Prescient Perceptions

A view of the Cloisters with the Hudson River
in New York City

Laura Wood, from The Thinking Housewife, writes to Lawrence Auster at View From the Right:

You have done a great job over the last several days.

I agree. View From the Right has been unusually active and prescient these few days (and months).

Larry Auster responds to Laura:

But I think my message is too much for people to take. It’s getting too much for me to take.

To which Laura replies:

The alternative is denying reality and denying that things are as bad as they are.

I agree that writing about reality these days is exhausting. It is summer after all, and why not write about the warm weather, and other cheery things? But, each time I am about to do that, right next to what I'm observing, or alongside what I'm thinking, something negates this.

I'm not sure where this will lead, for now, at least. But, still, there are beautiful things to wonder at, observe and record. I will continue to do that as I go along.

Those conservatives are the death of her

Kathy Shaidle [Source: Enormous Thriving Plants]

Too bad this blogger is skewed so left, because she's funny. This reminds me that many Saturday Night Live skits were created by Canadian lefties, who put a humorous slant to their anti-Americanism, thereby making people laugh instead of hunt them down with those guns.

But, a funny (far)left-wing humorous Canadian's life is short-lived as Audrey II shows, since she now prefers to be tweetering on twitter, rather than blogging her lonely heart out.

Her blog started off full-steam with Ezra Levant lambasts. It ended about 31/2 years later with Michele Bachmann. Those conservatives are the death of her.

She's way funnier than the F³ blogger, who somehow got a footing into the internet netherworld with what I presume she takes to be (political) humor. I think people just like her crassness. A-II has linked to her here as the "unabashed, ham-fisted defen[der] of racism." Other "ham-fisted" Canadian conservative bloggers are scattered around her posts. Here's one, albeit a little more moderate. And here's an extra "ham-fisted" one, although that could be a prairies thing.

I suppose the blog's title is some kind of wishful thinking/humor, where A-II imagines her links spreading around the internet like enormous thriving plants. But, sadly, her blog doesn't make it past Michele Bachmann. Those conservatives are the death of her.

Admitted Mass Murderer

Diana West has her insightful and informative article on Breivik, The Shameful Spinning of the Norway Massacre, at her website. She writes:

On Tuesday, I read a New York Times online report about a press conference held by Geir Lippestad, the defense lawyer for admitted Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik.

I wish she had written "confessed" instead of "admitted," or left "admitted" out altogether until Breivik does confess, in the manner I outline below. I wish she had been strong enough (as I was, in my humble capacity as an unknown blogger, where I simply write, with no qualifier here: "[T]he Norwegian murderer went on his rampage on the Utoye island summer camp." We know he's a mass murderer. We don't need (or require) his admission.

And Breivik is not admitting that he likes coffee, or that he vacations at those lovely Norwegian fjords. Anyone can admit anything (usually trivial). What we require now is a confession, a court-of-law confession of guilt. A confession is heavy-handed. It is the seal of recognizing, at least in front of a judge and jury and the public, that one's behavior is bad enough (horrific enough, as in Breivik's case) to warrant a public prosecution.

"Midnight in Paris"

Vincent van Gogh's painting The Starry Night is also
on the poster for Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris

I wrote in this blog entry:

Woody Allen is back. In a modest and sweet way. He's brought his ironic, but profoundly romantic, slant back to his film-making in his latest film You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger.

You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger was in the cinemas in 2010. A year later, Allen has another romantic, light comedy, Midnight in Paris. He seems to be on a roll. I hope he comes up with similar projects each year, to make up for his hiatus.

Midnight in Paris is a flight of fancy movie with characters who wish they were living in previous eras. Owen Wilson's character, Gil Pender, has been stuck on writing his novel for several years. Gil says that he admires the 1920s and idolizes all these artists, who help him create his novel (in his epoch of 2011). Appropriately, his novel is about a man who works in a nostalgia shop. While not laboring over his oeuvre d'art, Gil is a successful screenplay writer for Hollywood.

