Today, we return to “Max’s Musings,” where I opine on a variety of unrelated topics and happenings. Let’s get on with it.
Bully, Not Patriot
An angry fan tried to enforce patriotism during the playing of the national anthem prior to a Chicago Cubs game:
This might put me at odds with much of the Right, but not only am I not ideological, I’m my own man: I don’t agree with this. First, nobody’s forced to stand. Nobody should be forced to stand. Second, putting your hands on someone like this is uncalled for. Maybe in a different kind of America, it might be justifiable. We don’t live in that America.
Even then, this is still over the line. We don’t know if he tried, but if you feel the need to tell someone to stand, do so with courtesy. My gut tells me this guy was aggressive about it from the get-go. When the guy sitting down refused to stand, this only made him angrier and more insistent. I often speak of this, but America has become a place where people cannot manage the simplest of social encounters without it devolving into violence.
As far as patriotism goes, I’m not about this performative stuff. Ceremony and symbols have their place, but they’re not the essence of what patriotism is. I personally don’t understand why the national anthem gets performed prior to every single public event, either. They even perform it prior to 5Ks. Why? It was a tradition that began during World War II, a time when national unity was both strong and absolutely needed to be.
Now? It seems like it’s a way for people to pretend like we’re still one people, like we all love America. Neither of which is true. Some of us still love America. Many of us don’t. It’s bad, but it’s not up to us to correct that, and it’s certainly not up to us to pretend otherwise. But I digress.
The lesson here is that if you want to get people to do something, smacking them on the head and screaming at them isn’t the way to go about it. This man is a bully, using patriotism as a way to blow off some steam. Forced unity is no unity at all. If anything, it’s the patriots who ought to stand up to him.
“Former Federal Prosecutor”
Sunny Hostin, co-host of The View and former federal prosecutor, was caught on police bodycam trying to use her privilege to get her son our of legal trouble:
Since there are millions of liberals out there who’ll obstinately miss the point, let’s make clear what the issue is and isn’t. The problem is that Hostin is being a colossal hypocrite, as she making opposing privilege a big part of her public profile. The problem isn’t that she tried to help her son, which is something any good parent would do.
I often observe that liberals are, despite their insistence, hyper-focused on what others do, what others have. It’s not their own privilege or wealth that’s the problem. It’s everyone else’s, especially if they have more of it. Theirs was justly earned, everyone else’s was stolen. It’s everyone else’s behavior that’s problematic. Nor does Sunny Hostin, an empowered black woman, think she’s in any way privileged, despite being caught on camera playing her privilege card more than once.
As commentators like Dr. Todd Grande observed, Hostin can easily help her son without ever mentioning she’s a former federal prosecutor and co-host of The View. Just being present for her boy probably helps. Instead, she went way beyond, trying to influence the officers’ decision-making. It’s one thing to ask for leniency; we’d all do that. It’s another to dictate to the officer what they should do because of who someone’s mom is.
Police officers today have far less rope, far less flexibility with which to handle incidents. Much of this is an attempt to try to rein in officers, to combat abuse of power and brutality. In practice, this means officers’ actions are more centrally controlled. In turn, this means offers have to make the arrest, write the ticket, or take some sort of action to show that the problem was handled.
It’s the result of policy changes pushed for over the years and decades by people like Sunny Hostin. As I explained last essay, there’s no such thing as “unintended consequences,” not really. There’s only the consequences you considered and consequences you didn’t consider. Now that her son was on the receiving end of the product of the labor people like her put in for years, she’s learning, if she has a self-aware bone in her body, that even she’d try exploiting every advantage she has to get her people off.
I don’t know what Hostin has said with regards to this incident. I do know she and other black people would say her privilege, to the extent she has any, is the only way to defend herself against disparate impact in the legal system. They can think that, but even if they believe black people are given less of a pass than White people, that still means that not only would some White people be detained and cited, most White people wouldn’t have a famous mother and former federal prosecutor who can step in on her behalf. Hostin’s actions seem even more dubious given that her son wasn’t even being cited for a criminal violation.
