Romney’s Last Chance
If we can believe most pollsters, President Obama has the election sewn up and in the bag. He is leading in most of the crucial swing states, and, insiders are saying, Governor Romney's only chance is a knock-out blow in one of the debates. Given Romney's rhetorical clumsiness, this is unlikely. Obama is not much of a debater, true, and he cannot speak impromptu without tripping over his jumbled syntax, but he is Cicero and Burke, compared with the uninspiring Romney, whose wooden grin and rah-rah manner are what you get when you cross a college boy with a stage villain.
The pollsters' predictions are based, to a certain extent, on certain demographic assumptions that are widely quoted in such infallible sources as National Public Radio. If black voters, 95% of whom voted for Obama last time around, repeat their record turn-out and Mexican voters support Obama to the extent they did in 2008, the President only needs 38% of the white vote to win. Scott Rasmussen, among the most reliable pollsters, has drawn the obvious conclusion: He observed recently that the Romney campaign is the last stand for the GOP establishment.
The Republicans are on the horns of a dilemma that they have helped to create. To solidify their base, they have to call for restrictions on immigration--restrictions they have no intention of enacting or enforcing--but their tough rhetoric has alienated the one group on whom their future depends: Mexican-American voters.
Conservatives (I was one of them) were warning them of this danger as long ago as the 1980's, but the Republicans' response is that agribusiness and other industries depend on the cheap labor of underpaid illegal immigrants. As the novelist Edward Abbey pointed out at the time, the Republicans want their cheap labor, while the Liberals have their cheap cause. Between them, they pried the doors off our southern border and flung them into the Rio Grande. Whether they win or lose this presidential race, the Republicans will have to run openly, next time around, on a program of open borders, amnesty for illegals, and stepped up Affirmative Action privileges for Latinos. If the strategy does not work, they have only themselves to blame.
But, are the polls correct? Is the race Obama's to lose? Possibly, probably. I have one nagging doubt. As they used to say in the Westerns, it's too quiet out there. Four years ago, at this point, there were yard signs all over my neighborhood. This time, there is hardly anything. The people I meet in business or at church are all promising to vote for Romney, but it is not because they like the governor. In fact, they do not. They do, however, fear that an Obama victory will finish off the American economy, wipe out their pensions, and eliminate Social Security. That is enough for them, and it may be enough for me.
There is, I think, another reason for the lack of public support for Romney: fear. People are afraid of reprisals. It is not so much that they fear attacks from the New Black Panthers or other militant groups, but in displaying a Romney sign they may think they are inviting accusations of bigotry. I have, in fact, heard such talk.
But, then, why are there so few Obama signs? My black neighbors, in 2008, covered their yards with signs and banners. This year, nothing. Some black Americans tell reporters that they are disappointed in the President's failure to deliver on his promises; others seem so confident of victory that they are not doing anything for the campaign.
The Obama campaign and its allies are clearly worried about the apathy. The Jewish Committee on Education and Research (a well-heeled PAC) has prepared a tasteless and poorly written commercial, starring former Hollywood star Samuel L. Jackson. The refrain of the commercial, "Wake the F-word up!" is shouted by Jackson (a former militant) at the members of a liberal white family that have become apathetic. In the end, the phrase is shouted by the heroine of hte commercial, a girl roughly ten years old. There was a time, not so long ago, when the makers of such a commercial and the parents of the child would face some consequences for putting profanity into the mouth of a little girl. We have made such progress in recent years that no one seems to be disturbed.
Apathy is Romney's only hope. The Republicans will probably turn out their base. I haven't voted Republican in a Presidential election since 1980, but I am strongly considering it now. My only motives are greed and fear. I can see my dreams of retiring to Italy going up in smoke (though certainly not factory smoke), if this inept administration is reelected. This is a wide-spread feeling in the American middle class. If Romney does better than expected with Mexican Americans and if the black voters persist in their apathy, we may be spared the dreaded four more years.
In the long run--and in America, long runs are shorter than the election cycle--it does not matter who wins. Within a few years, tax-consumers will so outnumber tax-payers that there will be no point in working or saving. I have seen the future--in places like Mexico--and it doesn't work.
Entries(RSS)
Dr. Fleming,
Well, Tom, if one should wish, as I do, to be hopeful about the future, this next election, regardless of who wins, should show most folks who have never noticed before, exactly what they are up against.
