Jeb Bush’s Kaput. Why Aren’t Wrong-All-The-Time Commentators Fired, Too?

Bush, Justice, libertarianism, Media

S.E. Idiot aka Cupp, together with all establishmentarians, has been insisting that, to quote the noise-maker last week, “The safe money is on Jeb Bush.” He’s the politically smart candidate to back, she said the other day.

In fairness, S.E. Idiot is one among many white-noise generators on television. (You’ll find everything you need to know about Cupp “commentator” in “Just Another Mouth in the Republican Fellatio Machine.”) While Cupp is not nearly as off-putting, banal and over-the-top as Jedediah Bila, she’s up there. I recall how her fans on Taki’s cussed me when the above piece was published. Now they likely agree. (The same people wanted me fired from WND for opposing the invasion from hell, starting in Sept., 2002; now, not so much.)

Jeb Bush’s campaign is over, toots. It was moribund when Cupp first misspoke. What she meant is that she thought Jeb was the smart choice. Is the woman (and others like her) engaged in Freudian wish fulfillment, namely “the satisfaction of a desire through an involuntary thought process”?

Isn’t such a messy habit of mind cause for firing when your thought process is what, ostensibly, got you hired?

This column has been consistently predictive. The punditocracy is consistency unpredictive. When do they get fired and we–I’ve linked to good guy William N. Grigg, as an example—get hired? Wait a sec. I know the answer: when we agree to a lobotomy; when we ditch our non-partisan principles for theirs.

Seriously, when will America pull the plug on these pathetic pundits and seek out those who have a record of accurate predictions on the defining issues of the day?

To plagiarize a 2004 column:

“Suppose your doctor misdiagnoses your condition – he tells you that six months hence you’ll be stone-cold dead, pushing up the daisies. As it turns out, however, you did not have leukemia after all, but were only suffering from Lyme disease. Would you not consider switching practitioners?

Say your stockbroker’s picks leave you with a portfolio more volatile than Vesuvius and an eviscerated bank account. Short of buying shares in a Baghdad bed and breakfast, he did everything wrong. Would you still entrust him with your money?

Imagine you’re a fisherman. Your local weatherman predicts calm, but you lose your boat in treacherous seas. (Thankfully your life is spared.) Then he forecasts a storm, but the sea is as calm as glass, and you miss out on the biggest catch ever. How long before you stop trusting his “expertise”?

These analogies came to mind as I listened to a different sort of failed “expert,” for whom public goodwill runs eternal.”

Obedient, Authoritarian, Stagnant Liberal Left Watches As Right Rebels

Democrats, Free Speech, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Regulation, Republicans, The State

The Republican political establishment and the colluding quislings on the Left all work in tandem to keep the status quo. It’s a spoils-system designed—reflexively, really—to benefit both factions.

Donald Trump started a grassroots process of structural upheaval. The momentum appears unstoppable.

After being filtered then ridiculed by bumbling idiots on the right and left—Fox’s Megyn kelly* and now CNBC—The presidential candidates want to speak directly to the people without network and party leadership intervention.

The Dem media are criticizing the wonderful chaos in the GOP ranks. Aren’t liberals always boasting about being the radicals who rebel against stagnant political strictures? Do they ever revolt against their own party apparatus? What losers (here’s an example of how a leftist revolts against reason and refuses to debate).

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is running scared. Didn’t his outfit threaten to keep Ron Paul from the debates? Overthrow this Priebus ponce.

Another left-liberal conceit is to blame big money for owning politics. Regulate speech is the Dem mantra. Jeb Bush has huge money behind him. And he’s sinking.

****
* No wonder Ms. Kelly, on her increasingly dull, Fox News me-me extravaganza, depicted the CNBC shtick on debate night as that of a press asking tough questions. Sounds like projection to me. CNBC ignoramuses were asking the type of questions she pursued on first debate night.

UPDATED: A Halloween Horror Story In The People’s House

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Neoconservatism, Republicans

A Halloween Horror Story In The People’s House” is the current column, now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine. It tells of how the vampiric Republican regimists and their zombie media are working against the insurgent. The thing is, it’s a true story.

An excerpt:

Washington is moving aggressively to inoculate itself against The Insurgents. By the looks of it, there will be no Republican insurgency.

The series of political eruptions begun when Donald Trump appeared on the scene is losing momentum.