He is in Paris on vacation with his fiancée Inez and her parents. When Inez leaves him to go dancing one night, he decides to go for a walk himself. At the strike of midnight (à la Cinderella?), what looks like a vintage car from the 1920s stops near him, and the driver tells him to climb in. Thus begins Gil's adventure, where he enters the festive Paris of the 1920s literary stars such as Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemingway, the Fitzgeralds, surrealist painter Salvador Dali and modernist photographer/filmmaker Man Ray.

His 1920s interlude lasts only for the night, and he is back in ordinary Paris during the day. But he keeps returning to the same spot each night to be transported back to his idyllic era. There, he also meets Adriana, a young woman who is an assistant to Coco Chanel. She has recently separated from none other than Picasso, and Gil is more than willing to take his place. Her idyllic era is the very early 20th century Belle Époque, where, naturally, Gil and Adriana are transported (at least Dali, the guardian of surrealism finds this "natural"). Degas, Toulouse-Lautrec and Gauguin await them there. Gauguin reveals that his favorite era is the Renaissance, in the company of Titian and Michelangelo. And so back in time we travel again.

There is a funny interlude (still, the whole film is funny and witty) where Inez's parents hire a detective to follow Gil in his nightly escapades. Allen frames the detective in a dark doorway in the high contrast style of 1940s Film Noir, trying to hide from Gil. Later on this "detective" is seen lost running around in 17th century Versailles. Neither of these times seem to be the detective's ideal eras, but rather it is the filmmaker (Allen) who teases him (and us) by changing the backdrop according to his whim and creative fancy. I just think that Allen is biased towards "creative" people, and detectives not only don't fall in that category, but that their very role inhibits creativity.

These travels back in time aren't mere fantasy. They are Allen's way of showing us that artists are indebted to those who came before them, and do travel back in time figuratively when creating their own contemporary pieces. The film is as much a comedy about time travel as it is a gentle, imaginative exploration about how artists create. And surely, even Adriana, the modest assistant to Chanel, has chosen the rich late 19th century as her creative reference for designing and creating clothes.

Woody Allen fills this fantasy film with beautiful Paris scenes, and costumes and interiors straight out of art books. He also infuses his film with music, as he did in You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger. In Midnight in Paris, he has Cole Porter, Louis Armstrong's contemporary Sidney Bechet, and Glenn Miller's Moonlight Serenade. And many French melodies. He also reintroduces jazz guitarist Django Reinhardt, who was on his score for You Will Meet a Tall, Dark Stranger.

While looking online for more references on the music from Midnight in Paris, I found a link to Duke Ellington's 1962 album of the same name. Wikipedia informs us that: "The album features performances of compositions inspired by or associated with Paris." The album has the fountain at Place de la Concorde with the Eiffel Tower in the distance on the cover (here is a current view of the fountain). Was Allen, a jazz musician himself, inspired by the Duke's music and homage to Paris to make his own film about the city? The intricate layers of influences that make a piece of art continue to unfold.

I have to admit that for all the bumbling ways of Gil, I am impressed with his choice of the 1920s. I say here:

As I wrote in my previous post on Chanel's No. 5:

During that era, film making, photography, music, theater and dance were all meshed together forming a kaleidoscope of art. The more "applied arts" like design and fashion were also taken seriously, and were included in the artistic activities.

I think if I were to relive any epoch in the short life of our galaxy, it would be the 1920s, and not because they were "roaring," but because they were so creative.

Keeping Good Company

Jim Kalb's website Turnabout has a link called "Other Trads" which is a short list of bloggers who write about traditional issues. I have made that (undeserved) shortlist with other bloggers like Bruce Charlton, Mark Richardson, Laura Wood and the team at What's Wrong With the World.