Or as Lord Tennyson once remarked: “There are two tragedies in life. One is to lose your hearts desire, the other is to get it.”
This might be the first election of many future ones where it doesnt matter how bad the Prez has done, we're going to support him because hes one of 'us' (non white). They dont care as long as he is the current figurehead of the anti-white team.
Daniel,
This is largely due to the high fertility rate among Hispanics, but it is also because the fertility rate among non-Hispanic whites in the US, fail to about 1.6 in the 1970s and early 1980s, and has only increased to around 1.8 or slightly below replacement level today, First we shot ourselves in the foot and then decided to shoot the other foot. Consenting American adults left to themselves have evidently decided children are more trouble than they are worth. And although our religious tradition looked askance at this, it was too weak from fragmentation grenades and its own doubts as to have any effect.
They dont (sic) care as long as he is the current figurehead of the anti-white team.
That is an unchristian, and as it happens, an untrue imputation. These men and women are semi-literate (the bettersort at least), hand-to-mouth living and mindless barbarians, in the Greco-Roman sense of both alienness and lacking any culture aside from the gratification of animal impulses. The majority are not bad per se but rather innocently stupid and oft-times reflexively spiteful (like a child or woman) against those they see, or are taught to conceive of, as invidiously happier in birth and circumstances of life.
Most vote, and I mean simply trouble themselves to attend the polling station, because they're told to either as a matter of course (the frequently met-with dutiful non-white uprooted bumpkin) or as the prelude to material reward. The mass media, and its academic preceptors and justifiers, set the tone and animate these entirely ignorant little people with an ideological and organised malevolence whereas for most it would otherwise be purely casual resentment venting itself in spasms. In short they're not the problem: their handlers are.
By the way, I watched the commercial and I have to say it was an entertaining and revealing 3 minutes and 40 seconds of trash. They were right, though, about one thing: the parents in that video DO need to wake up, though not for anything social or political: their younger daughter is dropping the F-bomb, their teenaged son is all giddy about gay marriage, their teenaged daughter is going to Planned Parenthood and their parents are subsisting on state aid.
What an adorable family!
Mr. Arnold,
I believe as Flannery O'Connor once said that,"You got to push hard against the age that pushes hard against you." But I sometimes think the reaction is so exaggerated and silly that only an intellectual could actually believe it.
"The majority are not bad per se but rather innocently stupid and oft-times reflexively spiteful (like a child or woman) against those they see, or are taught to conceive of, as invidiously happier in birth and circumstances of life."
Now maybe this explains some of the votes for most political contests and even a lot of the votes for the current President but even a voter green with envy, should seriously take a second look at the frog's life before asking to be turned into a Romney.
I stand by my words. I fail to see how its 'un-christian'. Its a fact that as we Balkanize even more, the country will devolve into factions. The non-white faction is only united right now because of a common enemy.
Since when did contractions become erroneous? I have always found the use of (sic) to a reply one disagrees with as a mark of rudeness.
These men and women are semi-literate (the bettersort at least), hand-to-mouth living and mindless barbarians, in the Greco-Roman sense of both alienness and lacking any culture aside from the gratification of animal impulses. The majority are not bad per se but rather innocently stupid and oft-times reflexively spiteful (like a child or woman) against those they see, or are taught to conceive of, as invidiously happier in birth and circumstances of life.
Well, ain't that just a fine and dandy comforting thought when they're flooding through my gates and swamping my kin!
In short they're not the problem: their handlers are.
If the "handlers," the Barbarian warlords, will not keep their rowdy rabble away from the Empire, then Rome has a duty to intervene for her own people's sake. Violently if necessary.
Mr. Arnold, I respect you and in general greatly enjoy reading your perspectives, but I have to say I am a bit puzzled by this latest from you.
Since when did contractions become erroneous? I have always found the use of (sic) to a reply one disagrees with as a mark of rudeness.
Goodness, goodness, young men nowadays are like a barrel full of gunpowder aren't they Mr Maxwell? One spark and they go off! Impatient of correction and always with a mind to take standards for insults.
