Let me give a constructive suggestion to TV, online and print news outlets. Put the words “BREAKING NEWS: BILLIONS WILL DIE UNLESS FOSIL FUELS ARE BANNED”
That’s actually a measured response to the data we’re seeing.
— Adam McKay (@GhostPanther) November 10, 2018
— Bill Grueskin (@BGrueskin) November 13, 2018
And certainly the Herald story was soon followed by an impressive avalanche of sleaze. In 1989, the Washington Post, certain that new president George H.W. Bush had been carrying on a lengthy affair with his longtime aide, Jennifer Fitzgerald, but unable to prove it, published a story that started with this insinuation-riddled sentence:
“Jennifer Fitzgerald, who has served President-elect George Bush in a variety of positions, most recently running the vice presidential Senate offices, is expected to be named deputy chief of protocol in the new administration, sources said yesterday.”
From there it was on to Al Gore’s alleged groping of massage-parlor workers, John McCain’s maybe-or-not affair with a lobbyist, John Edwards’ cheating on his cancer-riddled wife, Eliot Spitzer’s expensive taste in hookers, and Anthony Weiner’s belief that much of the world’s female population craved pictures of his genitals.
“That was a tough call the Miami Herald made,” said Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. “And there’s no question it changed things in terms of what gets reported and how.”
Hersh faced his own big call on reporting politicians’ sex lives in 1997, when he published a harshly critical biography of President John F. Kennedy, “The Dark Side Of Camelot.” Hersh, who among other things has uncovered the My Lai massacre and CIA domestic spying programs, undertook the book because of his interest in what he saw as Kennedy’s irresponsible behavior during the Cuban missile crisis.
“I never write about sex. Ever,” he said. “I was interested in how Kennedy drew this line in the sand during the Cuban missile crisis. He told [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, ‘Send any more weapons across this line and we go to war.’ And I always thought that was crazy because essentially you’re letting Khrushchev decide if there’s going to be a war that kills a huge number of Americans.”
When Hersh began asking his sources inside U.S. intelligence if there was something he didn’t understand about Kennedy, one of them suggested he talk to the president’s old Secret Service detail. What spilled out were voluminous tales of Kennedy’s sexual adventurism — with actresses, with White House staffers, with prostitutes; in hotels, alongside the White House swimming pool, even at a party at the Palm Springs home of Bing Crosby.
One of the objects of the president’s affection (or lust) was a young woman named Judith Campbell Exner, who was also sleeping with Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana. Another was an East German hooker named Ellen Rometsch, widely suspected (though never proven) to be a Communist spy.
“The Secret Service guys thought Kennedy’s cowboy foreign policy was related to his sex life,” recalled Hersh. “He was just a risk-taker. One of them told me that his first day on the job, in Seattle in 1961, this local sheriff came walking in with two women who were obvious hookers. The agent says, sorry, you can’t bring them in here, this is sealed off for the president. And the sheriff answered, ‘These women are for the president, he’s expecting them.’ “
As more and more agents went on the record about Kennedy’s partying and their belief that Kennedy was a daredevil in everything he did, the riskier the better, Hersh felt he had no choice but to use it in the book. “I had all kinds of stuff about the Bay of Pigs, Castro, the Mafia, but people were only interested in one chapter, the one on sex,” he recalled. “And in large part, that’s because nobody ever reported this kind of stuff before … Even though they knew all about it.”
* Variety: The Crucial Mistake of ‘The Front Runner’: It Turns Gary Hart Into a Poster Boy for Idealism
Yet part of the lesson Clinton learned from Hart was that it’s better to keep cool about your bad behavior. Hart could never shake the perception that he was blaming others for his own transgressions. (He couldn’t shake it even if you did believe that the media had now gone too far.) And that’s one reason why his campaign never recovered from the scandal. The emotional subtext of Hart’s defensiveness was the humiliation he refused to own up to. He was shamed for having an affair, shamed for canoodling, and that must have felt harsh beyond all reason. Yet if he’d stood his ground and been willing to take it, who knows? Four years later, Bill Clinton — revealed, by the post-Gary Hart press, to be a serial adulterer who carried on many more affairs than Hart did — steadfastly refused to stand down, and he was elected anyway. (That said, a number of people who supported Clinton may now feel differently about him.)
It’s too easy to say that the American public does or does not care about a presidential candidate’s private behavior. It’s too easy to say that the media should or should not ignore it. The spirit and conduct of the media changed, fundamentally, during the Hart saga (a tectonic shift “The Front Runner” captures quite well), but the question of how the media should act isn’t black-or-white. It remains an ever-shifting grey zone. (Should the press not have reported on John Edwards’ affair? Or on the extramarital scandals of Donald Trump?)
