Michelle Malkin Presidential Campaign on Social Distancing (Not a Brimelow Joke)

Malkin as the Socially Distant President
Video here

The screen shot above is from the video conversation between Michelle Malkin and Peter Brimelow, who is doing a series of these live streams. I commented on one between Brimelow and Derbyshire, where Brimelow made a joke (flat and inconsequential) on "social distancing."

The title to the image comes from Brimelow's suggestion to Malkin (around the 50 second mark):

Brimelow: ...my definition of a Civic Nationalist: Someone who's willing to vote for Michelle Malkin for President when she runs on a platform of immigration moratorium...So, tell us, when are you going to declare, Michelle?
Malkin: The prospect of me going back to Washingtonian in any form is really not attractive to me at all...
Brimelow: Social Distancing. It can be a socially distant president..."

The generally abrasive, and constantly angry, Michelle Malkin, about whom I wrote on May 15 on her reaction to the COVID-SCAM, has done her one-on-one with VDare's Peter Brimelow.

In my May 15 article on Malkin, I was trying to figure out her definitive position on the COVID-SCAM. I concluded that her commentary was inconclusive:

In any case, as usual with our off-Main-Stream-Media, they cannot make up their minds, or more precisely, cannot come up with their own data analyses and conclusions that COVID is not much to write about other than to compare it with other phenomena, such as immigration.

Earlier on, in my commentary on the Brimelow-Derbyshire video conversation, I speculate if VDare and their followers actually want the social, financial, and cultural ruin of our West, and the world over, really, a "global Gotterdammerung, to start their America on a clean, white slate.":

The discussion between Derbyshire and Brimelow centered around black crimes on whites, which is the repetitive, mantra-like, redundant postings through which VDare has made its trademark, over the couple of decades it has existed.

I have to speculate whether it is something that they wish for, some kind of racial war, to start the machinations of a global Gotterdammerung, to start their America on a clean, white slate.

The populations that are suffering due to this "pandemic" at much higher levels are the poor, mostly black and other "people of color," although not due to illness or death, but through financial loss of jobs and savings.

Near the end of the interview, the Brimelow-Malkin discussion does touch upon the COVID-SCAM social, cultural, and financial upheaval, but wraps it around immigration control, the scamdemic being a useful tool to start closing off and monitoring that porous border.

Brimelow: I really think that's what's happening with social distancing now. We're going to have to get used to all these epidemic diseases coming in because apparently it won't stop immigration from the Third World.

When I wrote Alien Nation I said I thought immigration was the wild card that would get immigration to public debate. But in fact, it turned out to be terrorism and they had to tell a lot of lies to suppress that problem. Now they're going to tell a lot of lies about a disease. But this is like at least the third wave of diseases that have come in since Alien Nation (Brimelow's 19... book) was written..

[...]

But the thing is social distancing...i like price and wage control. Massive overkill to what's going on...I think. Does that make sense to you?

Malkin: Yeah, absolutely, and I alluded to this in my column today at VDare [KPA:...I posted on it here] and this paradox of the government both overreacting and under-reacting.

Brimelow. Part of the problem is that they just won't be frank about it. For two months, three months, we've been writing about the disease, the racial issue...the racial differences in susceptibility.

[...]

And then quite suddenly in the past week, it has been politically correct to write about it, because it turns out that American blacks were unusually susceptible. And therefore it is useful to for basically guilting out the whites again.

And near the very end, the "Pandemic" gets a fleeting mention by Malkin, in relation of course to immigration ....

Malkin: But when the pandemic dies down, (if it dies down), that he's [Trump's] intent on pushing congress to pass the DACA deal after the Supreme Court.

So what if a disproportionate number of American citizens who are black (and brown - how about that, Michelle M., but what does she have to worry, with her Jewish/"white" husband) are in danger of the social and financial consequences of this disease. Our whole purpose is to support and represent the white race.

In fact, so what if a substantial number of poor whites are also affected by this scamdemic. Our purpose is "America First!"

When principle becomes subordinate to purpose, then anything goes.

Once again, the discussion between Brimelow and Malkin hardly touches the COVID-SCAM, and the effusive Malkin, bestowed with Brimelow's praise, and encouragement, on her battle for America, seems to be on the road to the Presidency, or at least start off with a Mayorship for Colorado Springs, CO, as she coyly defers from discussing with her protege Brimelow.

I have to add, the "conservative" Malkin, who dresses anything but conservatively, presents herself thus at a recent presentation in 2019 at the annual Western Conservative Summit, in 2019.