The lesson here is that we’re all hypocrites on some level. I can be hypocritical as well if I don’t think things through. It’s what makes us human. What practically assures hypocrisy is the thought that it’s everyone else, their behavior, their privilege, their wealth, that’s the problem, not one’s own. Unfortunately, half the country adheres to an ideology centered on this belief. You just saw that belief system live in action as demonstrated by Sunny Hostin.
Money Where Your Mouth Is
An American business owner wants everyone to know just how wonderful workers Haitians are, like the best ever:
I wonder: why not move his business to Haiti? That’s not a ridiculous proposal. Not only would labor be cheaper, he’d end up with an endless supply of these wonderful people! Imagine how much more profitable his business would be! By the way, that’s what happened during globalization. Big businesses moved operations overseas to take advantage of cheap labor and lower taxes. In doing so, American workers lost out, but who cares, they’re all a bunch of druggies, right?
The first priority of a business, of course, is to make money. But a business must also benefit their community. Nobody should be forced to hire bad employees just because they’re American, no. But if a business doesn’t benefit the people living in that community, if it doesn’t use locally-available manpower to the extent possible, then who’s it benefiting besides the capitalist? I’m resorting to using Marxist talking points because not only do I think businesses should benefit the communities they’re in, it’s also the only way most Americans could ever be moved by such an argument.
Seriously, when did relentlessly pursuing cheap labor even become a liberal principle? And if having such cheap, productive employees matters so much, why bother doing business in America? Think about it. It’s already expensive doing business in the U.S. Not so in Haiti, plus you get unlimited access to the best workers ever. If they can thrive in the U.S., they can thrive even more back home, where they’re surrounded not only by their own people, but in the embrace of the great institutions they surely must’ve created, right?
Right?
Empowered And Unassimilated
Here’s a young Muslim woman showing us how American she is:
I don’t know - that actually looks like a girl who doesn’t belong in America, who has failed to assimilate into American culture, of which handshakes are customary. The smile and peace sign to the camera hides an undercurrent of anger and resentment, which is what’s driving such behavior. I live here, I don’t have to be part of your culture, but you do have to respect mine is the thought here. Ironically, it’s American culture itself which encourages them not to assimilate, in large part by worshiping foreigners and immigrants.
I remember once upon a time when this wasn’t a thing. I’ve personally shaken the hands of Muslims, male and female. Maybe they weren’t supposed to according to their religion, but they did by virtue of it being an aspect of American culture, and when in America, you do as Americans do. Foreigners, immigrants, Muslims included, understood that, once upon a time. It also reminds me of how older immigrants, even today, are less culturally disruptive, despite assimilating less. It’s a contradictory dynamic, but an observable one. It’s young immigrants or the offspring of immigrants like the young woman in the video above who are the problem.
Again, I can hear liberals - since when are handshakes uniquely American? Of course they’re not uniquely American, you diploma-wielding retards. But they’re part of our culture, nonetheless. By the way - if we don’t have a well-defined set of customs, what’s our culture supposed to be, anyway? You can’t have a functional society without a culture. If American culture consists of basically capitulating to the loudest voices in the room, to the minority for fear of being judgmental, racist, xenophobic, whatever, then what we have is an anti-culture. I know of no historical precedent for such a thing.
I’m not one to question the sincerity of anyone’s faith, but I also can’t help but think this trend of increasing devoutness among Muslims, especially among women, is performative. Hijabs weren’t seen commonly aside from older Muslims women 10 to 20 years ago. Now, even very young women are wearing them. This says to me that the hijab, among other articles of Islamic faith, serve as a strong source of identity for young Muslim women. It’s about letting everyone else know who you are, the power you possess, and a way for them to exercise what they feel to be righteous resistance against their oppressor.
Muslims will likely never demographically threaten the U.S. and they don’t need to. All they need to do is to be able to wield disproportionate power over others through displays of cultural strength, with the full power of the Regime behind them. It’s a privilege greater than what they could ever enjoy in an Islamic country, strangely enough.
Democracy Requires Effort
A far-leftist tries to catch proponents of voter ID requirements in a conundrum:
If they think they’ve checkmated anyone, they’ve only checkmated themselves. I, like millions of other Americans, have had many IDs over the years. Never did I not have to put some effort into getting one. Not once was an ID simply mailed to me without having to do something besides simply existing. Seldom was an ID provided to me without any extra cost. Even free IDs, like for school, I still needed to show up in person at the office to at least have my picture taken. I live in a Blue state; you think the state government issues anything for free?