Even if Gary Hart was “wronged” by seeing his affair outed by a cultural game change, the way he reacted to it wasn’t admirable — it was entitled. Yet those who are making a Hollywood docudrama about American political life may feel as if they can’t afford to have a petulant, dislikable hero. (I’m guessing that the Dick Cheney of Adam McKay’s upcoming “Vice” will be a scoundrel, but a strangely likable one.) So “The Front Runner,” in its way, tries to elevate who Gary Hart was. The movie captures all too accurately what went on during those three fateful weeks when the Hart campaign imploded in the face of a brave new world of tabloid-gone-mainstream media. Yet the film says that what changed during that pivotal moment wasn’t just media or politics but history itself. It says that the taking down of Hart was a tragedy that fundamentally influenced the course of America over the last 30 years.
The film wants us to think that if the Hart scandal had never occurred, the following events would have taken place. Hart would have won the Democratic nomination and would have defeated George H.W. Bush for the presidency. The Gulf War would never have happened. The presidency of George W. Bush would never have happened. The Iraq War would never have happened. And the programs believed in by Gary Hart — new ideas about the environment and technology that he insisted, like a mantra, on referring to ad nauseam as “new ideas” — would now be in place. All of which sounds just dandy, and all of which sounds like it came out of some domino theory of wish-fulfillment, like the political version of “Back to the Future.”
* KMG: Gary Hart(pence) was always a slippery man. Donna Rice: Trump supporter, anti-porn crusader
Wikipedia: “Shortly after he became the new frontrunner, it was revealed that Hart had changed his last name, had often listed 1937 instead of 1936 as his birth date and had changed his signature several times.”
— (((Luke Ford))) (@lukeford) November 13, 2018
* Is Obama gay? “She recently revealed that her children were born via IVF treatment. Sort of adds credibility to all the stories regarding her husband being light in the loafers.”
Britain knows how to lower crime but insists on doing the opposite: importing ever-more Muslims & Africans. And LOL at AA hire Cressida Dick touted as an expert. She knows how to kill innocents (Jean Charles de Menezes) but not how to protect them https://t.co/sqzcyhf3u4
— Kevin Michael Grace🏴🇮🇪⚜🇳🇴 (@KMGVictoria) November 13, 2018
* Only 4 of Germany’s 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report: “A recent report by the German military to the German parliament detailed the catastrophic readiness levels of the German military. Of its entire submarine fleet, zero boats are seaworthy. Of its fleet of Eurofighters (their most advanced fighter), only 4 are mission capable, zero of the German navy’s frigates are mission capable, none of its heavy transport planes are mission capable, only 39 of its 244 tanks are battle ready (that’s less than one US Army tank battalion’s worth of tanks capable of battle, with a grand total of less tanks than one US Army heavy division for their whole military). The rest of the stats look awful, and that doesn’t get into severe problems with morale and undermanning. All other Western European militaries are in more-or-less the same parlous state. They can’t fight anybody.”
* Posted 09 November 2018 – 06:23 AM
I saw that story. It makes no sense.
IVF is where eggs are extracted from the mom with surgery, fertilized in a lab and reintroduced to the uterus to grow. It overcomes problems conceiving, for example, someone whose fallopian tubes are blocked due to scarring from an ectopic pregnancy might use it.
It’s not going to do anything for you if your problem is carrying the pregnancy to term. Moreover, a single miscarriage, while sad, doesn’t really count as infertility. They’re common. Most women who have one go on to have successful pregnancies.
“I realized that as I was 34 and 35,” the famously fit Mrs. Obama said in excerpts from an ABC special set to air Sunday. “We had to do IVF.”
Again, that makes no sense. Nobody decides to do IVF just because they’re 34. Beyond the expense, the procedures are painful. I have friends who’ve done it.
Nationalism can grow into imperialism. We saw this with Athens, a city-state to be sure. At first, it was one city-state among others and got along. But as it got richer and stronger, it sought hegemony over other city-states and finally clashed with Sparta, another city-state that developed overweening ambitions.
Initially, Germans unified to create a nation. But it became the most powerful nation, and power has a way of expanding. So, nationalism can be the base of imperialism. British Empire and French Empire were cases of nationalism + imperialism. Britons were awful proud of their British Core and did everything to preserve it(like in DUNKIRK). But they were also imperialists who ruled 1/4 of the world.