By the way, it was really difficult to find out the topic of Malkin's presentation, let alone the title. It is as though we should blindly accept that whatever these "immigration" critics say or write about is sacrosanct, and needs no more than their names. I believe Malkin was simply a "guest speaker" during a luncheon session, according to this schedule.

And Malkin, whose husband is Jewish, and who is purportedly Filipino Catholic, has two children, whom she raises as... what?

It is the usual story of contemporary conservatives, usually in some grip with Jewish influence, without a Christian spiritual principle to guide their ways, as I wrote here, here, and here, amongst many other posts, who use their pent up energy to deflect the issues towards other "pressing" items, like black crime, and of course, immigration, as America, Canada, and the West are being destroyed by a fake disease, which NONE of them have brought up in their copious interviews and discussions.

So, it bears repeating, as I have done in several of my recent blogs, on this absence of intelligent commentary on the scamdemic:

I have to speculate whether it is something that they wish for, some kind of racial war, to start the machinations of a global Gotterdammerung, to start their America on a clean, white slate.

Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The Third World Liberal: A Conservative at Heart

The basic characteristics of all liberals and liberalism are the same. But there is an added nefariousness to the foreigner, Third World, liberal.

An American (or a Canadian) liberal is after civil disruption and maybe even civil war. But he is an American or a Canadian first, and has that legacy of the history, culture, ancestry, heritage etc. of the country, and might at some point be convinced to conserve his country, especially as he sees it being destroyed and transformed by immigration and Third World foreigners.

A Third World foreigner "liberal" comes to invade. He has no regard for the country's history, culture, ancestry or heritage.

The Third World foreigner "liberal" comes to destroy, although his initial approach is parasitical by living off the host country's riches.

He hates his host country (eventually, if not at his arrival) for a variety of reasons: envy, inferiority complex, inability to live at the same level as the host's cultural sophistication.

His ire translates to destroying what is before him, which he then replaces with what he knows: his own culture, his own religion, his own way of life.

He is a conservative at heart.

But this replacement has no cultural anchor or cohesiveness within the national context of his "new" country. Somali immigrants are VERY different from Ethiopian immigrants.

I don't think this was the case between say German and Irish immigrants. There is some unified European culture. This is not the case with Africa or Asia (or even Latin America, despite the language).

Wherever Third World foreigners congregate in large enough numbers, there is a sense of emptiness. There is no attempt to develop their neighbourhoods, with flowers and gardens, trees on the sidewalks, etc. An Indian restaurant next to an Ethiopian coffee house does not add diversity and interest, but rather a hodgepodge of unrelated elements with no aesthetic cohesiveness.

A Third World foreigner, although he comes to stay, is always referring to his native country. His activities, his choices, his lifestyle, deeply reflect this native country. He may have come to find better shores but his heart and his imagination are with the homeland he left behind. He has no desire to reconstruct and to rebuild a new home, and instead lives in perpetual upheaval with his suitcase, metaphorically, left unpacked even after decades and generations of habitation.

This temporality continues down the generations. Immigrants' children and grandchildren have a nostalgia for the country their families left. This manifests itself with their persistent references and adhesions to this far-away land: through their cultural choices, their earnest attempts to meld their cultural and personal lives with the country left behind, and eventually with their loyalties in politics and other social ties given to those which best represent this homeland.

They have never really left home.

And they have a latent anger, unfocused and diffused, at this difficult life of divided loyalties they are forced to live. And when made to chose a culprit for target, instead of directing their wrath at their families, which pulled them across nations to this land of apparent opportunity, they glare at the country itself, calling it "racist" and "discriminatory" and "hateful."

But they are the ones who hate, or learn to hate, this land which they believe only pretends to give them everything as it curtails all their potentials.

They lose hope and optimism. They become grudgeful and dangerous citizens. Rather than generic liberals, they become far-left leftists who hold their fists up in revolutionary fury.

"Me Too!" they cry out with raging anguish.

George Washington: The World Historical Figure in the Quintessentially American Tradition

George Washington, 1780
Charles Willson Peale (American, 1741–1827)
Oil on canvas; 95 x 61 3/4 in.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Part of what makes his live story so gripping is that he shaped himself into the world-historical figure he became, in the quintessentially American tradition of men who spring, as F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, from their own Platonic conception of themselves. But his self-conception was extraordinary: it began as a worthy ideal and evolved into a magnificent one. In his fiercely ambitious youth, he sought to win acclaim for his for his heroism and savoir faire. In his maturity, he strove to be, in his own conscience even more than in the eyes of others, virtuous, public-spirited, and (although his ethic wouldn't allow him to claim the word (noble). He did hope, however, that posterity would recognize and honor the purity of his motives; and Americans, who owe him so much, do him but justice in understanding not only what he did for them but also what greatness of soul he achieved to do it.