The Republican Comitatus, to use Cullen Murphy’s description of Rome on the Potomac —”the sprawling apparatus that encompasses” political party leaders, pseudo-intellectuals, media, donors and kingmakers—has sprung into action to restore status quo.

Insider Paul Ryan has secured himself the position of House Speaker.

Ask neoconservative kingpins William Kristol, John McCain, Roger Ailes and the Koch Brothers who they’d tap for the position, any position—and the Ryan/Marco Rubio duo would be the reply.

Sen. Marco Rubio, however, is just where the vampiric Republican regimists want him: running his mouth off in the presidential debates. Paul Ryan is thus the right young blood to rein in a rebellion dominated by an older and wiser America.

Incidentally, neoconservative tool Rubio brought up some bad memories, during a September, Fox News broadcast, when he called for a “new American century,” an impetus that elicited a Halloween shudder.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) consisted of a group of prominent global interventionists close to or in the administration of Bush II. This group—among whom were neoconservatives Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz—had formulated a scheme for a post-Hussein Iraq well before September 11. By the early summer of 2001, Bush had assembled his neocon posse whose plan to go global could, at the time, be found on the Project for the New American Century’s website.

But I digress (or maybe not).

According to historian Clement Wood, it is an unwritten law followed “scrupulously,” “although omitted from the Constitution,” that the Speaker of the House of Representatives possesses “the czar-like power” “to recognize only such members as he pleases, and thereby strongly to influence legislation.”

After playing hard to get, pampered prima donna Paul Ryan agreed to assume the czar-like powers of Speaker of the House.

Much media coverage was given over to young Ryan’s feminist-worthy demand for a work-life balance. … Lost in the victory Ryan scored with feminists was the blow he dealt to the Republican insurgency rising. …

… Read the rest. “A Halloween Horror Story In The People’s House” is now on The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine.

UPDATE: So you know: “Marco Rubio’s New Billionaire Backer Top Funder for Open Borders.”

UPDATE III: Is Justin Trudeau a Trauma Victim? (Left-Liberal Discourse)

Addiction, BAB's A List, Canada, Drug War, Education, Etiquette, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

Justin Trudeau is no genius, but he seems to limp along despite what some would consider a traumatic childhood. This Barely a Blog exclusive features Stanton Peele, America’s leading, liberal addiction counterculturist, and fellow crusader against the Drug War.

Is Justin Trudeau a Trauma Victim?
By Stanton Peele

Justin Trudeau seems to be a highly successful survivor of what might be considered a traumatic childhood.

I am often cited for my opposition to famed Vancouver addiction doctor Gabor Maté’s trauma theory of addiction—that all addiction can be traced back to childhood trauma, and vice versa. Maté believes such trauma causes permanent brain damage. I find Gabor’s theory reductive, pessimistic, and fatalistic. Most people, after all, outgrow their childhood traumas, as they do their addictions. (I have argued with Gabor about all of this.)

This debate was brought to mind for me by Justin Trudeau’s election as Canada’s prime minister. Mr. Trudeau, after all, didn’t have a happy childhood. We know this because his mother has written about their fractured family life. Margaret Trudeau, herself the daughter of a Vancouver MP, was depicted as a flower-child. She met Pierre Trudeau when she was 18 and he was the Minister of Defense. She married the much older Mr. Trudeau when she was 22 after Pierre became PM.

Her married experience was deeply unhappy. Despite remaining married for 13 years and having three children together, the couple were habitually at odds; they separated after a half-dozen years of marriage and Margret pursued for a time a jet-set lifestyle. Margaret was often at loose ends both during the marriage and afterwards, as she has described in several memoirs, and was hospitalized for “mental illness.”

There are perhaps three theories for Margaret’s psychological problems: that mental disorders have nothing to do with people’s life experience or personality but are simply inbred, that she was always flighty and unstable. Or, finally, that being in a high-profile marriage with a stern, controlling man thirty years her senior was the worst possible situation for someone with Margaret’s disposition. Or maybe it was all three.

“From the day I became Mrs. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a glass panel was gently lowered into place around me, like a patient in a mental hospital who is no longer considered able to make decisions and who cannot be exposed to a harsh light.”

Not very good to hear, or to experience, coming from your mother.

But Justin seems to have weathered this all rather well. In fact, he seems to be the beneficiary of both his parents’ distinctive assets. In the first place, you need to be intelligent and ambitious to become prime minister of a major nation. [Presumably, Stanton, what you say would apply, by logical extension, to George Bush and other dynastic rulers? Justin Trudeau is a rich boy like Jeb Bush, born to privilege, including easy access to the office of PM—ILANA.]