I should have thought (you'll pardon this freshly offered rudeness) that the discreet and unostentatious notice, by use of a well-established grammatical parenthesis, of an error in quotation was a mark of accuracy not rudeness. Then again your better education, and better style, may have found apostrophes in contractions like "don't" for "do not" or "it's" for "it is" to be superfluous. Then again it may be a typographical mistake.
I'm sorry I didn't spare your feelings but in my defence, at this distance, it was hard for me to recognize that certain persons are above correction even for omitting apostrophes.
Its a fact that as we Balkanize even more, the country will devolve into factions. The non-white faction is only united right now because of a common enemy.
You write of a "common enemy" Mr Maxwell, and of rising factionalism in America. Surely this is intemperate language and surely the state America has reached, of extreme and artificially engineered heterogeneity, was made possible by the discord of already existing factions rending apart the white populace, otherwise the intrusion of strangers would not have occurred (barring a military assault which, obviously, the Latinos are incapable of mounting and did not do so to enter and settle, rather they were systematically let in and subsidised).
Would you assent Mr Maxwell to the proposition that that behaviour of the non-whites, of ethnocentric co-operation in eroding the power and extorting privileges from an unconfident and tottering majority, is rational and indicative of racial health? Would you, therefore, as an implication for the former stamp your approval on the corollary that the white majority in question is irrational, weak and dissolute, hopelessly dissolute, if it cannot summon into action its dwindling predominance in resources to rebuke the non-white extortions and recover the ignobly given concessions? If the non-whites (and we are granting them a high degree of cohesion and sophistication in this hypothesis which seems unwarranted) are rational and acting in healthy ways, and we irrational and unhealthy, where does our problem lie?
Women, Mr Maxwell - and you would no doubt know this being well-lived and a man in the full sense emotionally and intellectually not just reproductively - are emotionally and intellectually lesser. When injured (verbally as much as physically) they react with the undiscriminating rancour of an injured weakling: blind, overheated, doling out their hatred as an unrestrained torrent of anger, embarrassment and conscious inferiority. Let us think about our problem. If non-whites are emotionally and intellectually lesser, evidenced by incomes, academic acquirements and IQ, instead of knee-jerk racism to let off steam, it may be wise to ascribe non-white rise to the support, the guidance, of a superior intelligence being at work. I suggested the mass media and academe as hinting at an answer. I trust you will read no rudeness in these trifling remarks.
Mr. Arnold does not live in the States and is probably unaware of a development that goes unreported in the press, namely, the rapidly increasing rudeness and hostility of young blacks. Flash mobs and attacks on stores are only a superficial symptom. These poor people have been told--mostly by white people--all their lives that they are naturally superior in every way but have been robbed of their due by greedy, incompetent, devious whites. It must be true or why else do we subsidize their disagreeable life-styles? However, he is, on the moral issue, quite correct. We did this to ourselves. We turned away from our religion and our civilized traditions--the turn began many centuries ago. Blacks are merely pawns in the hands of evil whites--somewhat like Zombies in the old (not George Romero) movies, unthinking automata in a trance and doing evil under the control of wicked masters. Yes, it is perfectly true that younger blacks--women ever more than men--can be intolerable to be around, but in blaming or hating them, we are averting our eyes from the proper place in which to find the responsibility. White liberals can look in the mirror and see the leering faces of Montaigne and Voltaire.
The President, alas, is in water that is over his head.
Consider: in his conduct of Foreign Policy, can we point to any international development or policy where he has demonstrated unmistakable leadership or command of the occasion? Every indicator points to a conclusion that he is a practical tool of the entrenched bureaucracy, the M-I Complex being the lead player except on the rare occasion when his harpies have been last to speak to him and he blunders into a fiasco like Libya.
Consider: in his conduct of Domestic Policy, where has he demonstrated leadership? Nancy Pelosi piloted heath care into unimaginable complexities of bureaucracy while Ben Bernacke has been driving the thrifty class over a fiscal cliff of his own device in a last ditch effort to save the political economy of a wastral nation.
But is Mitt Romney the answer, avatar of the Republican Party of Dole, W., McCain-Palin, and himself likely to carry on in similar vein, if not worse? I cannot comprehend how war with Iran so that a war satyr's fantasies can be fulfilled will make matters abroad or economic, not to say moral matters, at home any better.
The President is a lightweight; Romney is a mechanic for a machine that deserves to fall apart.
We're just going to have to take our lumps: the consolation is that political despair is not despair.