Liberals believe that once something becomes a civil right, state and society has an obligation to provide it free of charge, to remove all obstacles in the way of enjoying that right. That’s not how it works. It simply means, by a matter of law, nobody can be obstructed from pursuing attempts to exercise that right. I can’t believe I have to say this, but someone who’s hospitalized and is therefore physically unable to cast a ballot cannot vote. That doesn’t mean the right to do so has been infringed upon. If that’s what people really think, why doesn’t the government just cast the vote for us?
Liberals and progressives are confused about what it means to be free, to live in a democracy. Though it certainly doesn’t work out that way in practice, to be free and democratic means the citizenry puts in the work of governance. It doesn’t mean the government just gives the people everything. In a democracy, it’s not up to the state to make it work, not entirely. It’s also up to body politic.
That so many people believe voters shouldn’t even have to put in the work of getting ID is yet more evidence for why we’re a people wholly unsuited for democracy, why mass democracy itself is a sham. Governance is a responsibility; if the citizenry doesn’t feel the weight of responsibility every once in a while, it won’t succeed. What means nothing to a person has no value.
A Narcissist, Not A Professional
Criminal defense attorney Beth Bourdon celebrated sparing the life of her client who was convicted of raping and murdering a 93-year-old woman:
Putting aside the utter depravity of openly celebrating sparing the life of a rapist and murderer (apparently, these aren’t heinous crimes anymore, while racism is), the post drew attention because she had deleted the original and explained why she had.
The Internet, fortunately, is forever, however:
Lesson: if you’re going to delete it, just delete it and move on. If you try to explain why you deleted it, you’re trying to justify obviously bad behavior, such as gloating over the fact you spared the life of a rapist and murderer.
I’m admire a good defense attorney. I also like to think even deeply committed defense attorneys have the decency and self-awareness to understand how they come off when they openly celebrate their victories in this manner. Remember: she wasn’t celebrating an acquittal. She was celebrating the fact she spared a man guilty of capital crimes the punishment he deserves. There’s a big difference.
They say social media brings out the worst in us. I think it’s more of a demonstrable fact that social media exposes the kind of person one truly is.
Obama: False Sage
Former President Barack Obama is still out and about, trying to be America’s voice of reason, and still failing at it:
I never had the same level of regard for Obama that so many Americans seem to have. This sort of thing is exactly why. One, it’s not any of his business who J.D. Vance marries. Two, immigration policy, what it means to be American, these aren’t prescriptions for how to manage our personal lives. These are matters for how to manage society at large.
Are there times when politics and personal lives intersect? Absolutely. For example, a person doesn’t have much room to call for wholesale demographic change to the country while choosing to live in places where they get to be a member of the majority. That’s because subjecting everyone else to change while you get to choose whether or not to be part of that change is hypocritical.
Obama, however, is conveying the old Marxist belief that the personal is political to a rather extreme degree. Basically, he’s trying to paint Vance as the hypocrite for marrying a native-born daughter of Indian immigrants, who didn’t come here illegally, by the way. Meanwhile, Obama still constantly expresses solidarity with blacks and the broader underclass. Why doesn’t he live in the ‘hood, then, if he doesn’t want to be a hypocrite?
The Vice President never argued against interracial marriages. If he did, that certainly would make him a hypocrite. He simply argued that in any nationality, ancestry matters to a degree, even if you believe, as I do, that America isn’t a blood-soil nation (though that’s primarily because it’s not a nation at all). Remember that Latin America isn’t comprised of blood-and-soil ethno-nationalist countries, either. Yet even there, ancestry matters to a large degree. That’s because identities are strong and there’s an implicit understanding that just showing up doesn’t make you Mexican, Salvadoran, Colombia, Peruvian, whatever.
None of that matters, anyway. If America is a country, then regardless of what the source of our identity is, then it has a right to decide who gets to come here, who gets to call themselves American:
The thing about Obama is that he knows next to nothing about the people he champions. He has very little in common with black America. He has much more in common with White liberal America. His exposure to diversity is quite superficial. JD Vance has far greater exposure to both black America and to people from different backgrounds. President Donald Trump, for all his faults, is seen as authentic in large part because he never pretends to be someone other than himself, never pretends to understand people he can’t relate with. It’s arguably the one virtue he possesses.
