Pelosi's Far-Left Bill: The Bigger Problem

Yesterday I proposed that Nancy Pelosi's horrible fund-all-the-lefty-wish-list never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste bill was maybe just her way of showing the lefty activist community that their agenda just wasn't going to fly. Not this week. Try again later, wokies.

Today I am reading a lot of commentary outraged at the rank partisanship of the Dems, and how horrible it is, etc. Yes. Of course it is. Partisanship is what politicians and activists do every day.

But let us understand the bigger picture.

The Dems really believe in legislating their progressive morality. They really believe that we need laws to enforce diversity in the work place, and that these laws can make America a better place.

Do you see the difference between a law that makes racial and sexual discrimination illegal and a law that penalizes failure to achieve government-set racial percentages in the workplace?

Do you see the difficulty of making judgements based on percentages of different races and sexes in a particular corporation or workplace? For instance, did you know that well-born white women have really entered the life sciences in battalion strength but not so much in computers and engineering? So, how does the government judge the situation at, say, a microbiology department at a university and a Silicon Valley startup? Who gets harassed and fined? At what point?

Well, we know. They set up a bureaucracy with quasi-legal authority to judge and harass corporations that don't meet their moral standards. As the bureaucracy feels appropriate.

My point is that once you get away from a pretty black-and-white situation -- as in not hiring a guy because he is black where there are incriminatory statements on record -- you have a problem. How do you deal with the vague and uncertain question of whether a particular racial and sexual breakdown can be reliably dealt with by government prosecutors and the courts? Or government administrators?

Government is the agent for protection from existential peril. Morality -- churches, activist groups, women´s gossip networks -- is the means of doing social control over things that are not questions of life and death. And, per our beloved Founders, it is best to separate the organs of force from the organs of morality.

And the fact is that the progressive movement instinctively understands this. That is why it represents each of its agenda items as a matter of life and death.

But most moral issues are not a matter of life and death, and they should not be encoded into law.

Many of the commentators outraged by the Dems' shenagigans are demanding that we teach them a lesson at the ballot box. And certainly they need that.

But I return to the basic Breitbart notion that politics is downstream from culture. And the John C. Wright's  expansion that culture is downstream from religion.

Then there is a further argument that religion is downstream from social animals. In other words, the whole point of religion in the broad sense is that social cooperation with moral rules is a lot less bloody and expensive than deciding everything with a fight. Jordan B. Peterson makes the point in his 12 Rules that even lobsters have a social hierarchy, so that lobster males don't fight over every little thing. But the Good Little Girls interviewing him on TV had no clue what he was talking about.

So, how soon do you think that our liberal friends will get this? Take, for instance Kristen Doerer, Managing Editor of Right Wing Watch, whose job in life is to search out "far-right" offences to progressive morality and name and shame the perpetrators. What would it take for her to see the error of her ways?

Well, we know the answer. It is contained in books like When Prophecy Fails by Festinger et al. Every religion, every ideological movement, is a prophetic movement, predicting some kind of perfect world in the future. And when its prophecy fails it doesn't give up, not right away. Indeed failure initially encourages a deepening of prophetic enthusiasm. But after a while the adherents start to fall away.

Now I think it is reasonable to say that the basic left-wing prophecies have failed. And the intensified enthusiasm of today's wokerati is, in a way, a marker of that.

What we need to do is show our lefty friends, again and again, that their prophecies have failed. That's the basic thing, that wherever leftism has been tried it has failed. Oh, we'll never persuade the leaders. But the followers...

Two other things.

First, to establish the notion that almost all the progressive agenda is about status and honor for the educated Gentry, as proposed by Curtis Yarvin in his "Clear Pill." It is not about saving the victims; it is about power and glory for the activistes. We need to establish every day that the moral preening of progressives is just that. Moral conceit.

Second, to attract victims from the rank-and-file of Gentry Clients and invite them to come on over and join the Commoner class. Like I say with my Little Darlings concept, the fact is that the helpless victims beloved by the progressives are beloved only while they are useful to the progressive power project. When they are no longer useful they are dropped like an overage mistress. The idea is simple. We Commoners care about people like you. The educated Gentry doesn't care about people like you.