Yes, we did it to ourselves. Cowardice and evasion that is getting its natural reward.
Oh Clyde, to hell with courage and facing difficult truths without evasion, we got out governed by people who knew how to govern! St. Crispen's day is sentimental poetic metaphor, better to die in the saddle leading and lying than to die in the saddle fighting. Just ask the soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obviously blacks are generally poorly behaved, but there are certain things worth noting here that, I think, are being ignored. Blacks are as a group very hostile toward homosexuality, mass immigration, and pointless foreign wars; and while the particular brand of Christianity to which most of them subscribe, to be perfectly honest, is ridiculously stupid, there is no denying that blacks are by far the most overwhelmingly religious ethnic group in America. So blacks on average are overwhelmingly more conservative than whiles; and to criticize liberalism by blaming the conservatives seems wrong to me. Upon consideration of these facts, I cannot understand why in a discussion of this kind, in which the source of America's problems are being debated, the very idea can even be thought of that blacks are as a group in any way concerned, Mr Maxwell. You are clearly correct in noting the unconquerable hostility which seems to be pervasive among large portions of african americans, but still--if the next 50 years are characterized by the succession of Obama-like presidents, that is exclusively the fault of white people.
I want my critics to point where I said it was solely the fault of blacks, etc. In fact I am usually slightly disgusted with the constant dumping on of blacks by more controversial rightists. I spoke only of the current reality; yes, one that was created by our overlords. It is just a fact that they have created a violent and/or needy underclass. Republicans seem more than happy to never win Texas again in a few decades, effectively making themselves a third party.
It is a myth that most blacks oppose any of things beyond an off-cuff negative reaction. Attempts have been made by both stupid Republicans and immigration restrictionists to reach out to them on their supposed 'family values' (and let's get real here - most black births are illegitimate and about a good number of all blacks infants are aborted) and for their mild opposition to mass immigration - both failures.
Mr. Maxwell hang in there, you are telling the truth and it is resented. The next artllliery round will be "narrow-minded, right-wing idealogues who would take away a woman's 'right to choose',...a member of a Church who has always done Her best to impeded science and progress, ... an adult with hyperexetneded adolescent imagination,.. Afterall, Black people go to "church" too, are hostile to homosexuals ??? and more conservative than Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. -- so there!!.... and . Anything to avoid the stinky breath of a dying thing.
Sure, it is a tough place but at least here they allow things to degenerate from conversation to discussion and back to conversation without panicking
I don't think it is very helpful to draw up sides. Everyone taking part in this discussion more or less agrees on the main point of Mr. Maxwell's argument, that American blacks, infected with the cult of minority rights, have in the main become dangerous to our safety and ruinous to the economy. On the other hand, it is not morally healthy to search for the mote in our black neighbors' eye and ignore the beam in our own. The while male ruling class is overwhelmingly responsible for the fix we are in. It is they who rejected Christianity, they who made a cult of the alien and foreign, they who pretended they could liberate people--women, slaves, children-- who could not liberate themselves. The problems caused by lawless and shiftless blacks in our society could be solved in a few months, but it would change very little. White liberals would find some new minority to import and champion--that is precisely what they did in Canada.
Whatever his advisors instruct Romney to do tonight, I hope at the last minute he does the exact opposite, there is always hope.
If only during that pathetic Republican convention, he dismissed the idea of softening his voice and acting submissive, he might of actually lured some women in. If only he knew that male power is what women are attracted to.
We can only guess what would happen if Romney developed a believable alpha acting technique, confident, semi-cocky etc. Sort of like a peacock, it's silly, but that's what women want to see. Even with Charlie Sheen to advise Romney, he still might lose, but at least it would be a downfall with a real smile on his face.
10 Winning Debate Questions :Romney Can Beat Obama
#1. If our US Ambassador had been a "person of color" and he was dragged out and raped before being brutally murdered by a mob of white Europeans would you accept that the crowd was angered by the United States allowing blasphemy such as the TV show "Family Guy"?
#2 Would you call on the Oscars to remove the blasphemer as Academy Awards host?
.......
#5 Seeing your addiction to apologies will you now apologize for using millions of US taxpayer dollars to create the current Libyan government and support the fanatics of the "Arab Spring"?
