Showing posts with label National Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label National Conservatism. Show all posts

Monday, June 9, 2025

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 88th Edition. A predictive issue and other ramblings. Order coming on women in combat roles. Trump's bolt shot.

Pretty effective 1970s vintage Army recruiting poster seeking female recruits.

There's been some interesting signs of things to come recently, including where Hegseth is headed on women in the military, and where Trump's close acolytes are headed in regard to his increasing mental decline.

Interesting times.

We'll start with Hegseth.

As anyone who stops in here is well aware, I'm not a Trump fan.  I'm conservative, actually conservative, but I'm not lockstep in line with anyone.  Frankly, anyone who is, just isn't thinking.  Anyhow, The Trump regime is not conservative but populist, and populist in the same way that gave rise to fascism in various European nations in the 30s, or to Communism to others in the teens and twenties.  But I can see how we got here and indeed I'd been warning about this for some time before it happened.  As readers here know, once Obergefell was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court I feared a political breakdown was inevitable.I also thought that claims made at the time that Obergefell wouldn't lead to a more radical development in the category of gender norms were badly misguided, and I was proved correct about that.  The country was headed toward acceptance of homosexual unions as marriages, irrespective of what social conservatives may think of that, but Justice Kennedy and his fellow travelers hijacking the trend line without any real legal weight behind it jump started the country right into the transgender movement which helped radicalize an already radicalizing populist base in the right wing of the GOP.2 

Women in combat roles in the US came the following year, 2016, and was controversial at the time and remains so in social conservative   I recently posted on it, and I remain very much opposed to it.   While I'm not a fan of Hegseth, he's on record as opposing it as well.

Some time ago Hegseth ordered that the service review its physical fitness standards on a gender neutral basis.This isn't really the first time that this has been done and the results can probably be predicted.

Indeed, they can be predicted in part due to the experiences of women in sports competing with men who are surgically and chemically altered to female morphologies, but more on that in a moment.

At the time, I thought that was probably step one towards removing women from combat roles.

Then Hegseth came out with a tweet (I wish government officials would stay off Twitter) endorsing a story in the Telegraph, a British newspaper. The article was this one:


Hegseth, in his comment, noted the problems of women in combat roles, although only briefly and vaguely.

Like a lot of things repeated on Twitter, the Tweet falls sort of teh full story:

IDF chief halts mobility unit pilot program for female combat troops

The IDF is just suspending the study and will get back to a new one.

Before all of this, Hegseth ordered that "transgendered" troops leave the service.  That was probably the least controversial thing he could do, and it makes perfect sense.  Gender Dysphoria may exist, but transgenderism does not.  Moreover, if you have to take medication just to keep your morphology, you really aren't ready for the rigors of military life.

Transgenderism in general, which will also get to below, is really a manifestation of, in my view, a mental illness.  It's a trendy one, however, and is part of the culture wars which gave rise to a radicalized far right, and then to Trump.

Ordering that "transgendered" troops get out of the service is one thing, but then there's this:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 85th Edition: Hegseth directs Navy to rename USNS Harvey Milk days into Pride Month.

This isn't related to women in combat, but it's certainly a shot in the culture wars and a surprising one.  With the constant storm surrounding the Trump Regime, it didn't generate nearly as much controversy as I thought it would, and that may have been why it was done.  Running that up the flagpole may have been a test by Hegseth to see how much flak he'll get if he orders women out of combat roles.

I suspect it was.

And I suspect that its coming very soon.

Indeed, it has to be soon.

And hence our next prediction.

People have predicted that Trump is running out of steam since day one, but now it appears he really is.  In the old phrase, Trump has "jumped the shark".  Indeed, there's an odd maxim that once something has maximum attention in the public eye, it's probably passed its peak.

There's a lot of evidence of this around, and it makes a big difference to what Hegseth, and others in the Trump Administration, depending upon how savvy they are to trends, are behaving.

Trump is increasingly erratic and weird.  He's also becoming increasingly ineffective.  Having done a lot early on in a flurry of Executive Orders, the Courts, save for the Supreme Court, so far, are effectively saying "hold on Buckwheat" and stopping much of what he's done.  The entire goofball DOGE effort is the same.  Indeed, at least one minor agency is being reconstructed, amazingly, after Musk and his wrecking crew attacked it.4  Indeed, DOGE achieved a mess, but that's about it.  Bill Clinton's effort to cut the size of the government, which lead to a surplus in its day, was much more effective.  

Now the wheels are coming off.  Musk is feuding with Trump.  The Senate may not pass the Big Ugly Bill, at least not in the form the sycophantic House did.  Questions are being razed.

Trump is being publicly mocked as "Taco".

The bloom is off the rose, Trump's authority is declining, and the looming 25th Amendment is getting warmed up.

Have you noticed that  James Donald Bowman, aka J. D. Vance, whom we heard from constantly early on, is now pretty much silent.  That's not an accident.  Vance will take over when Trump is booted, and my guess that he doesn't want to be tainted with Trump any more than he has to be.  He's gone from insulting Ukrainian Presidents for not wearing suits, to just not being there.