Here's a way we can start. We can classify every progressive activist group as a church. And we can critique every lefty initiative as an effort to "legislate morality."

Actually, I think our lefty friends would be much happier if they formed a church and said woke confession to each other every Sunday. But they are too dumb to realize that is what they need.

And for tomorrow and next month, it sure wouldn't hurt for President Trump to be experienced by the average American as "doing the right thing." And it will really help if he restarts the economy real soon.

Suppose Pelosi Was Crazy LIke a Fox

Everyone is agreed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was acting like a prehistoric progressive fossil when she intervened in the good old American coronavirus pork fest to interject a bill larded up with progressive rubbish like mail-in voting and $15 minimum wage and more windmills and diversity, diversity, diversity.

But maybe she was really acting like a sensible philosopher of political contagion.

Think about it: here she is in San Francsico mansion for a well-earned rest, and dealing all week with all manner of lefty activist groups each with their own bauble that they wanted to hang on the coronavirus Christmas tree.

Now think about it. The sensible, practical thing to do would have been to have an aide get on the phone to Schumer's aide and get them to sneak a few goodies into the Senate bill. On the Q.T. That is what an experienced practical politician does.

But she didn't do that. Instead she arrives in DC like Queen S*** and demands that the whole of Washington, DC comes to a screeching halt and introduces a bill that is a caricature of "far-left" fever dreams.

Immediately all hell breaks loose, and guys like me call their senators and representatives demanding that they cut the c*** and act to save the economy. I have to admit that I have never called a congressional office before. Then next morning I called 'em again and left more messages.

So Nancy caves.

But suppose that Nancy Pelosi all along has been trying to deal with her crazies by giving them what they want so that they can see for themselves that pushing the lefty agenda is a quick way to political Jail, do not pass Go. Why, it might even reelect Trump and return the House to the GOP!

Suppose she has been telling each lefty group along that this just is not the hour to push the progressive agenda. Hey, she tells them, wait until the next Democratic president is inaugurated. Then we can push your agenda. But, she says, if you insist I'll go back to DC and get your issue in the bill. But I don't think it will end well.

But what does she do? She piles all the lefty rubbish into a heap and lights a firestorm, and the whole thing goes up in flames.

I ask you. Is Nancy Pelosi really that stupid? I don't think so. I think this was an effort to clear the decks until after the election. Or better still 2024.

I was reading Jonah Goldberg this morning and he had a half-sensible thing to say.

One of my priors is the idea that our political parties are overdue for a major transformation. The coalitions that constitute them are unstable and combustible. The ideas that once bound them together are frayed.

Well, Jonah, I would say that the Republican Party is well on its way to reinvention as the Commoner party, Donald J. Trump, proprietor.

But the Democrats! They are the party of the educated Gentry pretending to be in it for the victims. Only their entire agenda is really just Gentry posturing and moralizing: it all comes down to jobs and status for the Gentry and its fads and enthusiasms. It is all about restoring Meaning to the lives of north Seattle liberals now that the moral posture of driving a Prius has become a little stale.

It's already obvious what the future Republican Party is going to look like.

But the Democrats? Good question! How do you square the moral preening of educated professionals with the needs of immigrants busily working their way up and the descendants of slaves now camping out in decaying cities?

Quite honestly I don't have a clue.

But I have a message for the immigrants and slave descendants. Jobs, jobs, jobs.  You'll find them in the Republican Party's economic agenda. Democrats really don't care about people like you.

Just Because I Made a Little Joke

A while back in American Thinker I penned a piece about "Women, the Public Square, and Cancel Culture." In it I made the point that I had spent years pondering that women don't like the public square, and if we give them too much opportunity they will abolish it. See the "cancel" culture and microaggressions and safe spaces. Oh, and I made a little joke:

In other words, women don’t confront someone that has insulted them [in the public square]. No. They complain about it to a third person, as in “I can’t believe President Trump tweeted that.” And the complaint ripples through the “hive mind” of the community of women, and sooner or later the culprit is named, shamed, and shunned. Or, as we now say, “impeached.”