The American colonies began as part of an imperialist project. But they broke away from the mother country. It was born of both imperialism and resistance to imperialism. But as the 13 colonies grew in power, it sought to expand, even waging war on Canada. That didn’t work, but it moved Westward to take land from Indians and then waged war on Mexico. So, the theme of US is both national independence from British Empire AND imperial expansion to become a great power. Once the continent was tamed, US waged war on Spain to grab more territory. While Anglo-America turned into an empire, Spain collapsed into nationhood. But the horrors and cost of WWI led many Americans to focus on the nation. There was a sense that ‘we have enough’ and meddling in other places will lead to more headaches. But then, WWII happened… followed by the Cold War. While the US developed some imperial institutions in the early 20th century, the sourness with the aftermath of WWI led most Americans, elites and masses, to not further develop them. But WWII and Cold War led to such elaborate and expensive development of imperial institutions of world hegemony that so many in the Deep State are addicted to them even in the absence of other Evil Empires to combat around the world.
For most of human history, as there were no international treaties bound by law, there was only regionalism, not nationalism. And political regions were always shifting and changing in accordance to power. So, the areas of Persian hegemony were expanding, shrinking, expanding, shrinking, etc. Now, tribalism is as old as mankind itself, but nationalism is more than tribalism. Tribalism is about a sense of unity with those whom know and feel closest with. It’s a gut instinct. In contrast, nationalism is about a sense of solidarity with many strangers whom you never meet in life. And nationalism can be premised on anything: ethnicity, ideology, religion, and etc. But history has shown that ethnicity is the soundest and most resilient foundation of nationhood. It is why capitalist West Germany united with communist East Germany than unite with capitalist Italy or France. West Germans and East Germans shared ethnicity. And in the US, black Christians feel closer to black Muslims than to white Christians.
Imperialism today would be insane, but it had its place in history as a constructive force. It’s like a forest fire. Very destructive but also clearing the ground for new saplings to grow. If not for European imperialism, nationalism wouldn’t exist around most of the world. Most of the world would be ruled by elites who regard their own folks essentially as subjects than as comrades. In the Middle East and Asia, the ruling elites were like big tall trees. They hogged most of the sunlight and power-nutrients. Little plants were beneath them and stunted in growth. It was with the Western imperialist fire that the old institutions of power began to fade away, and that led to the rise of new movements and new elites based on the Western nationalist model where the people would not be subjects but fellow countrymen of the elites.
Granted, the Western Imperialists did much to both strengthen and weaken local elites. As long as the local elites were willing to collaborate, the Western Imperialists protected and favored them. So, the Western fire was directed at the saplings and little plants while protecting the big old trees. The West actually backed the Manchu elites in the crushing of the Taiping Rebellion that called for something new. But because the native elites came to be seen as puppets of foreign overlords, they increasingly lost respect and legitimacy(the mandate) in the eyes of the people.
If not for Western Imperialism, the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia would now probably be ruled by the old elites who prevent any change or progress. So, the rise of national orders around the world owed to Western Imperialism. Not only did local peoples learn of Western nationalism but developed their own nationalism to resist Western imperialism.
At any rate, whatever good imperialism did in the past, it is no longer necessary since all the world has been discovered and connected by trade and communication. Whatever crimes the Western Imperialists committed, they deserve acknowledgement as the makers of the Modern World. Also, non-whites know of each other only because of Western Imperialism. For 1000s of yrs, Indians and Chinese hardly knew each other as both tended to be insular and static. And non-whites in the Old World came to know of the New World only because the world was united by imperialism. So, we have to give imperialism its due.
Also, globalism would be fine as long as it meant the world trading and communicating with one another. But it has come to mean hegemony by the lone superpower that has gone morally degenerate with Homomania, insane Wars for Israel, and needless craziness like ‘new cold war with Russia’. It also means smashing of borders by masses of migrants who’ve been given the greenlight to trample into whatever nation, esp rich white ones.
Though nationalism vs imperialism is a useful dichotomy, history has also been about imperialism vs imperialism and nationalism vs nationalism. In the case of imperialism vs imperialism, one empire can be friend to nationalism at war with another empire. In LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, the hero is an agent of British Imperialism aiding nascent ‘Arab Nationalism’ against the Ottoman Empire. (The irony, of course, is that even as Lawrence berates the Arabs of being a divided Little People, the European Christendom in WWI is the stage of divided white folks slaughtering each other by the millions over inches of territory. Not much of pan-European/Christian unity either.)