Mr. Kalb recently sent me an email, commenting on my post on the actress Helen Mirren "Elimination of Beauty" where I wrote:

Ugliness rules. In clothing, in films, in art and even in our "representatives" of beauty. I don't think it is a lack of knowledge about beauty. We've developed standards and often unanimous agreement about what constitutes the beautiful. So I'm not going to into the beauty-hater's argument that beauty is relative; beauty can be objectively measured. What's going on is that people are hating beauty. It is a form of envy. If I cannot be beautiful, then why is she beautiful? It is like wealth, or intelligence, or a sense of entitlement to live anywhere one pleases. Spread the wealth, accept I.Q.ers of 91 into Harvard, let everyone from every corner of the world come into the prosperous West. Or youth. Why cannot I be as young (and attractive) as any fifteen-year-old, at my ripe old age of seventy? Such are the mantra of the equal-opportunity narcissists.

Helen Mirren in forty years of photos. From the "English Rose"
of the 1970s to the disheveled senior citizen in 2011.
From Camera Lucida blog post "Elimination of Beauty"

Here is what Mr. Mr. Kalb emailed me:

Dear Kidist,

For some reason I hadn't been a regular reader of yours, but I subscribed just recently and wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your blogging.

Your comments on Helen Mirren (who I had never heard of) are very much to the point. She's evidently clued into the fashion world, and youth substitutes for class and beauty there today. So that's what she aspires to.

I agree that indifference to aesthetic and cultural issues is a major weakness on the right. There's not much interest in the big picture, which is one reason the right keeps losing.

All the best,

Jim Kalb

There are moments when I go into into pure politics, mostly on my "Islam" blog Our Changing Landscape. But my efforts at Camera Lucida have always been to record and analyze how our aesthetics are being influenced by our politics, and that often art (or the corruption or the dissolution of art) is an early indicator of where our culture is headed.

Writing to Influence the Public in the Right Direction

Where did the Pulitzer go wrong (or left)?

A great image posted by Diana West.
When I searched for the image, it
simply says "A portrait of Joseph
Pulitzer superimposed on images of the
New York World and the St. Louis
Post-Dispatch."
There's no artist attributed to it.

Diana West has an article about the liberal trend in the Pulitzer Prize winners, and that Joseph Pulitzer himself intended his prize to reward conservative views. Here is a memorable quote on how what Pulitzer expected of the winning novels:

[T]he American novel published during the year...shall best present the wholesome atmosphere of American life, and the highest standard of American manners and manhood."

Similarly, on editorial writing:

[T]he test of excellence being clearness of style, moral purpose, sound reasoning, and power to influence public opinion in what the writer conceives to be the right direction."

West writes that these "criteria were more nebulous" but goes on to explain what kinds of writing fulfilled these expectations:

Maybe some of the first Prize winners, a pair of 1917 editorials from the Louisville Courier-Journal, can clue us in to what that "right direction" was. Written in support of U.S. involvement in World War I, one is called "Vae Victis" -- Woe to the Vanquished -- and the other, "War Has Its Compensations."

Perhaps we can go a long way if we simply follow these two quotes from Pulitzer.

Like Clockwork: Update On Mercer IV

Mercer as the nihilistic Usual (Ultimate) Suspect


I have a post up at Our Changing Landscape, continuing with my theme of critiquing non-liberal writers. Once again, Mercer is at the receiving end of my words.

Apologies to Mr. Rubenstein

I must have had "Arthur" on my mind :-)

I've quoted Edwin Rubenstein's article from Vdare in my previous post,"How to ruin a discipline." I kept referring to him as "Rubinstein." My apologies. There is an Arthur Rubinstein though, so I've kept him in good company!

Like Clockwork: Update On Mercer III

Idiot is as idiot writes



From the "pundit" that discreetly (without directly referring to me) called me an idiot once - and I have reason to believe she did it again - here is a truly idiotic post.

Never mind that her post is an incoherent mess of deriding Gates, reprimanding Sgt. Crowley, and talking about racism. What exactly is her point - and where is she going with all this, really?

Here is, I believe, the pertinent excerpt:

At this stage [while still in Gates's home], I think the officer ought to have walked away. Just done the gentlemanly thing and bowed out. But when Gates followed Crowley out cussing, pulling rank and threatening him, the officer cuffed the professor for disorderly conduct. At this point, the officer, who so far had done his duty, lost it and gave in to oneupmanship [sic].

a. Crowley did walk away.

b. The officer did not give in to one-upmanship. If Mercer had carefully watched the interview of Crowley after the incident, and properly read the police report that she links to on her blog, she should have realized that there was no one-upmanship on Crowley's part. Gates was simply demonstrating disorderly behavior.

c. There is no indication whatsoever that Crowley "lost it."