A couple of days ago I was searching Google for my use of "Culture of Insult" and I found that back on December 10 that AT piece had been featured over at Right Wing Watch in a piece by Kristen Doerer: "Women in the Public Square Are to Blame for Impeachment, Right-Wing Blog Says."

As Foghorn Leghorn said, so many years ago, "That's a joke, boy." I think I am going to send Kirsten Doerer an email:

Attn: Kristen Doerer, Managing Editor

A couple of days ago I came across your report on my thoughtful article at American Thinker on women in the public square.

Do you know? I think that the headline of your piece "Women... are to blame for impeachment" was what we postmodern thinkers call "overdetermined."

As Foghorn Leghorn said, so many years ago. "That's a joke, boy."

Of course, I realize that, racist-sexist-homophobe as I am, that I would not be as sensitive to modern readers like you as I might have been.

But jokes and pejoratives aside, I was trying to think through a serious question. What if women are different than men? What if women cannot stand the free-for-all of the public square? What then? What happens to the free exchange of ideas? What happens to politics? What happens to the culture?

What do you think? What speech is acceptable, what what speech is to be named, shamed, and shunned? You tell me.

Of course, my larger point, encapsulated in one of my maxims -- at https://americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com/2019/01/assorted-opinions-and-maxims.html -- is that progressive activism and the left in general represents a Great Reaction, an attempt to re-politicize the world in an age that can probably do with a lot less politics. Here is my short version: 

"Great Reaction: Socialism is a return to slavery; the welfare state is a return to feudalism; identity politics is neo-tribalism; reparations is neo-vengeance; activism a return to revolution, rioting for the ruling class, part medieval knight-errantry, and part activisme, or gentry kids putting on a school play for their parents; helpless victims are a return to sacrifice, social justice is good old loot and plunder."

My point is that all the progressive instincts are a lunge back into the past. If we think in Jungian terms we would say that the left is mining the collective unconscious for ancient archetypes, and using them in a project of power.

But I want to talk to you directly about activism. As Managing Editor of Right Wing Watch I imagine your experience yourself as a progressive activist, fighting for justice against the forces of bigotry and superstition that abound on the right.

But I think that "activism" is similar to medieval knight-errantry. I was re-reading some of the medieval romances and I realized that the romances are an absurd effort by minstrels toadying to the feudal barons to make them into noble disciples of Christ saving damsels in distress in between epic feasts. But in fact they were thugs.

I'm here to say that your average revolutionary, whether Robespierre, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, Franco, Castro, or Pinochet is a thug. So in my view anyone with a misty idea of being an activist and fighting injustice is probably kidding themselves. Because politics is a game for thugs. Actually, I have a maxim for that:

There is no such thing as justice. Only injustice.

My point is that it is all very well to be an activist for human rights and justice and fight against injustice. But I am here to tell you that many people on the receiving end of your fight for justice are going to experience it as injustice.

In that case, would you be right or would they be right?

Hey! If you are ever in Seattle, get in touch and let's have coffee!

sincerely,

Christopher Chantrill

Hey whaddya think readers? Ain't I a stinker! As Bugs Bunny would say.

Looking at the Good Side of My Culture-of-Insult/Culture-of-Complaint Notion

Here was I, cruising along unconcernedly as a seagull with my notion of the male Culture of Insult and the female Culture of Complaint when suddenly I realized I had got it all wrong. Or at least only half right.

Because the male Culture of Insult and the female Culture of Complaint are only half of the story.

And I shoulda known it. What a fool! Fortunately my unconscious mind got me sorted -- as the Brits say -- about 4:00 am a couple days ago. Really, what would we do without our unconscious minds pointing out the "glitch" in the Matix?