From: The Founding Fathers at Home (p. 94)
By: Myron Magnet

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Brief Book Review: Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It

I hate to copy full texts from any book, especially one newly published, but sometimes that is the best way to make a point.

I've got Jim Kalb's new book Against Inclusiveness: How the Diversity Regime is Flattening America and the West and What to Do About It. It arrived at the bookstore where I placed the order far quicker than I expected (about four days). I think that is faster than Amazon.com's delivery time, unless one pays extra for overnight shipment.

In any case, I went to the table of contents first, and found in Chapter 10:

Making it Real
Difficulty of the Struggle - Towards an Anti-Inclusivist Right - Fundamental Needs: Ideals (The True, The Beautiful, The Just and Good, Religion); A Favorable Setting - Making the Case - Limits

I went to the "The Beautiful" section on pages 170-171, and below is what I read:

For modernity, beauty is no less a problem than truth. Since it makes man the measure, the scientistic view assimilates beauty to personal preference. It puts beauty in the eye of the beholder, and so makes pushpin as good as poetry. Such a view is contrary to all intelligent experience. Beauty is evidently part of how things are. It forces itself on us as something of indubitable value that cannot be reduced to personal preference. That is what it means to recognize it as beauty. Our perception of it may depend on taste, but a personal element does not make a perception merely subjective any more than the dependence of knowledge on qualities such as intelligence, experience, and good sense makes truth merely subjective (5).

Beauty falsifies the dogma that denies reality to whatever is difficult to analyze and impossible to measure. It connects the material world to something beyond itself and gives us an immediate perception of something transcendent that is worthy of our love. It gives pleasure, so it attracts and pleases, but it is no less at odds with the technological outlook than fasting and prayer. It cannot be forced, and technique serves it, but does not create it. You have to wait on it and let it be what it is.

So anti-technocratic education must emphasize the beautiful. When those who appeal to tradition and the transcendent lack a sense of beauty, what they propose seems less an absorbing way of life that leads us to a grasp of the reality of things than one arbitrary ideology among others, a matter of rules, team spirit, and group dominance and not much else.

5. For a ground-breaking study of the objectivity of aesthetic valuby by a scientifically-trained architectural theorist, see Alexander, The Nature of Order: An Essay on the Art of Building and the Nature of the Universe.

I think beauty is even more problematic than truth. There is truth, based on facts, objective, scientifically obtained facts, but how does one objectively establish beauty?

The problem may be less difficult for scholars and (honest) artist, but how does an ordinary person identify and accept beauty?

One's children are "beautiful" however ugly they may be in reality. One's religion is beautiful. Look at the beautiful mosques that Muslims build to express the beauty they see in their religion. One's language has beauty, however gutteral it may sound. An ugly outfit designed by a prestigious designer is considered beautiful by the high-society woman who wears it.

Yet, these same people will recognize truth, and reject lies, if they are truthful to themselves. An ordinary person can identify truth and lies, and will often discern lies even when sugar-coated with what seems like truth.

Beauty, in modernity, is far more problematic, and far easier to misidentify, than truth. It requires a different level of discernment. It may indeed really be the territory of experts who can identify it, and who relay that information to others. People can live without beauty for a longer period than truth, as long as they have some basics fulfilled like a family life, a comfortable income, shelter and food, and even find it acceptable to live without beauty.

But, ultimately, lack of beauty is far more insidious, because it drains people's objective reality slowly. One can fight against an obvious lie, but how does one fight for beauty? Walking by an ugly building, day after day, will numb the soul. Perhaps we can be saved by small acts for beauty, like Winston in Orwell's 1984, when he bought a paperweight simply because he found it beautiful amidst the soul-numbing ugliness around him.

Winston looked round the shabby little room above Mr. Charrington's shop. Beside the window the enormous bed was made up, with ragged blankets and a coverless bolster. The old-fashioned clock with the twelve-hour face was ticking away on the mantelpiece. In the corner, on the gateleg table, the glass paperweight which he had bought on his last visit gleamed softly outof the half-darkness...

[Julia] brought the glass paperweight over to the bed to have a look at it in a better light. He took it out of her hand, fascinated, as always, by the soft, rainwatery appearance of the glass.[1984, Part 2, Chapter 4]

And here is the seemingly innocuous paperweight being smashed to pieces by the thought police:

Something crashed on to the bed behind Winston's back. The head of a ladder had been thrust through the window and had burst in the frame. Someone was climbing through the window. There was a stampede of boots up the stairs. The room was full of solid men in black uniforms, with iron-shod boots on their feet and truncheons in their hands...