Which brings this back around to women in the military, and other social issues.  National Conservatives and Christian Nationalist rode into power on Trump's back as they knew that they could.  They also know, however, that they need time to completely overhaul the nation to look like they want it to, and 18 months, all the more time I've given Trump before he is hauled off to an assisted living wing of Mar A Lago, isn't enough.  Four years isn't either, and frankly the Democrats are going to retake the House of Representatives nexts year.  If Vance doesn't secure reelection after this administration is done with, much of what the National Conservatives/Christian Nationalist did during their four years will just be dust in the wind.

In order for anything to stick, it has to be done quickly, so that the electorate is acclimated to it by 2028, or there has to be a plan to stay in power in 2028.  My guess that Vance's disappearing act is part of that.

I fear what else may be.5

Back to some rambling.

As is often the case, a certain element of synchronicity tends to work on these posts, with various things coming up with that cause the thread to be posted.  Just as I started contemplating the women in combat topic, again, a couple of such things did which are related.

I subscribe to Mandatory Fun Day on Instagram.  A buddy of mine who had been in the service sent me some of his clips and they're hilarious, if you've been in the Army.  If you haven't, they're probably completely baffling.

Anyhow, as I subscribe on Instagram, they started coming up on Facebook as "reels".  No problem.  The fact that they did, however, meant that I'd get suggested reels by other service members following in the creator's wake.  They were uniformly pretty bad.

All of a sudden, having not taken interest in those, Facebook started suggesting reels by female service members, a large number of which are service women in their t-shirts being cute in a college coed fashion, or worse.  Dancing female soldiers show up, and even twerking ones.  Women showing how they dress in their uniforms, starting with pretty much only skivvies on, is another.  Perhaps the one most illustrative of why I regard this all a problem was one in which a female soldier photographed herself in GI trousers, and regulation brown t-shirt, showing "how I feel when I see my man in uniform", which involved clutching her breasts and and having her free hand south of her fly.

And all of this is observable just on the suggested feed, not on what shows up if you click on it.

One I did click on, as it was so oddly titled, involved a cute young woman making babyish "moo" sounds, in an item entitled "she found her moo".  The voice of the filmer was also female.  Apparently the moo thing is some sort internet trend.

Anyhow, relationships, and you can use your imagination as to what I mean by that, are a problem in college dorms where nobody is expected to kill anyone. They've been a huge problem in the service, and the Marine Corps had to take steps some time ago to order female Marines to knock off seductive filming, some of which featured female Marines nude.  Young women acting like young women away from home and in college dorms isn't surprising, but it sure isn't conductive to unit cohesiveness in organizations in which death and destruction is a routine norm.  

Put another way, the "man" whom the young woman touching body parts which used to be referenced in the Jody Call "The Prettiest Girl I Ever Saw" is going to be a problem in any unit, let alone one in which a soldier may be expected to leave her behind to be killed.7

Moo.

Anyhow, while noting all of this, I also saw a series of stories recently about women being upset by having to compete against men, who are "transgendered".  Also, UW is now being investigated due to Artemis Langford being in a sorority, at the same time that sorority sisters are trying to keep him out.

That caused me to realize how often its women who lead the charge in this are. Women know they are women and they justifiably feel that in sports they shouldn't have to compete against men.  And they aren't the only ones. An international body that regulates boxing has imposed genetic tests on female boxers to make sure they're female.

The reason for all of this is that even second rate male athletes turn out to be almost unstoppable competition in female sports, when they compete as transgendered.  Women resent it, and rightfully.

But oddly enough society hasn't seemingly noted something that Hemingway noted many years ago.

There is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never care for anything else thereafter.

Ernest Hemingway.

I'm not saying that war is nice. Quite the contrary.  But in some ways its the ultimate athletic endeavor, even now in the era of high tech weapons. And let us be honest  Killing is part of it, but there's never been a conflict anywhere in the world where brutalization and rape haven't been part of it, nor has there ever been one in which some women took advantage of their assets in a wartime pinch.

Women don't belong in combat.

Let's go back to the plight of the UW sorority for a second.

The entire saga here shows how difficult it can be for public institutions in this bizarre era in which we live.  It's obvious that a male should not be in a sorority, and Langford may dress as a female and wish to be regarded as one, but at least the last time I checked on the story, he hadn't "transitioned", which means he's full equipped.  There's no reason that a young woman should be forced to live in close residential confines with a man if she doesn't wish to.

The other sad aspect of this is that this entire saga, in which they've sued, and I don't blame them, and now the Trump Administration is investigating UW, means that his entire delusion has become his identity, when had this been treated as what it was, a mental illness, it might all be past tense by now.  Indeed, just looking it would suggest that it might very well have been.8

Anyhow, stuff like this puts universities in the can't win for losing situation.  Charlie Kirk, a right wing populist babbler, has made comments on Langford, and a right wing populist law student just sponsored him talking on campus.

Pity poor UW.

Back to Hegseth t he White House is looking for a new chief of staff and several senior advisers to support him, but there's been no takers.

Again, this Administration has shot its bolt, and its showing.

On other things military, we have this:

June 8, 2025

US Civil Unrest

Donald Trump has federalized some units of the California National Guard and ordered them to Los Angeles in response to violent immigration protests there.

A President federalizing a Guard unit ab initio like this is very unusual.