What I realized was that, with the notion that honor in men is courage, according to James Bowman in Honor: A History, that there are two sides to the coin. Let's reproduce the key quote again.

[I]n spite of the discrediting that honor has undergone, the basic honor of the savage -- courage for men, chastity for women -- is still recognizable beneath the surface of popular culture that has done so much to efface it.(p.5)

(But as late as the movie On the Beach in 1959, with Gregory Peck as the captain of a nuclear submarine in the aftermath of nuclear Armageddon, the male characters are all constructed around the courage archetype and the female characters around the chastity archetype.)

Obviously, I now realize that male honor -- courage and the reputation for courage -- comes in two cultures. There is the positive side and the negative side. There is the Culture of Courage in the Hero and there is the Culture of Insult in the Adversary. I get that from Jordan B. Peterson in his Maps of Meaning.

So, when men are hurling insults at each other, they are not as good as they could be. Because the Man of Courage, the Hero, is above all that.

Hmm. And here I have been encouraging men to throw the insult of racism right back in the face of the pathetic liberal pejorator (perjorator is one who hurls pejoratives: I just coined it). Obviously, in the Culture of Courage, our Hero would not throw the insult right back. On the other hand he would not cringe either, and whine that he was not a racist, no, because some of his best friends are black. Still, to throw an insult at a vile liberal pejorator requires a significant degree of courage, particularly if the liberal pejorator gets in touch with HR and gets you fired.

But what would the pure Hero, sans peure et sans reproche, do? I'll have to think about that.

Now let's get to the female side of the equation, where honor is chastity and the reputation for chastity. Here, obviously, we have a Culture of ChastityPraise and a.Culture of Complaint. But whatabout the archetypes? I don't know where this will end up, but I think we have to start with Good Girl and Mean Girl. The practitioner of the Culture of Praise is the Good Girl, the Virgin, that is pure and innocent and sees nothing but good around her. The practitioner of the Culture of Complaint is the Mean Girl, of high school memory, who is always poking holes in the chaste pretentions of the other women in her community of women. That, after all, is what the iconic "I can't believe she..." remark is all about. Don't imagine that the the girl next door is a sweet innocent, 'cos I got the goods on her.

The point about the Hero and the Culture of Courage is, to return with Bowman to the savage, the defense of the border which can be psychologized into the border between Order and Chaos. The point about the Good Girl and the Culture of Praise, with Bowman, is the management of the hearth and home. If we go back to our chimpanzee friends, the males are defending the band's territory so that the females can bear and feed and rear the baby chimps. That's according to Nicholas Wade in Before the Dawn. The Good Girl is doing all the things that need to be done about the hearth -- Latin: vesta, as in Vestal Virgins -- or, as we say, keep the home fires burning.

The point is that in the Culture of Praise the Good Girl is getting on with the things that need to be done with good cheer, while in the Culture of Complaint the Mean Girl is busy critiquing all the other women because they aren't doing the things that need to be done, according to the judgement of the Mean Girl. The Mean Girl is perfect, of course.

So, in this analysis, the Culture of Insult and the Culture of Complaint are both perversions. The Insulter is faking the courage of the Hero, and the Complainer is faking the innocence of the Good Girl.

Notice that Insults and Complaints are easy peasy; anyone can do them. But what does the courageous Hero do? What does the chaste Good Girl do? Good question.

See, living the life of Courage or of Praise is hard. That's why the Hero has to go on a Hero's Journey to find out what it really means to be a hero. And the chaste Good Girl? Despite the pretensions of the Heroine's Journey and all those unbelievable superheroines around these days, the life of a woman is lived moment to moment; she doesn't get to go off into the underworld for a spell. That is why women are eternally agonizing about the right thing to do. There's a word women use for this, but I have forgotten it.

Well, obviously this is just the start. Who knows where it will lead?

Chinese Flu: Too Much or Too Little?

The central question disturbing us right now is whether the Chinese Flu -- known to the wokerati as COVID-19 -- is a global pandemic that will result in millions of deaths or an overblown nothing-burger that is panicking us into stopping the economy dead in its tracks.