#6. Since you claimed that your view of homosexual "marriage" had "evolved" can you please explain why you opposed it in the first place?
#7 Why do you invite homosexuals to Easter and every Christian holiday but no homosexuals to your Ramadan or any Muslim events that you host at the White House?
#8 Do you support a bilingual or multilingual US with English merely one of many choices? Do you support Mexican illegals receiving US Drivers licenses as Governor Brown has granted in California?
#9 Will you support making homosexual Harvey Milk Day a National Holiday as it is in California? If not why not?
and the key question:
#10 How can you allow a single illegal alien to be employed in the USA while there are more Americans unemployed and underemployed than at any time since the Great Depression?
There seems to be a new apocalyptic mindset settling into a certain segment the citizentry. I can see it in my neck of the woods. I read Letters to the Editor from various small town newspapers in northwest Wisconsin, old men writing about how Obama's re-election will mean not just the end of American, but probably the end of the World too. Par for the course I guess. Who knew the Mayans had predicted the Presidency of Barak Obama?
I see it in fellows I know who are small-town journalistic colleagues, men who I had thought of as not particularly political or ideological who rant and rage in their editorials about Obama. Incoherent expressions of cursing at a dying light and the warning of the fires which will soon upon us if Obama wins. I ask myself if I know such men anymore? Where were they the last eight years, the last 12, the last 16 and 20? Asleep at the wheel? At the casino? The country changed so much that someone named Barak Hussein Obama could be elected President and they still in a state of shock. The feel like fools and so they act indignant because nobody told them what was going on or they told as was well until it wasn't.
Of course if you read Chronicles during this time you would know and Obama's election was entirely predictable. But these are people who voted for Roosevelt, Truman or Kennedy or Johnson and then discovered Rush Limbaugh later in life. News comes slowly to them. One such fellow journalist I know of, who likes to reprint sections of Charles Kauthammer columns in his own column as a font of wisdom, I quite remember saying a week after Obama was elected that regardless of what differences we may have with the new President his election still proved that only in America could Obama get elected and it proves we are still the exceptional nation. Don't laugh, I seem to remember they were saying something similar Election Night on Fox News too.
A month ago there was quite a bit of lauding of one William Jefferson Clinton for giving a masterful convention speech. Here was arguably one most dishonest men ever to sit in the Oval Office, a dishonorable, cynical man who used the White House as one used the back seat of '60 Chevy, and yet now, like Reagan, he is the Great Communicator. Even "conservatives" were saying this. What happen to murderer of Vince Foster? The drug dealer of Mena? The Draft Dodger? The murderer of Ron Brown? The Rapist? The Impeached One? "The Non-Patriotic President" as Janet Scott Barlow (hopefully we haven't lost sight of her) called, the title of a book TRI published. "My Nixon" she said and it was true. They had a lot in common. But as George Carlin once pointed out, liars usually win elections and become popular Presidents because "we like it when our leaders lie to us." The truth is just too painful.
Was this in the end just all rhetoric? The exaggerations of the apocalyptic made in another era? The typical fundraising pitch of Conservative INC. to make those who rage believe they are actually doing something by shelling out money they don't have? If Clinton's sins can be expunged and forgotten two decades after the fact, then is it an exaggeration to say Obama, as tedious and unremarkable an executive as has sat in the White House since Gerald Ford (and it's his supposed allies who say this), will be too long after he leaves the Presidency? Especially given the family life he leads is far more of a good example than "Bubba's' ever was and certainly better than some talk show hosts. And if Clinton and Clintonism are now fashionable and nostalgic, then why not vote for Obama's re-election since a good portion of West Wing and Cabinet are made up of Clinton allies and flunkies in the name of party unity? That way their screw-ups can continue well into the second term of Hilary's Administration!
Am I unreasonable to fear some good men may take their lives on Nov. 7 if Obama is returned to the White House, the way Hunter S. Thompson's despair got the best of him? Only because they've been encouraged to do so. They rage and fear because that's what the rest of us are doing. When we cannot provide them stout arguments or good candidates to beat back those in power and are left with "Obama's mother was whore!" 'Obama's father was really some black Communist writer!" "Obama is gay!" what are they to think of the nation and it's people who vote to re-elect him? That it's no country for old men? For some it may well be, that's why they leave to go to Mexico or Italy. My grandfather, God rest his soul, passed away a year ago and while sad one can at least know he was content with the past. And also know he's lucky he never watched or dealt with "Honey Boo Boo Child." Those bunkering themselves in their basements from the black menace should watch so they get a good look at the what the white menace will look like when they rob you to buy meth. You'll find a lot of similarities.