Some are declaring that this is a first step towards nationwide martial law.  I doubt it.  It's a bad move however.  Troops, including National Guardsmen, make poor police.  They really aren't trained for it, but are trained to use force.

Usually troops, including National Guardsmen, who are deployed in this role aren't given ammunition.  The opposite can happen, of course, as Kent State famously and tragically indicated.  This is a bad look, anyway you view it.

To circle back, how much of what we're seeing now, will stick?  Trump's really on his way out, and it's doubtful the culture has been much impacted, so far.

Footnotes: 

1.  This thread has been getting a lot of views for some reason recently, and is often one of the most popular ones of the week.

2.  Kennedy provides us with another example of the disaster of the very aged being in a position of authority.

3.  The order states:

High standards are what made the United States military the greatest fighting force on the planet. The strength of our military is our unity and our shared purpose. We are made stronger and more disciplined with high, uncompromising, and clear standards.

I am directing the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) to gather the existing standards set by the Military Departments pertaining to physical fitness, body composition, and grooming, which includes but is not limited to beards. The USD(P&R) will conduct a review of these standards and how they have changed since January 1, 2015 . The review will also provide insight on why those standards changed and the impact of those changes. The USD(P&R) has the authority to task the Secretaries of the Military Departments and other DoD Component heads as necessary to provide any required information in support of this review and will provide detailed guidance to the Military Departments.

We must remain vigilant in maintaining the standards that enable the men and women of our military to protect the American people and our homeland as the world' s most lethal and effective fighting force. Our adversaries are not growing weaker, and our tasks are not growing less challenging. This review will illuminate how the Department has maintained the level of standards required over the recent past and the trajectory of any change in those standards.

4.  None of which has kept the perpetually behind the curve Wyoming legislature from heading off with its own DOGE effort, just as the  Federal effort is sinking. 

5.  Having said that, by any standard Vance will be more normal than Trump, which doesn't mean he will get reelected in 2028.  

6. They must be banned now, but the Army used to have a lot of Jody Calls that were outright foul, but probably serve to illustrate the atmosphere that units of young men tend to have, for good or ill.  In this call, a solder recalls drinking in a bar and touching a woman next to him in various place until she says "GI, you know the rest", resulting in his now having a bunch of children.

7.  As a totally random item:

As more women head to war, IDF uniforms designed for men expose female troops to risks

The army’s one-uniform-fits-all approach means a fifth of combat soldiers are operating in clothes, vests and other gear unsuited to their physiques, harming safety and effectiveness

8.  I don't know all the details, but from what little you can pick up on the net, Langford's parents seem to have gone through a bad divorce and his father obtained custody.  Langford relates that he solidified his view of himself as a woman following a desperate nighttime prayer.  He was a Mormon, and while many faiths recognize praying for guidance, the Mormon faith has a "burning bosom" line of thought on some things.  The LDS are not, however, supportive of transgenderism, which is interesting, and Langford now identifies as an Episcopalian. Some branches of the Episcopal church have been notoriously willing to accept gender trends, which is part of the reason that the Episcopal Church is rapidly declining in membership.

Related threads:

Women and combat


Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 87th Edition. No, "Liberals" are not flocking to Musk.

Wednesday, June 4, 2025

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 85th Edition: Hegseth directs Navy to rename USNS Harvey Milk days into Pride Month.

Fleet oiler, the USS Harvey Milk (for now).

Wow, this is really a shot across the bow in the culture wars.

Hegseth directs Navy to rename USNS Harvey Milk days into Pride Month

The Navy may rename the USNS Harvey Milk, named for the 1970s gay civil rights activist, on orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Renaming a ship for any reason is a fairly phenomenal thing to do, something no doubt on the minds of those who named the ship after Milk in the first place.  It had an element of permanence, and was part of an effort to create acceptance for homosexuals.

Hegseth's actions, and these aren't the only recent ones (we were actually going to make the next in this series on another one of them) are really sending a signal of where the DoD is headed.  But the question ultimately will be is any of this permanent?  And also, how far does he intend to go?  I don't think, at this point, that anyone has thought that the DoD would reverse its position on allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, and it shouldn't reverse it, all of which makes this so surprising.

National Conservatives and Christian Nationalists hope the changes will be permanent, but Trump is losing steam pretty clearly, and the host of other issues, particularly the "size of government" and budgetary ones, are now in pretty stormy seas.  In order to make cultural changes really stick, they need more than four years, probably more than eight.  Hegseth, in the DoD is picking up steam, maybe aware of that, but where this all goes will be interesting to watch.

Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist 84th Edition. The uncomfortably agreeing with the far right edition (on some things). Hegseth orders transgenderism out and a bill to outlaw pornography.

Monday, February 24, 2025

Trump's Mandate? There isn't one.

Since the election, and now that he's exercising squatters rights in the Oval Office, the Republican/Populst Party has been yelling about Trump's "mandate".

I haven't posted on this today, as I think it's dangerous to assume the election doesn't mean anything.  But then, in looking at it, I realized something significant.

Trump crowded 50% of the votes, but he didn't cross that line.

Trump got 49.8% of the popular vote.  Harris got 48.3%.

The difference between the two is 1.5%.  Who did those people vote for?

Probably not somebody even further to the right than Trump.

Chances are that those people, like me, went for a 3d party that was to the left of Trump.  Some for a 3d party that was much to the left.