A question that is burning in all hearts is whether President Trump acted too soon or too late, too little or too much.

Before we answer the question we must understand that President Trump is a politician, and politics is the art of the possible.

So, let us ask ourselves whether it was possible in mid-January for President Trump to stop flights from China. The answer is obvious: No. He would have been accused of trying to interfere with the serious and troubling issues that were being addressed in the House impeachment and Senate trial on Russia, Russia, Russia.

But at the end of January he halted flights from China, and in his State of the Union speech, just before Speaker Pelosi tore it up, he promised a vigorous response to the virus. So I would say that Trump has been on the leading edge of responsiveness, but not on the bleeding edge.

Let us now ask whether the President is doing too little or too much. Should he have locked the Nation down two weeks ago? Or should he have refused to panic and said that, hey, this looks like a normal flu-type bug, not much different that a regular winter flu?

Again, the answer lies in the fact that politics is the art of the possible. Could President Trump have shut the nation down on March 1? I doubt it. It would have been universally laughed and sneered at as a ridiculous overreaction. But suppose he had waited until today, Friday March 20? Then, I think, he would have been laughed and sneered at as waiting too long.

The truth is that leadership of any kind depends on getting in front of the herd, but not too much. YOu must be seen to be protecting the People, but not treating them like cattle. And the fact is that President Trump is quite an experienced leader, much more so than 97 percent of the poiticians in Washington DC.

Why is that? It is because the skills and qualifications of the average politician are all about running for elective office. That is what they do. But actually leading and sucking it in and making tough decisions, knowing that 33 percent of them will be the wrong decision? Not so much.

President Trump, on the other hand, has lived a life of decision-making in his various businesses. You can say that he has truly experienced life on the edge. And he has experienced his share of failure.

Trump is unlike our average crop of Harvard-Yale educated and evolved elite that live in a pretty safe-space world where the system looks after them, provided they pay their dues and don't step out of line. And that, I think, explains why the president always seems to be half a block ahead of them.

There has been a bit of criticism that Trump's White House is chaotic and he runs through chiefs of staff like toilet paper. But I think that misses the point. The White House staff system is intended to enable the President to escape from the chaos of daily events, and preside like a god over the nation. I think that setup exists partly because your average president -- I am thinking of you, Barack -- can't handle the stress and chaos of leadership. And so he needs a staff to make the world look like it is manageable.

In reality, the world is not manageable. It is chaotic, and you never know when and where the Dragon of Chaos is going to show up next. If you manage your interface with the world to make sure the Dragon is kept out of sight, well, then maybe you are not going to be ready when it is time to act.

Probably the next big decision that President Trump will have to make, after the masks are flowing freely and the Chloroquine is available all across the fruited plain, is to say OK, now it's time to start getting back to normal.

Based on his performance so far he will make the decision a little after he should have done, based on facts and reason, but still a little too soon for the Good Little Girls in the media worried about their hair and the racism of calling the COVID-19 virus the Wu Flu.

And then it will be on to the election, and who knows how that will turn out?

Only I would say this. To have set up Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee for 2020 is getting close to another proof of God's existence.

Great Reaction: The Left's Neo-Knight Errantry

I argue that the left represents a Great Reaction, a religious and cultural and political attempt to return to the past. My Maxim is:

Socialism is a return to slavery; the welfare state is a return to feudalism; identity politics is neo-tribalism; reparations is neo-vengeance; activism a return to revolution, rioting for the ruling class, part medieval knight-errantry, and part activisme, or gentry kids putting on a school play for their parents; helpless victims are a return to sacrifice, social justice is good old loot and plunder.

What's not to like! But I wondered a bit about the medieval knight-errantry bit. Was that really true, or was I over-determining a bit?

Well, I spent a few days reading some medieval romances in a college textbook collection, including the story of "Perceval," the Grail Knight, from Chrétien de Troyes, "Tristan and Isolt" from Gottfried von Strassburg, and "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight" by Anonymous.