Elvis Nixon
Surprisingly enough, your proposed first debate question has an unexpected relevance to the incident in Libya.
Libya is currently the worst place in the world to be a black person. Arab Libyans have been hunting down, lynching, beating up, torturing, and publicly humiliating black Libyans and black migrants in their country after Gadaffi's fall. Streets where black Libyans live are found vandalized with graffiti with racial slurs. The Arabs in Libya just don't like black people very much - till date, no proposed reason has been found. They just don't like them.
Had this behaviour been pointed out during the news reports on the embassy storming, no apologies would have been issued. It would have been clear - the Bedouins in Libya are just mindlessly angry racist tribals who just don't like black people, who just don't like white people, who just don't like anybody who isn't them. It has nothing to do with blasphemy.
Replace Arab Libyans with "Golden Dawn thugs in Greece" or "skinheads in Russia", and you find very little difference. Yet somehow, nobody will ever apologize for hurting the feelings of a neo-Nazi skinhead in Russia.
@Elvis Nixon: brilliant, of course, but for Romney to pose such questions would require him to have the moral high ground on said issues, and it is not clear that he does.
@Sean: I can scarcely think of anything to add except my own personal anecdote:
Back in 2004 as I was articulating my own political ideas and discovering the Buchanan/Fleming/et. al. crowd (to avoid uttering "paleoconservative") as philosophical underpinnings, the first place I read about an obscure and unimpressive Senate candidate from Chicago, Illinois named Barack Hussein Obama was on these pages, under the pen of Samuel Francis (R.I.P.). History of course would prove Francis more than a little prescient in singling out the inflated importance ascribed to Obama in the mass media as a harbinger for this country's future, but I caught on to just what this would entail only months later:
I was in a doctor's office just days after the election and picked up the copy of Newsweek (hey, don't judge: pickings are slim in those places!) to entertain myself as I waited. The magazine featured a quarter page profile of each new Senator who had been elected to office...
... but an ENTIRE SPREAD for one B.H. Obama for Illinois!
Leafing through, I could not for the LIFE of me figured out what he had accomplished or done in life that would make him worth such a treatment. What war had he fought in, what decorations had he received, what great charitable outlets had he established, what artistic or sportive laureates had he won? (Yes, I do ascribe greatness to winners of sportive laureates, personally, but only to amateurs.) Or, even going by the vulgarized standards of modern greatness, what illness had he cured, what huge case had he won, what great enterprise had he started?
Nothing. Nothing at all. The man was an ordinary Harvard NOTHING and no one being DELIBERATELY inflated by someone behind the scenes with a sick sense of humor.
At that moment, I knew in my heart that "they" - and while I wasn't a conspiracy monger, I was sure that there must at least be some sort of groupthink behind it all - would try to make Barack Hussein Obama the next POTUS, and that they would have a huge chance of success.
A year later, sharing quips with my roommate, I remarked, "If Obama becomes president, I am quitting the country!" He agreed with my sentiment.
In mid-2008, I heard about a meeting of the Bilderberg Group in which the Clintons were told in no uncertain terms that they would not be back in the White House come 2009. I cannot for the life of me remember where or from whom I heard this, and given the tight lip of that crowd it may well be just hearsay. But that Clinton and Obama were both summoned in front of Bilderberg that year is not just hearsay, and if the story is true it certainly validates with my suspicions, which I admit are otherwise purely speculative.
On the other hand, if this delight seems just too good to be true, it is also too good to be written off point blank.
On the night of 10 December 2008, scarcely a month after my internal prophecy was fulfilled, I boarded a connecting flight in Detroit. That was the last I ever saw of the United States.
Yes, there is a sort of apocalyptic mindset about all this, but it's not just the Red Bloods you speak of. Back in 2004 I was obsessed, as some here may remember, with the possibility of a Civil War II. For now I have learned to put things beyond my control out of mind, out of sight. Stay tuned...