I voted for the American Solidarity Party candidates.

Only 63.9 percent of the eligible electorate turned out, below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020.  

That means that nearly 40% of those who could have voted lazily did not.  I don't know why this keeps occurring, but its inexcusable. It's notable that when Trump was running for a second term, the turnout was higher and voters gave him the boot.

So, what does nearly half of the 60% of the American electorates vote mean?

It probably largely means that Joe Biden mental decline was too large to ignore.  Indeed, this is so much the case that lots of people who back Trump bring it up continually, even though there's every reason to believe the same applies to Trump.  It's as if your daughter brought home a raging alcoholic and your argument in her support is "yeah, but the prior guy was a drug addict".  

Neither is a good option.

The fact that neither was a good option points to the insanity itself of the non existent "two party system".  Populists like to claim that moderate Republicans and Democrats are the Uni Party, not grasping that they are also. The only thing they all agree on is that you must never vote for a third party.  That pushes things to the extreme, which the American public doesn't want.

It also points out that Biden failed the country massively by running when he promised not to.

But is there a mandate there?  If there is, it's don't be old and don't exhibit mental decline.

That's about it.

Now, it is the case that certainly people within the Trump orbit have very distinct goals, and his being elected serves those interests.  And some felt compelled to vote for him due to social issues.

Social issues have been a big deal in recent American politics and the Biden/Harris campaigns just didn't get it.  They came to the conclusion, which we warned was completely wrong, that abortion would carry them over the bar.  Far from it, and embracing it was stupid.  They would have been better off moving to the center right on that issue, and their failure to do so actually allowed Trump to move leftward a bit.

The Democrats are also lashed to weird sexual fetishes and mental illnesses, which causes those who don't see declaring yourself as a transgender sea slug monarchist by identify as normal, as it isn't.  You really can't win a campaign with a strong "we're for men in tutus" platform.  T hat really hurt the Democrats.

And there was also the COVID inflation, which Biden didn't cause, but got blamed for.

This all, however, gives Democrats some advantage in the short-term and long.  The public's rejection of left wing social views means that the Democrats are free to regain the ground they had prior to the 1960s.  People seem surprised (we weren't) about Hispanics starting to vote for the GOP, and this evolution is part of the reason why.  If Democrats moved to the center right on these, and regained their traditional post 1950s support of minorities, they could very easily flip that.

In the meantime, the damage is being done.  National Conservatives, who are very smart and know that this is their only chance, will seek to overall the nation's culture in less than two years. Chances are, they'll be much more successful at it than could be imagined.

Monday, February 17, 2025

Project 2025: The Radical Conservative Plan to Reshape America Under Trump | WSJ


This is exactly what's occurring.

Indeed, one of the fascinating things on this one is watching Kevin Roberts just flat out admit, and this was before the election, that Trump was lying in order to get elected, as he had to distance himself from Robert's organization.  I.e., Americans didn't want this, Roberts knew it, and he thought Trump lying about his knowledge and intent to implement Project 2025 was okay.

This says a lot about Roberts, who is a diehard National Conservative, and by extension J. D. Vance. Vance actually wrote the forward to Robert's recent book, which was pulled from release so that the forward didn't hurt the Trump campaign. 

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

On hating the government. Being careful what you wish for, if you don't really grasp what you are wishing for. American Populists and the return to a mythical age.

A friend and I were discussing the current state of affairs and the Donald Trump assault/Project 2025's aggault/Wyoming Freedom Caucus on the government.  We both are pretty conservatives fellows.  We both served in the Army.  We both are lawyers.  Both of our fathers were Korean War veterans.

We're both horrified.

In part we're horrified as it clear that a huge portion of Trump's base absolutely hates their own government.  Just hates it.

In the discussion, something occurred to me.

The world the MAGA/Populist/Project 2025 people wish for is one they've never seen nor experienced.  A lot of them, quite frankly, don't have the capacity to grasp what it was like.

More than a few of them don't have the capacity to live in a world like that either.

No American born before 1932 lived in the world these people imagine as perfect.  That means, in my case, as a member of Generation Jones, and even more so for the Baby Boom Generation, the last people they know who experienced it was their grandparents.

Or more likely, their great grandparents.

And our grandparents are all dead.

There's no living memory of it at all.

Nobody has one, at all.

The first President I voted for, as noted here, was Ronald Reagan in the 1984 Presidential election.  I thinking of it, the first Presidential election my father could have voted in, when the voatin gage was 21, would have been the 1952 Presidential election. The first Presidential election I can remember, although only vaguely, is the 1968 Presidential election, when I was five years old.  If that held true for my father, the first one he would have remembered would have been the 1936 Presidential election, at which time FDR was already well into establishing the government that Musk and Trump are destroying.

It was the Great Depression that brought the government into people's lives in a major way, although that it was going to happen was foreshadowed by the Progressive Era.  Theodore Roosevelt was really the first "imperial President" who was willing to broadly act with executive orders.  Franklin Roosevelt expanded the government enormously, however, in reaction to the extreme economic distress.   That gave us the government we have today, but World War Two and the Cold War expanded it.