Obama, in his lifetime journey of trying to speak for all people, only exposes how little really understands of anyone. He’s simply a hyper-ideological man, for whom politics is the beginning and the end of one’s identity. No wonder he’s so admired by liberals.
The Right To Peaceful Protest Is For All
What’s the big deal? All I see is a peaceful protest:
We’re all entitled to peaceful protest in a liberal democracy, regardless of our motivations. Don’t like it? Blame liberal democracy, not the “far-right.”
Only an ideologue could see any difference between what’s happening in Glasgow versus what’s happening in Madison, Wisconsin, USA:
Equivocation aside, at some point, SCOTUS needs to rule on this - whether or not the right to protest means a right to insurrection, a right to falsely imprison, a right to assault and terrorize. If you don't get control of this now, anarchy will become normalized. Maybe it already has.
If protest does amount to a license for all sorts of otherwise illegal behavior, then SCOTUS also needs to rule on whether that license applies regardless of a protest’s ideological leanings. Such rulings would provided greater clarity on the rules we live by than any written law.
At this point, all I care about is clarity and consistency. I could almost care less what the rules actually are. As long as we know what they are, as long as people can’t pretend like the rules are something other than what they demonstrably are, that’s all that matters. There’s a lesson there.
Democrats Scammed By Democracy
This is what I mean when I say mass democracy is an organized power struggle, even in a homogeneous ethno-state like Hungary:
Of course, this person couldn’t actually explain to you how anyone tried overthrowing democracy in Hungary, aside from boilerplate corruption and implementing policies they didn’t like. This person is, however, totally oblivious to the role they actually play in mass democracy. Having the illusion of power does inflate one’s ego.
What’s most amusing is how liberals so strongly believe in the power of democracy, when their votes mean nothing aside from dictating the outcomes of these organized power struggles by factions whose leaders could care less about good governance. When all your time is taken up by gaining power and holding onto it, there’s not much time left for anything else.
When even liberal democrats like the X account above are scammed by mass democracy, who’s really the cuck?
Retard Gallery
Before closing it out, let’s quickly smack down a few liberals who think they’re getting one over on someone else. We’ll start with:
There’s an easy way to prove or disprove this assertion: run genetic studies. Such science proves that millions of people throughout the world share the DNA of Genghis Khan, one of the world’s most notorious conquerors. But liberals don’t believe in science and they most certainly don’t believe in violating their sacred narratives, so they’d never agree to this.
Next:
Respondents cited a Pew Research poll showing 76 percent of Americans have visited at least one other country. Your faithful Max has visited over a dozen countries and remains as radically right-wing as ever. Most people of the world are also what Mark Ross here would describe as “insular.” Cosmopolitan liberals like him are a minority among a minority. It’s he who has very little in common with most people of the world.
It’s also worth noting how these people, who go out of their way to remind everyone how much they love America, never seem to have anything nice to say about their fellow countrymen. Imagine trying to find any unity with someone like that.
Finally, here’s conservative commentator-turned-liberal commentator Pedro Gonzalez:
Is Pedro okay these days? Since when does law enforcement police speech? It’s such an odd thing for him to say. Furthermore, Renee Good and Alex Pretti were quite obviously obstructing law enforcement, something even their defenders openly concede. Becoming a liberal means you have to adopt the ideological nonsense that’s their hallmark. Maybe this is just part of the transition for Gonzalez. The more liberal he becomes, the better he’ll get at it. Give him time.
That’s all for today. What are your thoughts on anything covered? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
Personally traveling abroad has reified my more right-wing views on just about everything I believed prior because it taught me that the alternative to them is a future where each and every unique city on planet earth to be razed in place of labyrinths of sterile gray five-on-ones built on the cheap where the only coffee you can buy is Starbucks and every person is a deracialized, homogenized consumer unit that exists to gormlessly shuffle around in sweatpants and graphic t-shirts with Disney characters on them while staring at their phone. Whenever I think of the most grim timeline imaginable it always ends not with nuclear explosions but branded graphic t-shirts with Disney iconography worn by everyone, everywhere, all the time, with no end.