Yet Justin wears these traits well. He doesn’t seem to think of himself as above everyone else (an attitude his father often conveyed). He, as observers have noted, meets and mingles with everybody and considers every citizen and resident of Canada a person on par with himself. This openness and absence of inflated self-importance would seem to come from his mother.

Margaret Trudeau has weathered her own storms, as she wrote in her most recent memoir, published in 2015, The Time of My Life: Choosing a Vibrant, Joyful Future. I know everyone, Canadian or otherwise, has good feelings about this resolution for Mrs. Trudeau. It seems that people are often able to find their own successful level given the opportunity and support to do so.

Meanwhile, Justin’s becoming PM must be quite a source of pride and achievement for her. The two remain extremely close: a picture of an adoring mother and her newly elected son gazing lovingly at one another affirm this impression. (Pierre died ten years ago.)

For his part, Justin does not present himself as an injured victim, the unhappy product of an unhappy marriage. He seems to have born these stresses, thrust on him as a child through absolutely no desire or effort of his own, without resentment. True, he didn’t immediately rise to the top of society, first working as a bouncer, a boxer, a Santa-shopper, and a snowboard instructor before entering politics. [So would you and yours bounce around the world in a zen-like state if you had the family fortune to fall back on—ILANA.]

On the other hand, becoming Canada’s Prime Minister at age 43 (his father was elected at age 48) doesn’t exactly put him in the slow lane, either. Justin has never given the impression that he feels like an abandoned child, or the son of broken marriage or a traumatic childhood. He seems to recognize and appreciate, rather, that he had a privileged upbringing involving parents with disparate, but distinctive, gifts.

It’s all a matter of outlook, isn’t it?

In particular, Justin didn’t become a drug addict. Rather, unlike the scion of another famous political family who opposes pot legalization due to his own drug problems, Patrick Kennedy, Justin favors marijuana legalization. This attitude too seems to have come from his mother. Margaret was once charged with possession of marijuana for having a package of weed delivered to her home. “I took to marijuana like a duck took to water,” she said.

I don’t think she smokes now.

***
Stanton Peele, Ph.D., J.D., is the author (with Ilse Thompson) of Recover! Stop Thinking Like an Addict. His Life Process Program is available online. His book Addiction-Proof Your Child is a model for the emerging area of harm reduction in addiction prevention. Stanton has been innovating in the addiction field since writing Love and Addiction with Archie Brodsky, He has been a pioneer in noting addiction across substances and activities, in creating harm reduction therapy, and in the nondisease understanding of addiction, as well as in formulating practical, life-management approaches to treatment and self-help. He has published 12 books, and has won career awards from the Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies and Drug Policy Alliance. His website is www.peele.net

UPDATE I: Response to Facebook comments:

We libertarians apply the same set of principles without bias to the political class. Justin Trudeau is manifestly moronic, as is “W” (Jeb is not nearly as dumb as “W” and Justin). All are entitled brats. So what if Justin’s mom and dad fought. Let them all decamp to Africa to experience real suffering. Stanton Peele is, however, hardcore in Diseasing of America: How We Allowed Recovery Zealots and the Treatment Industry to Convince Us We Are Out of Control. A very rigorous book.

UPDATE II: Unable, or unprepared, to courteously address my readers, as to the uneven standards implied in a column submitted by himself to Barely a Blog, Stanton Peele writes:

Liana – Can you remove the piece from your website? It was a bad match, I fear.

The snootiness.

My reply:

The name is ILANA.

And no—not after the time spent inputting, adding links (as you, Stanton, did not provide HTML code) and editing text.

One would think you’d be more appreciative of the feature and the generous mention and promotion of your seminal book, Diseasing.

Unseemly behavior.

ILANA Mercer
Author, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa
Columnist, WND’s longest-standing, paleolibertarian weekly column,
Contributor, The Unz Review, America’s smartest webzine & UK’s Libertarian Alliance,
Fellow, Jerusalem Institute for market Studies (JIMS)
www.ilanamercer.com

UPDATE III (11/1): Jack Kerwick uses precision-guided words and phrases—a “scandalous degree of unprofessionalism and hyper-emotionality,” “academic conformity,” “abuse of power”—to describe the anti-intellectual atmosphere during his Ph.D “sentence” at Temple University, dominated by left-liberals who won’t brook dissent (like the encounter above).