FDR, of court, brought big government in, and with World War Two proving that it was necessary to retain it, and the Cold War building on that, we've had it ever since.  But we might be able to state that modern American government goes all the way back to 1900, before Theodore Roosevelt really started to bring in the progressives and the concept that the government was supposed to make things safe and fair for average people.  

The generation that had lived through the Great Depression and the war were grateful for the larger Federal role and accepted it.  It wasn't until the late 1960s that things began to be questioned.  Even by then most Americans had no real memory of a day when the Federal Government was only active nationwide to a limited extent.

Nobody has that memory now.

What will this all mean?

Well, assuming that Must/Trump pulls it off, starting here in a few months, a real schock.  And the best evidence is, so far, that Musk/Trump will have enormously wrecked the Federal Government in that time period, no matter what happens with Trump himself (and there are growing signs that Trump isn't really going to be around that long).

And the shock that will ensue will be in everything from what amounts to minor irritations to body bags.

Wyoming is going to have to pay for its own forest fires, and fight them on their own for one thing, snarky comments from Cowboy State Daily imported columnist aside.  The State's going to have to pay for its own highways as well, which it can't afford.  Things will just burn, and the highways decay.

And we'll be at the tender mercy of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, which seemingly hates state government as well. Municipal services are really going to take a hit, to include police and fire fighting.

Education, which the WFC basically opposes, as students might learn the world is older than 5,000 years and God might not be limited to the restrictions people who can't imagine a world older than that would demand to be placed on, will be gutted.

Benefits provided to all kids of people through the Federal Government, from Veterans benefits to Medicaid, are in real danger.

A Federal and state government that makes sure your food, water, and living conditions are safe, won't be there.  

Robber Barons, however, will be there once again, for the first time in well over a century.

The truth is, most people won't like living in a United States that's a third world nation.  But the rich will, as the rich have always profited in the third world.  And that, not some sort of rugged paradise, is where we're headed.

Calvinist believers were psychologically isolated. Their distance from God could only be precariously bridged, and their inner tensions only partially relieved, by unstinting, purposeful labor.

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the "Spirit" of Capitalism

As part of that, the National Conservatives and the populists seem to outright hate government employees.  That's already come up in of comments about them, one being how they'll go into "more productive" work.  This group has a very Protectant Work Ethic view of life, in which your Calvinist purpose is to prove your worth by working harder and longer and for less than the value of your work, and never retire.

Many street level conservatives have hated Federal employees for years.  I've heard them complain about how they're all lazy as they didn't do the correct Protestant thing and choose to go into the rough and tumble of the free market, by which they mean the corporate controlled market.  

This is sometimes stated by people who actually depend on the government in spades themselves, and can't recognize it.  For instance, if you are truck driver, you are living on the government dole, Mr. Knight of the Road.  Fortunately, in this instance, truckers will soon be out of business as highway subsidies will end and railroads will take back over, which is a good thing.

More than one of the NC/Populist crowd who holds this view also abhor retirement.  The comments are out there, people just refuse to recognize it.   The push in this crowd, short term, is to raise retirement age to 69, but the real push will be just to do away with Social Security in the end. That neatly solves the Social Security crisis.

So, anyhow, like driving on Interstates?

Get used to your state funding them, and they won't.

Like safe air travel?

Notice how many air disasters there have already been since Trump took over, they're likely not his fault, but you probably ought to get used to that too.

Miss polluted air and water?

Well, it'll be back.

Come to expect the Federal government to be there if you are black, or Catholic, and can't get hired?

Well, lower your expectations.

Looking forward to retirement?

Forget it.

Injured and need assistance?

Well, you have your family to turn to.  Or the church.

Lose your job and need help?

Well, move in with your parents, or your children.

Miss the days when the Marine Corps was used to make sure American economic interests weren't harmed in Central America and around the world?

Well, you'll get to live out the nostalgia.

Like living in a country where the rich get richer, the poor get dead, and the middle class are on the verge of poverty?

Well, you'll get to.

Welcome back. . . to about 1900 really.

Sunday, February 2, 2025

The Assault of Project 2025 and the National Conservatives.


]While the Trump Interregnum Blitzkrieg seems to be spastic and random, and frankly more than a little insane, with the attempt to lure Federal employees into quitting with a dubious offer to be bought out of their employment, blaming DEI for a tragic air accident, and the apparent intent to gut the Federal workforce, it does serve to bring into focus what was already starting to be clear and something we already knew would occur.

Somebody, and we can assume it isn't Trump, who is too dense and lazy to really focus on it, is advancing Project 2025.  

Oh, Trump, aware of the meaningless nature of his life to date is backing it and advancing it, in hopes to be "great", these aren't Trump's ideas.  What is Trump's idea is that associating himself with him will reform the nation, which it will, and he'll be associated with its reformation, which he will be, for good or ill.

Project 2025 is radical.  So radical that Trump disavowed any association with it when he was a candidate, but like much he promised, he lied.  Project 2025 is clearly the blueprint for the Trump interregnum, and it will be for the Vance Presidency once that occurs in 18 months or so.  The thing with Trump is that Trump is not an intelligent man, and therefore a ready made blueprint, to the extent he pays any attention to it at all, is ideal for him.  Vance, however, is the real deal.  He believes in it.