I understand now, after reading the comments section on her blog, that this is all to do with "The State" and "Property Rights" and other paranoid libertarian views.

So, I was right, though confused for quite a while, that I was dealing with an odd character when I got that strange email. I wish she had called me "idiot" earlier, and I would have figured out this libertarian mess that so many so-called conservative writers (or writers who use conservative venues because no-one else will publish them) call writing.

Like Clockwork: Update On Mercer, II

And she still "freely" uses the word "idiot"



I guess Mercer is reading my blog. I hope Ezra Levant is doing the same!

Mercer's behavior consistently belies her qualifying phrase at WND of "Return to Reason", showing that her reason has not returned (to her), but has escaped in full gallop.

I guess it is my criticism of Palin that she attributes to being made by "an idiot, or an envy-riddled female."

No other condition fits if the charm of Palin is lost on someone.

Actually, that is not true. I had a moment of excitement at the arrival of this backwater politician, giving speeches in some kind of Alaskan style, with a handsome husband and a brood of children.

But, further, reasoned, analysis, allowed me to think about her real affinities, rather than get pulled in by her charisma. And I frankly think her charisma is overrated - if you keep hearing it, you begin to believe it. I equate her with Obama, in this regard.

Hmmm, "Reaganesque charisma." I guess some writers will use any metaphor to ram in their point.

Sorry, I still don't buy it.

Of course, only now, after her original praise, does Mercer start to point out Palin's serious inconsistencies.

Like I said, I have a feeling that she's reading my blog.

And that's a good thing.

Like Clockwork: Update On Mercer

And her continued incoherence


I've been doing my own personal series of what makes so-called non-liberal pundits tick [1, 2, 3]. I've had to resort to this generalized term of "non-liberal" because many of these writers are not conservatives, but tend to follow an amalgam of beliefs and philosophies that is certainly distinct from liberalism.

In any case, I recently clicked on Mercer's blog to see if my previous post on her ("What exactly is Ilana Mercer?") still has any bearing, or if it was even fair. I have to admit that one of the reasons I read very few pundits is their overall lack of consistency. Mercer still strikes me this way.

Mercer has an article up at her regular WND (creation of that rather shrill editor Joseph Farah) entitled, "A July 4th toast to Thomas Jefferson."

I won’t discuss the full article except for this quote:

[T]he Declaration of Independence is at once a statement of individual and national sovereignty.

A few years back, I used to communicate with Mercer via email, and also through her comments section.

At some point, the interactions got really weird. I think one thing that started it off was my criticism of article she wrote equating Jews with the Chinese. I said there is no comparison, Jews are better. This didn't sit too well. Of course, her response had a whiff of "you are racist" to it.

The next point of contention is a series of emails about nationhood, where I garnered the title "idiot" however discreetly, from Mercer's eminent pen.

Never mind that, but any serious writer who calls an email correspondent an idiot is exhibiting some lack of discipline, and frankly is slightly unstable.

But, here is the part I would like to get to, regarding nationhood. I wrote this to Mercer:

On a comment about collective feelings of grief, you made that sound like an impossibility, since only "individuals" feel grief. Yes, nations grieve, nations rejoice. This is not a communist thing. Of course it is composed of individuals, and of course each individual grieves idiosyncratically. But, a collective grief does occur. I was struck by your inability to see this.

Prickly pens aside, this point was lost on Mercer.

This was a few years ago. Regarding national feelings as both an individual and a collective experience, notwithstanding the lack of intellectualism she accused me of in her unpleasant email, I was right and she was wrong, as Mercer writes my exact point in her WND article.

Here is the full email on nationhood. Surprisingly, Michael Jackson comes up there too.

