one* of the violations -- and thereby produced yet another, which was promptly and dutifully ignored -- was absurd.

K T Cat: "Ilion, you may be right about [that], but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue."

Ilíon: The supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling was a blatant example of judicial imperialism and a violation of the Constitution.

K T Cat: "Ilion, you may be right about [that], but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue."

Ilíon: The manner in which non-natural born citizen B.H.Obama legislates by executive decree is blatant example of executive over-reach and a violation of the Constitution.

K T Cat: "Ilion, you may be right about [that], but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue."

Ilíon: The supreme Court's Kelo v City of New London ruling, which depends upon turning the meaning of phrase "public use" on its head -- which phrase, after all, is not defined in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights -- turns the entire Constitution on its head (since "A" can now mean "not-A" when our rulers need it to) and makes a mockery of all our freedoms and of all limitations on those who would rule us.

K T Cat: "Ilion, you may be right about [that], but people I trust and respect say that's not an issue."

I could go on and on, but I trust that you see the pattern. If those who would rule us will not honor *all* the Constitution, then they will honor none of it; if we who are ruled will not insist that they honor *all* the Constitution, then we will demand that they honor none of it.

K T Cat said...

Anon, what a great comment! If I have time, I'm going to expand on it in an upcoming post.

K T Cat said...

Ilion, I agree with every one of your cases, I just don't see how Cruz isn't eligible for the presidency. I'm not sure I completely buy into the slippery slope argument, either. Still, I get what you're saying. The Constitution is either true and respected or it's bent and twisted to the needs of the powerful.

Ilíon said...

"I just don't see how Cruz isn't eligible for the presidency."

1) Regarding citizenship, the *only* power the Constitution gives the Congress is the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ... throughout the United States";

1a) ERGO: *every* statute the Congress enacts regarding citizenship *must be* an act pertaining to naturalization ... else the enactment would be unconstitutional and would not really enact a law;

2) Cruz's US citizenship was bestowed upon him by an Act of Congress (*);

2a) ERGO: Cruz is a naturalized US citizen;

3) a naturalized US citizen is not a natural born US citizen;

4) the Constitution requires both the president and the vice-president to be a natural born US citizen;

4a) ERGO: Cruz is not eligible for the presidency;

5) a "natural born US citizen" is a US citizen whose natural allegiance is undivided; and that is, after all, the whole point of the requirement;

5a) By US law at the time of his birth, Cruz was born with dual (or even triple) citizenship, that is, his natural allegiance is *not* undivided;

5b) ERGO: Cruz is not eligible for the presidency;

6) By Canadian law at the time of his birth, Cruz was born with “single” citizenship – Canadian; Canadian law didn’t recognize “dual citizenship” until 1977;

6a) therefore, at the time he was born, his mother had to choose whether he was a US citizen or a Canadian citizen;

6b) we know the she chose Canadian citizenship for her son, because he made a public point of renouncing it in 2014;

6c) ERGO: Cruz may not even be a US citizen in the first place!

(*) interesting side note -- had Cruz been born prior to May 24, 1934, he wouldn't even be a US citizen, much less not a natural born US citizen.

Anonymous said...

Please feel free to! I would love to read it. (When I sign in, I sign in as Lee.)