Project 2025 was created by the Heritage Foundation. That entity dates back to 1973 and was influential during the Reagan era. There had been far right movements before that, but coming out of the Second World War both parties moved to the middle.  The Vietnam War, however, started the disintegration of that, with the Democratic Party moving to the left and the GOP to the right.  Now virtually worshipped as a conservative hero, Ronald Reagan encouraged extremism in the GOP, thinking he could harness and control it, which he largely did during his administration.

We've gone into the rise of the far right before, but forces that Reagan had under control have really become malignant since that time.  Now they're in control.

They're not dumb.  They largely know that they have to drive Trump like a plow mule or encourage him to diddle at Mara Lago while they run amok for a year and a half. That's all they really have, and they know it, before the electorate, which will now be sick of a wrecked economy, come back on them.

The National Conservatives behind 2025 regard bureaucracy with contempt, the way that many conventional conservatives did before.  Career civil servants, in their view, and an entrenched enemy of efficiency and are, moreover, lazy.  I was once a third party witness to a real argument between a private businessman and a career civil servant, both of whom are ardent Trump supporters, in which the businessman held the civil servant in contempt just because he was a civil servant.  All government employees, in his view, were lazy who would have benefitted from being in the rough and tumble of business.

This view of things has been around for a long time in various forms, and often expresses itself in contempt.  It's, basically, the Protestant Work Ethic and while a lot of the key figures in National Conservatism today are not Protestant, they're Protestantazed in their view on this.

They're also basically trying to bring into creation a United States that Rod Dreher would approve of.  Dreher wrote The Benedict Option but he didn't really mean it.  Enamored with authoritarians who claim to hold conservative values, they're ready to impose their version of them upon the country.  That country would be insular, cut off from the world, and very Orthodox in the Byzantine sense.  Think Russia under the Czars, France under Petain, or Spain under Franco.

The irony of all of this is that on some things real conservatives, such as myself, are sympathetic with the goals of National Conservatives.  I'm not a fan of divorce, abortion, transgenderism, and the like.  But the radicalism that Project 2025 seeks to undertake goes far beyond that, including basically axing the Federal government to the extent possible, wiping out regulation as much as possible, and removing the Federal government from much of what it now does.  In that view they don't really believe in an environment and they feel that human suffering will simply be addressed as it once was, eons ago, by the Church and private parties.  This fits into their world view as well, which sort of is Medieval England before King Henry VIII.

This is going to be a disaster.  Petain and the French far right couldn't bring about a French version of this without force. Franco had to swim in a sea of blood in order to impose this on Spain.  In France, Spain and Portugal the net result was the result of a resurgent left and the ultimate destruction of the right for decades.

All evidence suggest that Trump's initial success, in 2016, was due to his adoption of certain issues that the American middle class felt left out of.  Somehow, however, he converted his base, about 25% of the GOP, into radical worshippers who feel he is incapable of doing wrong.  25% of the GOP is less than half of the electorate.  National Conservatives know that, and they have to, therefore, recreate the United States from a center left/center right republic into Francoist Spain in eighteen months.

They're hard at work trying.

Last edition:  

The Harrying. The opening days of the Trump interregnum

Saturday, December 28, 2024

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 69th Edition. TDS, Vance in the wings. Our geriatric oligarchy. Immigration spats. Banning puberty blockers. Mjuk flicka and the Mantilla Girls.

The really ugly American

Trump’s win shows us who we really are

An excellent, and exactly correct, article.

And who we are isn't very pretty.

Many people worried that the election of Donald Trump, a thoroughly reprehensible man, would mean the end of the American democracy.  It probably won't, but it does mark the complete end of the United States as a great nation in every sense. 

We have no claim, as of this last election, to any sort of exceptionalism.  A certain moral status, hard won and defended in the Civil War and the wars of the 20th Century has been forfeited, and for blisteringly limited self interest.  Indeed, much of the electorate, frankly, proved themselves ignorant, choosing the interests of billionaires over their own, based on mean and vindictive promises and a false vision of the past.  Others, limited in their  minds to a binary choice in which they felt compelled to choose between the threat of progressivism in the Democratic Party, which never saw a gender perversion or mental illness it didn't want to glorify and demand you do too, and a GOP which at least looked to some sort of sanity on such issues.  Yet others chose a narrow issue, gun control, abortion, which they highly valued and made the leap.  Others were simply mad about being lied to for decades by the Democrats and pre Trump Republicans on matters like job exportation and immigration.

Not all Trump voters are alike by any means.

But there's only one Trump.

Since being elected he's insulted Canada repeatedly in a childish manner.  On the day I'm typing this out (originally), he's threatening Panama, suggesting we're going to demand a return of the Panama Canal.  Since then he's been demanding Greenland.

The amazing thing is that in spite of the utter lunacy of these ramblings, plenty have signed on board to back them.  People who wonder how the absurdities of the Nazi Party found acceptance after 1932 now know.

I don't expect Trump to serve out his term.  Behavior like this shows that the nation's incoming Chief Executive is returning to his middle school years, years which caused his parents to send him to military school, and that return is probably organic in a man who is flabby and ancient.  We'll see, of course, but it appears to at least me that the dementia train has left the station, as it earlier clearly did for Joe Biden.  

Merely having a chief executive this age is, frankly, dangerous.