There was another crash. Someone had picked up the glass paperweight from the table and smashed it to pieces on the hearth-stone.

The fragment of coral, a tiny crinkle of pink like a sugar rosebud from a cake, rolled across the mat. How small, thought Winston, how small it always was!...

There was another, lighter step in the passage. Mr. Charrington came into the room. The demeanour of the black-uniformed men suddenly became more subdued. Something had also changed in Mr. Charrington's appearance. His eye fell on the fragments of the glass paperweight.

'Pick up those pieces,' he said sharply. [1984, Part 1, Chapter 10]

Charrington knows that beauty is revolutionary. It can ignite the rebellion of the weakened and submissive, like Winston. Once Winston realized the possibility of acquiring beauty, he started to gain some strength.

Kalb makes similar observations about the re-creation of language and meaning in liberal society in his new book:

To some extent, the new standards are based on the view that the old ones were bad, because they had to do with the non-commercial and non-bureaucratic arrangements of the old society. Reversing and violating those standards has therefore become a virtue. Central and marginal have changed places: Islam has become a religion of peace, homosexual couples stable and loving, blacks wise and spiritual, immigrants the true Americans. In contrast, Christianity is presented as a religion of war and aggression, Middle Americans as violent and irrational, Republicans as the Taliban, and traditional marriage as hateful, oppressive, divisive , and pathological. When women and minorities do well, they deserve the credit, when they do badly, white men deserve the blame. Any flaws in the groups promoted from the margin to the center are whitewashed, the more glaring the flaws the thicker the coating. [P. 8]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is the True Conservative? This is a Rhetorical Question.

Larry Auster got into a lot of (blog) arguments when he put up photos of well-known personalities, and commented on their appearance. These observations ranged from discussions on physical alterations like plastic surgery, to sartorial decisions. One of his favorite (if that's the right term to use) personalities was Michelle Obama. He couldn't believe that the First Lady of the United States could tarnish the image of the presidency as much as she did, through her inelegant and crass appearances. He believed that one's appearance was a reflection on one's personality.

I think he believed that conservatives presented themselves better than liberals. But in our liberal-leaning world, he also realized that many self-proclaimed conservatives are actually more liberal than conservative.

Well, here I compare the appearance of two conservatives, one true and one false: Larry Auster and Peter Brimelow.


Left: Larry Auster, from a photo taken in 2013
Right: Peter Brimelow, from a photo taken around 2011

True to his precise and careful nature, Larry comes across as the conservative in this photo (which is cropped from a larger one taken by Dean Ericson). He is ill, but he came out of his home in a smart and well-patterned checkered tie, which matches his long chocolate-brown coat, and a cream (not white) shirt. His hair, which had gone through various ravages of cancer treatment, is thin, but short and combed.

His slightly upturned mouth, with a shadow of a smile, shows that he is a little amused, perhaps by all the attention from the photo shoot. But his eyes are calm and observant, and kind. He takes Dean's effort seriously, and came out dressed and ready for the occasion.

Look at Brimelow. He's about the same age as Larry (according to Wikipedia, older by about two years, so the photos above show them at about the same age), and his health seems fine. Yet his face is red and bloated, and his eyes are barely open in the fleshy face. It looks as though he's gained weight. His hair is disheveled and long, and needs grooming as well as a cut. His tie is a dull gray, which matches the lusterless gray of is suit.

His photo was posted on Belgian politician Filip DeWinter's website. DeWinter is fifty (only fifteen years younger than Brimelow, but still middle-aged), and the contrast between the two is great, with a vibrant and clear-eyed DeWinter standing alongside the puffy Brimelow.


Brimelow and DeWinter in 2011
[Image Source: Filip Dewinter's website]


Brimelow in 2013

This is Brimelow's toddler daughter from his second marriage. His second wife, Lydia Brimelow, is thirty-seven years younger than him. They have another daughter who was born in 2012. He has two older children in their late teens from a first marriage. Their mother died in 2004.

I wrote in 2012 about Brimelow, his young wife and their new born daughter:

Brimelow is close to seventy, which will make him an nonagenarian at his new daughter's college graduation, if he makes it that long. What kind of life has he subjected her to, with a senior citizen father, with his death imminent?

Such is the way of selfish, narcissistic men that "lead" the world these days. Of course, Brimelow is not a conservative, although that is what he uses to increase his website's readership. He is a libertarian.