Chrétien de Troyes, according to La Wik, flourished from 1160-1191. Gottfried con Strassburg, according to La Wik died in 1210. And, of course, for Brits there is "La Morte d'Arthur" a reworking of the tales by Sir Thomas Malory who lived 1415-1471 according to La Wik.

All of the narratives are highly colored. The court of the king is incredibly lush and rich, cloaked in costly fabrics, inlaid with gold, and banners are flying, and the queens are astonishingly beautiful and attended by beauteous maidens. And the feasts! The meat! And fine wines! They go on for days! But not to worry, all these chaps are deeply religious, observing all the Christian festivals and getting shriven and making confession before they ever go off on their palfreys into the wilds.

Well, if you were entertaining the rough tough medieval barons in the long winter evenings how would you do it? Exactly. You would concoct stories to flatter your hosts. Here is a piece that I particularly liked, as Sir Gawain arrives at the moat of the castle of the Green Knight in the middle of nowhere.

The wall ran down into the water wonderfully deep, and towered up to a huge height above it, wrought of hard hewn stone right up to the cornices, and with bantels of the best under the battlements. There were fair turrets fashioned between, with many loopholes designed to shut fast.

Yeah. I imagine that every second-tier baron of those days wanted a castle like that. In his dreams.

We know a bit about what those barons and bishops and knights were really like. They were rascals. Here is the Frankish drive to the east under Clovis, in 500 AD from The Barbarian Conversion by Richard Fletcher.

It was the obvious direction for Frankish kings to turn when the annual campaigning season came around: let us recall that the continuance of their rule depended upon regular, successful, predatory warfare.

Golly. It seems really similar to modern progressive government that depends upon "regular, successful, predatory" taxation to reward the regime's supporters and maintain political power.

In our day we have similar "romances" to tell the glorious story of the progressive intellectuals and reformers. One of the most durable is the idea that Fidel Castro in Cuba may have been a tyrant, but at least he did literacy and provided universal health care. And our Sixties Kidz all went around with a copy of Mao's Little Red Book. And there is the iconography we saw in the Soviet Union of Marx to Engels to Lenin to Stalin.

In progressive narrative riots and rebellions are represented as "demonstrations" a polite way of saying "show of force." But then "demonstration" was further softened into "peaceful protest." And thus a "mostly peaceful protest" is the modern term for a violent riot.

Thus rebel is transformed into "revolutionary" rather than "agitator" and now into "activist."

And street riots are turned into the street theater of Extinction Rebellion that provides opportunities for well-born maidens to dress up and do their hair.

The point is that politics and kingship in the Middle Ages was a pretty thuggish affair. You had to be rough and tough and rougher and tougher than the baron next door. And when castles came in in the 9th and 10th centuries having the biggest and bestest castle became the name of the game, because until guns appeared, a castle made you the master of all you surveyed. And of course you wanted to dress it up into something glorious and fashionable, with banners flying and queens beautiful and damsels dimpled.

Likewise, our modern progressive government is a pretty thuggish affair, spending money on its supporters that it has forcibly taken from ordinary wage-earners and businesses. Its devotees are instinctively eager to dress it up in noble robes, a knightly quest to succour the victims and protect them from oppression.

But whatever they do and say, government is still force, taking money from one person and giving it to another.

That was the point of Don Quixote, to laugh and sneer at the whole medieval romance genre, and imagine a guy that actually tried to make the medieval fantasy a reality.

We await our Miguel de Cervantes to write the novel that will satirize the whole progressive conceit into embarrassment.

Because I say that the whole point of the Great Reaction is a last desperate attempt to make politics relevant and pretty before we go forward into a post political era where politics has become a minor irritant while most people just get on with their business, and their wiving and thriving, having got past the notion that force and compulsion should be front and center in human life.

For are we not, at heart, social animals that have learned how to minimize the resort to expensive and deadly force?

Time to Kill The Racism Virus

By now everybody knows that the MSM has jumped on board the Xi train and accused President Trump and others of "racism" for calling the COVID-19 virus the China virus.