At any rate, I suspect that backers of J. D. Vance are just wanting to give things a decent interval before a cabinet finding of non compos mentis is delivered.

I'm not a Vance fan, but the sooner, the better.

Trump Derangement Syndrome

One of our dear readers, who has I might note a truly excellent blog I keep meaning to link in here, gently noted that this blog suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

It's a fair accusation.

As is evident, I just can't grasp why a thoughtful highly intelligent person like our reader would vote for Trump.  I  know plenty of them I might add.  Highly educated, very well spoken, very well read, individuals who voted for a person I find nearly loathsome.

I wish they could explain it to me.

I wonder too if they fear for the nation the way that those of us who recoil form Trump do.

I will note that I perfectly grasp why people didn't vote for Harris, and wouldn't have for Biden.  Biden's descent into incapacity aside, the Democratic Party has just become, well, weird in many ways.  I noted at the time that Obergefell was decided that disaster loomed, and frankly, I was spot on.  Contrary to Kennedy's naive assumptions about his legally bankrupt ruling, Obergefell really opened the doors of a sexual and sexually perverse pandora's box, although frankly that box had been unlocked in the post war by Kinsey and Masters.

By the way, there's actually an article in Psychology Today about TDS.

Anyhow, for the Trump supporters who are routinely insulted by my posts regarding Trump, but stop in to read anyhow, thanks for doing so, and if you can explain your support for the man, I'd appreciate your doing so.

I'll confess.  I feel that Trump should have been tried for sedition and should be in prison, so my view is indeed harsh and unyielding on him.  I hope I'm proved wrong, but I expect him to be a disaster.

Waiting in the wings

Vance in uniform, and not that of a military prep school

As noted, I'm pretty confined J. D. Vance is waiting in the wings, and isn't much more of a Trump fan than I am.  I also think as a National Conservative, he's the real deal.

Love him or hate him, Vance would have made a much better contrast to Harris than Trump.  Vance actually has an intellectual concept of where he wants the country to go, and it doesn't appear in any fashion to depend on Elon Musk personally arresting the decline in the North American birth rate.

Must is a National Conservative, as noted.  He couldn't have been elected in a race against Harris.   The National Conservatives, who ranks are filled by some real intellectuals, know that they have a very limited time to get in their man.. That time is limited to the next four years.  Vance won't be able to pull off a post Trump win in 2028, and they know it.  In order to make the reforms they want, and they are genuine and massive, they need to get Vance in before then, and that depends on Trump being gone.

Age may very well remove Trump, through death.  If it doesn't, my guess is dementia will.  Then we will have Vance, and that will be quite interesting.

Oligarchs.

Drone Bee.  By Guillaume Pelletier - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=59927223

A really interesting thing about the incoming Trump administration is the now open and obvious influence of the mega rich on it.  The most obvious example is the overarching presence of the world's most wealth many, South African Elon Musk, but he's far from the only one.

It wasn't all that long ago that Republicans continually suggested that mega rich Hungarian George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg were a big problem.  Even now, Wyoming Secretary of State Chuck Gray wants to do something about "Zuck Bucks".

Love of money, as we know, is the root of all evil, and and one thing it does is to buy power.  Absolute power, we're told, such as the U.S. Supreme Court has pretty much handed over to the Executive Branch, corrupts absolutely.

Something needs to be done about this and what that something is, quite frankly, includes taxation.  Populists have to decide if they want to be drone servants of their party, or the owners of their party in this regard.

So far, it looks like the drones have it.

The immigration spat

The best argument for doing away with H1B I can imagine.  Also, not only a crude dip into vulgarity, but an unfortunate sexual insult by a man who clearly knows that's now how that actually works, given his many progeny by many willing women.  And explain to me how Evangelicals feel that this camp is moral?

It is interesting, however, how a fight has suddenly broken out in the MAGA camp which is related to this.  The GOP campaign against immigrants in the general election blurred the lines between legal and illegal immigrants.  It was relatively clear that basically many hardcore Rust Belt and rural Trumpies didn't like immigrants in general.

There are, I'd note, real reasons to be concerned about the American immigration rate.  But for immigration, the US population would be falling, which contrary to widespread belief would frankly be a very good thing.  But demonizing immigrants is flat out wrong, and we're not actually having the conversation we should be, which would have a lot more to do with conservation, economics, and yes, culture, than whatever it is that we are arguing about.

One thing now that we are arguing about is H1B, a visa program.  I've seen an immigrant Pakistani Trumpy robustly claim that this program lets in illiterate people who can't speak English in Italian restaurants to, in contrast, Elon Must backing it on the basis that that he came in the country that way and as the world's richest sperm donor, he loves himself, and everyone else should too, as he's good for the country.

He's not good for the country.

Interestingly, there's some lingering questions if Musk violated the country's laws when he came in.  He probably didn't, but it's interesting.  If he did, and I'm not saying he did, that would make him one of those super nasty law breaking immigrants who should be back up and returned to their land of origin.

On other ironies which are worth noting, this spat has really taken weird turns.  Ann Coulter told Vivek Ramaswamy that she wouldn't have voted for him as he's of Indian extraction, which is as racist as can be, but at least honest.  Some Republicans are defending H1B, others are condemning it.  Steve Bannon called Musk a toddler.  Vivek Ramaswamy fought back and claimed American culture worshipped mediocrity, implying foreign cultures do not, which is ironic given that the Freedom Caucus tends to have a deep suspicion that education in general is bad.