I wrote about his second wife:

Sullivan has a hard glint in eyes like someone that goes after what she wants, and gets it. Such character doesn't discriminate by age.

Of course, our choices are determined by many factors, including the behavior of those around us. But, Brimelow could have tempered his behavior for the good, rather than for his gratification.

I think the consequences of his decision are what is showing in the photo below, which he posted at his public website Vdare. He is unshaven, with a tired smile. Toddlers require a lot of energy. His eyes also show ambivalence. Was this such a good idea after all?



I analyzed another photo of his, which he posted in December 2010 about three years after he married his second wife.


Brimelow in 2010

Here is what I wrote:

I believe that people demonstrate their inner conflicts and troubles in their expressions. Trying to cover them up only results in conflicted manifestations. Also, I believe that people with inner conflicts have a hard time deciphering their (and others') expressions. What looks strong may be weak, what looks attractive is subtly devious.

I don't mean to malign people, but Brimelow is a leaders of some kind who is asking us, mere plebs, to be his followers of sort. Brimelow wants us to read his online magazine Vdare. I recently wrote about his marriage to a woman almost forty years his junior, whom he met...through his online magazine! And now they have an infant daughter together. A sixty-something-year-old man with a twenty-something-year-old wife, and a new baby. Old enough to be the grandfather of his daughter is one unpleasant factor. But I wonder how this young girl will grow up, with an aging father who by the time she is ready to get married - the norm being in her twenties, like her mother is now - will be a real senior citizen who should be getting ready for his last rites?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted By: Kidist P. Asrat

Finding Excellence

Hardy Geranium
Watercolor by Kidist P. Asrat
2008


Below is what I posted in my art and culture blog Camera Lucida on November 2009 (five years ago!) about conservatives and conservatism:

Doing Things: And finding excellence

I post this with some trepidation, since I don't want it to be misconstrued as an unnecessary focus on myself. But, I have no one else that I can use for this particular kind of example, so here goes.

I've talked extensively about various conservative groups and individuals in the past few months. I've also become aware that some who call themselves conservative are only so in a few (of their favorite) points. Some are outright libertarians, others have crossed the other side to liberalism

I think we spend an inordinate amount of time talking about, berating, criticising and moaning about liberals. Many conservatives have made this their mission (see Michelle Malkin here, who has a new book out on Obama).

I've always refrained from using my blogs as my sounding boards against liberals. I think it is far more important to put conservatives on track, or to point out their errors. This way, a real conservative body can be built. If we blatantly follow every conservative, just because he is not a liberal, then we have short-changed ourselves and the movement too.

But, one important thing is to DO things, as I wrote in a previous post on traditionalism, where small steps a movement make. This is where each individual behaves like a conservative, and not just talks about it. And since this world is a liberal world, that becomes much more difficult than it sounds. But, therein lies the challenge, and not only that, our very survival.

If I can use myself as an example:

I started out in experimental film. I loved handling celluloid. I would shoot, process and edit all my (very short) films myself. But, I found "art" film to be a dead-end. Rather than glorify art, it has become a hotbed for self-expression of the worst sort. Many (the majority) of the films I watched were, well, unwatchable. Aggressively so.

So, I left, rather than fight the failing system. I found textile design, which ironically attracted me because of the same hands-on, textural effect that I liked about film. Then I encountered another problem. I had very little drawing and painting background, and to my great surprise, our design instructors were just not willing (or able) to teach us those fundamentals. I started taking courses at various school boards, where I discovered a hidden gem of true artists, who I believe have been pushed out of the non-art culture prevalent in colleges and universities.

But what about design? Again, I found a vindictive hate of non-weird, non-edgy designs. Also, anything that looked like it had not been done using the much-touted photocopier or computer graphics, was frowned upon. It is too “old-fashioned” was the phrase. And all we want to be is modern, no?

In the end, I even left that group – psychologically, at least. Ordinary people seem to appreciate my efforts. Women like birds and flowers on their furniture fabric. Color and texture are always welcome. I hardly get a “what is that” when I show my work. I think that is the biggest compliment. My colleagues would beg to differ, of course.

My point is that all this is not a matter of perseverance; it is also a matter of pursuing excellence. If we give up on that, no matter how stubborn and persistent we may be, it will all come out wrong. We have to keep these traditions going strong, we have to learn them and learn how to use them. And then use them.

The funny thing about tradition is that it changes subtly through time. Innovations happen by building the new from the old; by adapting the past into our own present environments. This is what modern artists just don’t get. They are stuck in a rut with their experimentations and self-expression. The true inspiration and, paradoxically, change comes by pursuing tradition.