Oh yeah! You should always go with the experts at the WHO. And the propagandists in the totalitarian regimes.

Never mind that the US media -- hello New York Times -- has been carrying water for the Commies since the 1950s, what with NYT reporter Herbert Matthews hailing Cuba's murderous dictator Fidel Castro. Not to mention the 1930s when NYT reporter Walter Duranty wrote of the Ukrainian famine: What famine?

And never mind that the Chi-Coms are batting on a bit of a sticky wicket now that facts on the ground are telling us that we need to be a lot less dependent on the global supply chain. I mean, the Chic-Coms, that apparently produce 95 percent of our antibiotics, have been threatening us with a cutoff. If we don't stop the racism! See, they are looking at a real economic depression if the US and Europe decide to lower their dependence on manufacturing in totalitarian countries. So of course they are trying to intimidate us and change the subject.

You would think that any journalist worth her byline would be extremely skeptical of government memes out of China right now. Even if she was emotionally consumed with writing her next article about her hair.

But hey! If you are a mindless liberal journalist "racism"-in-the-air is like blood-in-the-water for sharks. You can't help yourself.

Now if I were the editor, or the publisher, or the owner of The New York Times I would have put the race-baiting journalists on Social Distancing without pay for 30 days or until the arc of the China Virus epidemic curve started to bend towards justice. That's what I would do. But I dare say that NYT owner Carlos Slim rather enjoys watching the gringos in a cat-fight.

I say, never mind about them. Whatabout us?

And I say that it is 30 years past the time when there was any moral warrant to name, shame, and shun "racists." Because hey, racial discrimination is illegal. And the only real racists are loser white crackers parading around with tiki-torches. If there is still racial discrimination in America then pull the FBIs off Michael Flynn and put them to work on investigating acts of racial discrimination and sending the results to the local Soros-funded prosecutor.

I mean. There is a difference, dontcha think, between some guy making a racist tweet and some innocent POC being denied a job or a place in university because of racial discrimination. One of the two is not like the other. One of them is an act of racial discrimination, and the other is just some jerk mouthing off.

So I say that this China Virus racist flap is the ideal moment to declare that we deplorables are not going to cringe in fear any time someone call us racists. Not any more. It is time to stop apologising.

Indeed it is time to hit back, using the eternal male Culture of Insult that is connected back into the male culture of honor, which is courage. We males are expendable, anyway, as the millions of men that died in the armies of the rulers of the world down the ages have proved.

Here are a few insults for you to try out when next you are accused of being a racist.

"Wait a minute! I thought you cupcakes said that race didn't exist!

"That's an insult to all the African-Americans that died under slavery down the ages!"

"So's your father, buttercup!"

"It takes one to know one!" 

"Know what racists and anti-racists have in common? A vile obession with race."

"Yeah, call me racist-sexist-homophobe, snowflake. I don't care!" 

"Know what really gets me? The hate that educated whites have poured on poor white trash down the centuries." 

"Wow! You really are a hater. I had no idea!"

Notice that you should add the patronizing "cupcake" "buttercup" or "snowflake" according to taste and opportunity.

Now, if you are lunching with a liberal woman friend the rules are different. Because with women we cannot use the male Culture of Insult. Instead we are acting out the female Culture of Complaint and are always talking about a third person who has said or done something that should be named, shamed, and shunned.

So when some third person is branded a racist, as in "I can't believe she would say something so racist," you say:

"But, like, Susie in my book club who is, like, a Gender Studies professor says that race doesn't exist." 

"So, like, I always worry about which are the worse haters, the racists or the activists." 

"I worry that making that a racism thing makes it, like, harder to deal with real racism."

I leave the "like"s and "I can't believe"s and "uptalk" to you. You know best how to emotionally manipulate your women friends.

We can't finish this without reminding ourselves of the words of the noble Democratic sage, Rahm Emanuel, who said:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste."

And two can play at that game. Cupcake.