Frankly, this debate, if it heads in the direction Ramaswamy is taking it, might be a good thing for the populists.  Populism right now does exalt the stupid and vulgar over the educated and erudite.  He used the example of the "prom queen", which is probably misplaced, unless we regard the Hawk Tuah Girl as the nation's prom queen, which right now she frankly is..  

Ramaswamy has a point.

Trump clearly is okay with some immigrants, such as ones he'll marry.  It makes me wonder what dinner talk is like at the old Trump homestead.

When things hit the news.

On this story, I had the odd experience of having somebody say the other day "I see you are now having trouble up there with immigrants too". They were from Texas, and this was a phone call.

I had to ask what he meant, but apparently the arrest of an illegal alien here made national news.

It's interesting in that this isn't all that newsworthy here.  I don't know why people would think otherwise, but rural states like Wyoming have had illegal aliens just as long as anyone else, and given the blue collar nature of work here, probably longer.

Gerontocracy


Not only are we developing an oligarch problem, it has a gerontocracy problem as well, which this past election certainly pointed out.  We have an ancient (and seemingly impaired) President, and an ancient, and rather odd acting, President Elect.

Trump is 78 years old, of course.  Locally, one of our Senators is 72, and the other 70.  Not young.  Our Congresswoman is a comparatively youthful 62.

Texas Republican Congresswoman Kay Granger is 81, and is now living in a memory care facility.  She hasn't cast a vote since July, which of course makes sense.  

Of note, she spent a year, starting in January 2023, as the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.  That says something, and what it says is that mental decline can really be rapid.

Why, as a nation, are we comfortable with this?

On a positive, if perhaps sad note, she did not seek reelection.

The UK bans puberty blockers

The US should follow suit.

The entire "trans" movement is really based on an illusion of epic proportions.  We are, truly, born male and female while some are more masculine than others, or more feminine than others, boys are boys, as they say, and girls girls.  People who are confused on this point are, in reality, very few, and those who persistently are mentally ills.  Almost all teens who claim to be "trans", aren't and the overwhelming majority of them come out of it relatively quickly.  For that matter, adults who claim to be "trans" aren't.  

Puberty blockers are child abuse on the Aktion T4 and there's no excuse for it.

Back to the populists for a second, it's insanity like giving children puberty blockers that helps explain their rise.  In future years this behavior will be regarded the same way eugenics in Nazi Germany is now.  How mass lawsuits have not broken out is beyond me.  

Mjuk flicka.  Soft Girls, Kept Women, Feminist Women, and a More Natural Life.

ICELANDIC MILKMAID ON HER MORNING ROUND

This is a fine, sturdy pony standing so stockily for his photograph, and he can make light of his burden of buxom beauty with her heavy can of milk. She cares not for saddle or stirrups, for most of these island people are born to horseback, and her everyday costume amply serves the purpose of a riding-habit for this strapping Viking's daughter, with her long tresses shining in the breeze.  

(Original caption, of interest here I wouldn't call this young lady "buxom" or "strapping", but just healthy.  This might say something about how standards have changed over time.)

Mjuk flicka a Swedish term for "a kind pleasant" girl, but it sort of translates as "soft girl".  In this context its a bit of a trend, and one that's worrying feminist.

It probably should.

We've had other threads along these lines, but its fairly clear that a fair number of women have come to the conclusion that the push into the business and working world that came along in the 1970s hasn't really done them as much as a favor as the propaganda then and now would have it.  This recalls the TikTok breakdown some young woman had that's discussed here:

Women at work. "Whoever fought, for women to get jobs. . . . why?. . . . why did you do that?" Looking at women (and men) in the workplace, and modern work itself, with a long lens.

And also here:

A lamentation. The modern "world.*

One of the odd things that the "soft girl" is exhibiting is that she's an example of reinventing old social norms backwards and highly imperfectly, and that is concerning.  Rather than acting as a very traditional wife, she's essentially reduced herself to concubinage.  Her male supporter could sever ties at the drop of a hat.  She's serving in the traditional concubine role, free of any children or responsibility, and providing what we might charitably refer to as companionship.  This is bound not to go well, which reaching back to tradition without the duties of responsibilities associated it, usually does.

I can't help but note the contrast to the Mantilla Girls I continue to run into at Mass, including Christmas vigil. Due to being in a packed church, combined with my wife' s decision making process, we ended up in the cry room.  This followed a brief pre Mass trip to the balcony, where there was room, but then the long suffering spouse brought up 200 other options which sent us back down.  Anyhow, there was room in the cry room, which also contained one extended family with a baby.  The baby never cried.  One of the parishioners in the room was a Mantilla Girl, quite attractive and very nicely dressed.

Its interesting for a variety of reasons, including the contrast to the soft girl.  The Mantilla Girls have a much more realistic grasp of the world.

Mehr Mensch sein.

Related threads:

What the Young Want.* The Visual Testimony of the Trad Girls. The Authenticity Crisis, Part One.



Last edition:

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 67th Edition. So you say you want a revolution?