Monsters from the Id
He does a good job here.
There is even more below!
"When the Soviet Union finally collapsed of its own rotten weight in 1991, some scholars were quick to proclaim the end of the ideological struggle that had gripped the West (and therefore, by extension, the whole world) since the mid-19th century. Emblematic of that period was Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man, based on an earlier essay, which stated:
What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.
Would that it had been so; a year later, the European Union was born and the socialist project began anew, this time speaking French and German instead of Russian."
The revolution may be televised, but the plot will not be a smooth line from where we are to where we need to be. We are at the end of history, but the idea that everyone will instantly fall into line is a bit silly. Communism is the first human created institution. The Hunter/Gatherer tribe had no leader, it was much more a real communism. It worked because it had to work. Failure was death. It also worked because the tribe was small of necessity, perhaps 50-60 people. And it is possible to make such a small community work as communist. Everyone knows each other, and knows everything everyone is doing. The consequences for pathological action was excommunion, ostracization, which meant death.
We are at the End of History, and we know what works, generally, free markets, constitutionally limited government, reformed religions, and substantial individual liberty.
We don't know how to best achieve this in each community, nation, country, etc. Add to this the fact that the stubborn still wish to return to the communism of the human beginning, and one can see the problem. Communism cannot work within larger groups. It runs afoul of human nature once the numbers in the community become much larger and 100 or so. This has never reduced the human desire for this political institution.
Feudalism, which was transformed into bureaucratic socialism when applied to the industrial economy is very attractive to the authoritarian who believe the world would operate smoothly, if only others would accept their direction, and regulation. But this way lies tyranny.
Walsh understands Hillary Clinton.
"Mrs. Clinton is a hard-core Alinskyite -- she wrote her senior thesis on this devil while at Wellesley -- as is Obama. There is no question she is to the left of her husband, Bubba, whose sexual and financial appetites were always first and foremost in his mind. But her weakness is the same as her husband's: an unceasing, voracious appetite for money:
“Follow the money.” That telling phrase, which has come to summarize the Watergate scandal, has been a part of the lexicon since 1976. It’s shorthand for political corruption: At what point do “contributions” become bribes, “constituent services” turn into quid pro quos and “charities” become slush funds?
Ronald Reagan was severely criticized in 1989 when, after he left office, he was paid $2 million for a couple of speeches in Japan. “The founding fathers would have been stunned that an occupant of the highest office in this land turned it into bucks,” sniffed a Columbia professor.
So what would Washington and Jefferson make of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Mandatory financial disclosures released this month show that, in just the two years from April 2013 to March 2015, the former first lady, senator and secretary of state collected $21,667,000 in “speaking fees,” not to mention the cool $5 mil she corralled as an advance for her 2014 flop book, “Hard Choices.”
Throw in the additional $26,630,000 her ex-president husband hoovered up in personal-appearance “honoraria,” and the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the former first couple — who, according to Hillary, were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 with some of the furniture in tow — can finally make ends meet.
No wonder Donald Trump calls her “crooked Hillary.'"
This is obviously correct. Even the Democrats find her obsequious money grubbing disconcerting. But the analysis is incomplete.
"On the other hand, if the thought of Hillary Clinton -- whose Id rages even more furiously than Trump's -- as president doesn't terrify you, I suggest checking yourself for a pulse. Mrs. Clinton, filled with hatred and a lust for vengeance that would put Hagen to shame, would rampage through the American government like none other, Obama himself included. Obama, after all, only hates America as founded, and wished to "fundamentally transform" the country according to his second-hand socialist whims. His revenge was learned, generic; he will be thrilled to have the sucker taxpayers keep him in style for the rest of his life, and then some.
But with Hillary, this time it's personal. All the rejection (from her husband, and from the voters) is about to go critical, and the explosion will be something to behold -- from far away, which is where I plan to be. It's your vote, and it counts as much as anyone else's. But this year, it's not about ideology. It's about us."
The woman scorned, and bile filled will be an epic harridan.
He also understands Trump, but does not seem to be able to prescribe a solution for those who do not.
"Which brings us to the other most implausible American presidential candidate of all time: Donald J. Trump.
Trump is the furthest thing possible from an ideological candidate, which is why he has driven those for whom ideology is paramount absolutely mental this election cycle. He cares not a whit for von Mises, or Hayek, or Ronald Reagan, and I doubt whether he would know the first two names mentioned. He is, in essence, the monster from the Id, the perfect Ayn Rand candidate who exists only to serve himself, and if other folks benefit in the bargain, so be it."
Maddog disagrees that Trump is implausible, the Republican base was a powder keg ready to blow. Trump can along just in time to defuse this explosive situation, and it appears he will do so. Hillary winning, or more accurately Sanders losing, will have the opposite effect on the Democrat party.
The fussbudget elite Republican politicians can only see that Trump has little intent to allow them to return to the graft and corruption trough, and instead intends to act on behalf of millions of working class, and middle class Americans. Like the Democrats, they wish only to sooth these voters with platitudes, while feasting on graft. Trump detests them, and their media sycophants. It is true, Trump is not a "movement conservative" but neither are the Republican political elite, they are precisely like Trump an ego driven coterie who want nothing more than more graft. They cannot be dissuaded. Trump, however, is not an ideologue, he can be persuaded.
If Republicans wish to have Trump closer to their positions, they will need to compromise, help him achieve many of his goals, while they also achieve many of theirs. The NRA just did this with success, but then the NRA is a more rational less corrupt organization than the party politicians.
NRA Endorses Donald Trump for President