French Empire was the greatest friend to American national independence. Soviet Empire backed Vietnamese nationalism against American imperialism, and American Empire gave moral support to Eastern European nationalisms against Soviet imperialism.
Though China and Japan are not at war, there are real national tensions between them. There are also tensions between China and Vietnam. This is nationalism vs nationalism. And in this case, the smaller nation seeks alliance with a great imperial power to gain leverage against the bigger national power. So, Vietnam now has good relations with US because it fears China. And Poland and Hungary, even though in nationalist mode, are allied with the US empire because they still fear the Russian Bear.
There have been cases where imperialism may have saved a people/nation from extinction. Thais and Vietnamese were carving up Cambodia for themselves, and Cambodia may have been saved as a distinct territorial entity only by the intervention of French Imperialism.
Anyway, that was then, this is now. It is possible for the world to have Universal Nationalism. Indeed, that was what United Nations was about. It was the idea that, no matter how weak or small a nation, its sovereignty-borders-and-culture would be respected. It did for nations what the Constitution did for individuals. In the US, the law ensures certain basic rights for everyone, no matter how poor or weak. Jeff Bezos has gazillions but if he murders a homeless person, he’s in big trouble. Through most of history, powerful people could do pretty much as they pleased toward the weak. And powerful peoples routinely invaded, conquered, and pushed around weaker peoples.
European Empire was the biggest the world had seen, and yet, it spread ideas that were ultimately anti-imperial. The reason why European empire had grown so powerful was because there was more respect between elites and peoples. Even prior to rise of democracy and concept of basic rights, Christian Europe had banned whites-enslaving-whites. So, even as European aristocrats did push white folks around, they didn’t enslave them. There was serfdom in Russia, but even there, the nobles didn’t feel proud of it and felt it was fundamentally wrong. Russia on its own abolished it in time. In contrast, other peoples still enslaved their own kind.
Even in European monarchies, the people had more rights and guarantees. So, there was greater unity between rulers and the ruled in Europe, and this led to explosive growth in power. And with this power, the great European nations conquered much of the world. But in the conquest, they spread the notion that rulers and ruled could be one united people instead of rulers just trampling on subjects. Then, over time, the non-West began to produce a new kind of elites who appealed to their masses as brothers and comrades, and this led to death knell of Western Imperialism.
Anyway, there was so much hope with the UN project. But the UN is now an anti-nationalist monstrosity Non-whites valued the UN as a platform to press for national rights. As the non-West was so less developed and poorer than the West, it feared White Power. What if the whites decide to seek hegemony over the non-West again? The Vietnamese, having experienced French Imperialism, couldn’t believe that the US would be any different. It was just the New Boss. During the Cold War, the USSR backed certain nations, and US did the same. Most non-aligned nations feared USSR or US or both. So, their message to the UN was that they had a right to be left alone and not be invaded/colonized again as in the Age of Empire.
But then, the non-West began to change its outlook when, in a spectacular failure of imagination and prophecy, the West began to welcome tons of non-white immigration-invasion. The non-West went from fearing the ‘Return of White Imperialists to Rob Us of Our Nationhood’ to ‘We can move to the West and take all that goody rich stuff from white folks who’ve grown old, decadent, soft, and stupid.’ So, now the UN runs propaganda films about how the West must welcome mass invasion. And as the West is now ruled by cuck-collaborators of the Glob, they play along. And so, the ideal of Universal Nationalism went to hell.
It’s been said that the slave trade ruined the African Kingdoms. The profits were so huge that the dropped everything and ran after Black Gold to sell to whitey. And Mass Immigration has had the same effect on much of the Third World. Too many people just gave up on nationalism, independence, pride, dignity, and hard work to make things better. Instead, they are glue to TV beaming false fantasies of US as paradise of Cool and Wealth. Or Europe as the Welfare State that doles out freebies to all comers. Mutter Merkel.
Though US and Cuba have been enemies, Cuba at least tried to develop their own national power and economy. Puerto Rico just placed all the bets on ‘Go to America and take from whitey’. Of course, there is shame in being a leech, so Puerto Ricans like Luis Guiterrez try to mask their shame with highfalutin talk of ‘justice’ and ‘compassion’. Anyway, all the Third World has gone from the Cuban Ideal to the Rican Ideal. From virtuous nationalism resisting the empire to venal globalism to leech off empire.
While it’s true that many immigrants in the West have done well for themselves, the globo-migration mindset has corrupted the souls of so many peoples in non-white nations. Instead of doing real stuff to make their nations better, they just watch TV and dream of making it to the West. They’ve become refugees from National Pride toward Global Dependence.