I must, as always, defer to your sounder, and more intimate grasp of the matter as a moral issue (the actual value of ploutos as a good), and as a comic one (reading Dr Fleming's exegetical series narrating Chronicles' beliefs and mores for the first time last night I was struck by the constant wit and penetration of your comments) Mr Reavis.
But more importantly than the Romney-Barry debate, news reports have fallen into my hands from overseas journals I subscribe to describing one of the most extraordinary performances in diplomatic history this century.
A scabrous lunatic, evidently just escaped from a holding cell for the criminally insane, invaded the stage and burst forth in front of the General Assembly of the latest incarnation of the Marxian Communist Internationale, and mandated that a sovereign country give up its independence and accede to his onerously arbitrary and self-interested demands, or else he held out summary death and destruction as the price. The representatives of the civilised nations, mostly Moslems and the Christian Western Europeans, were aghast but those of the Anglo-Saxons', in a fit of homicidal ecstasy common to those of that notoriously bloodthirsty and morally primitive race, were either supportive or showed favourable abstention in not condemning the criminal instantly as was done by the gentlemen present.
Under cover of an obscene prop (cardboard cut out to resemble a bomb) the madman made thinly veiled death threats against any brave soul who might dare defy him. The consecrated victims of his blood lust were handed the ultimatum of surrendering themselves, their families, and all they have or he, or the pet savages he has trained to do his bidding, would butcher them in their beds. I thought in this shocking menace I caught allusion to one of his clan's cruel tales where, though treated as guests, they had the throats slit of the eldest sons of their hosts' by the agency of a grisly supernatural ghoul and later celebrated this unconscionable treachery against unoffending teenage boys. At last, when the bounds of decency would brook no more outrage, security guards grabbed the psychopath and dragged him off the stage, the froth around his mouth not yet dry from its torrent of raving hate.
The monster in question goes under several names and once lived secretively in America under an assumed name (John Sullivan!) where, as a stock-exchange swindler, after gorging himself on the wealth of the stupid Americans, the fugitive went to hide in an aggressive and nuclear-armed terrorist state of evil name in Hither Asia. Here he made his keep and presides as a barbarian warlord responsible for pernicious illegal drug and armaments dealing that leaves the world in constant woe.
Rumour suggests to me that by unnatural wiles and outright subornation of traitors he has assumed into his hand the reins of much Western, particularly American, foreign policy. A foreign policy that consists of sending blond boys to spill out their guts over the desert for the profit, and entertainment, of our secret enemies and senselessly provoked, or humiliated, third-parties. Well, so much for the extraordinary affair of the lunatic at the General Assembly.
Mr. Arnold,
A compliment from you means something to me because your command of the language is so far beyond mine and because Chronicles is a tough crowd much like the old "Hole In The Wall" gang that once hung out in my neck of the woods ---- Not really evil men until they started drinking and fussing, then all hell would break loose and folks around the area would never be the same again. Keep up the good work.
A post script to Romney's Last Chance before the frantic backfilling obscures what we have been given to see for a few fleeting moments: we saw a dream that has been constructed over the course of 50 years in America's and Europe's Capitals and Universities collapse. The dreamers overreached, and it all came down. Nobel prize indeed.
Where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, the tears are less about Obama than about the dream. And, of course, they will not have it. It will have been the President's bad day.
I am not sure that this says all that much for Romney, but it tells me a great deal about Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Presidential politics in the Age of McLuhan.
Mr. Dooley--Please take no offense, but I wish I knew what you were talking about.
Mr. Scallon--Bully!
'Those bunkering themselves in their basements from the black menace should watch so they get a good look at the what the white menace will look like when they rob you to buy meth. You'll find a lot of similarities'.
Sean, you are right on target. They are far more of a menace to other whites who dont live in mixed neighbourhoods than blacks are. They dont care who has to suffer as long as they get their fix, and they'll steal anything from anyone, and not necessarily just to finance their next fix either. All over the country, in every region, there are poor blacks who are better behaved and speak better English.
Mr Olson: no offense taken. In striving for brevity, I evidently added some degree of difficulty: Romney, of uncertain ability, thumped Obama. Obama thumped Clinton and McCain. We have learned something, no?, about Obama, Clinton, and McCain and also Presidential politics in the electronic age of instant gratifications, mass political gratifications included. Hope this helps.
Ah. Thanks.