Reading the rest of her blog, I see she still hasn't produced much of a coherent style, or trains of thought:

* Ditzy Palin receives an undue amount of attention, including praise for Palin’s strange resignation speech. And Mercer cryptically says that Palin is hated by liberals and some conservatives – lumping the two very different approaches to criticism on Palin in one basket. So much for reason and logic.

* She has at least 4 or 5 emails (whose authenticities still have to be proven) between Sandford and his Argentinian mistress. For an “intellectual” blog, this is going on the sordid side.

* Mercer continues to have articles posted at Taki’s Magazine. I suppose writers like to be published, but Taki's is becoming everyone’s fallout place – those who get rejected elsewhere will get a spot there. So, a rich, slightly distasteful magazine editor becomes the keeper of conservative thought!

* For one who has access to some knowledge (technical, at least) on modern music, there is no critique by Mercer about the boring music of Michael Jackson. Instead, just because he hires a “hardcore” guitar player, his music becomes worthy. Mercer attempts to provide a more nuanced critique on Michael Jackson by linking to Lawrence Auster's thoughtful contemplations, as though that will cover her "progressive" praise for this hardcore guitarist, and by association for Jackson too.

But what's so great about these so-called progressive guitarists? I think their style has no nuance, everything is loud and fast. I get the feeling they’re more after emoting a feeling, rather than making intricate music. They certainly aren't the Mozarts (or even the Wagners) of our age.

* Finally, with undue praise for Palin (especially her strange resignation), and adding that this great guitarist who saved Jacksons' hip-hop music (actually, I never though Jackson was a "black" musician, except for his very strong beats) is a woman, Mercer pays unreserved hommage to women. As though her support of these figures was dependent on their sex, rather than on their worth. Certainly, that is the way she's writing about Palin.

Mercer: yet another closeted feminist.

Like Clockwork: Part III

This is becoming a Takuan Seiyo-style series


The purpose of my posts is not to denigrate writers, and their often heart-felt need to communicate their ideas in their own idiosyncratic styles.

I am an ordinary reader, whose background is definitely not writing, although I have spent a good deal of my life reading (mostly, 99%, fiction) to have been called a book-worm at one point.

So, it is a little surprising that I turned to the visual media as my training and profession. Perhaps I understood that a hidden obsession of many writers is to be a Hemmingway or Dostoevsky.  

Perhaps people who read the writers I have mentioned so far have also this secret desire to be great writers themselves, and are hungrily devouring every word as a way to find the clues to what they think might be good writing.

But, conservative writing, I believe, has taken on too much of this ego and idiosyncrasy.  

In any case, I will take on the Brussels Journal regular Takuan Seiyo, who has a (so far) twelve-part series:"From Meccania to Atlantis", at their website.

The first time I read Takuan Seiyo at Brussels Journal (Seiyo’s name reminds me of those Japanese cartoon characters which are the craze in video games - not a good image for a “seasoned” man), I literally skimmed the paragraphs to catch key-phrases of his never-ending 4,000-word article. I think it was Part 3 or Part 4.

After that, I simply lost interest, and I don’t think I read any more until perhaps the 8th or 9th article in the series, and again to skim through the last two or three paragraphs.

I wonder if Seiyo plans on publishing these in a book? I somehow don’t think so. I don’t think his wild trips into the modern world’s psyche make for a good book – they’re too repetitive and too exclamatory. But, what do I know. There are enough people who take the time to read his articles who might be game for a (paid) book version.

The interesting thing, though, is that at Gates of Vienna, Seiyo has a new article about the Vdare-featured Kevin MacDonald’s anti-Semtitic writings. And the title even has a normal ring to it: "Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald."

Despite its close to 4,000 words (3,811, to be exact), Seiyo has avoided the screeching tone of his “Meccania to Atlantis” series to write something which reverberates as genuine and sincere.

Ironically, although writers may think they are connecting us with their "true self" when they let their ego or vanity dominate, the exact opposite actually happens.

Here are links to the first two parts:

Like Clockwork: Part I - Writers at Vdare show us something of their true nature

Like Clockwork: Part II - What exactly is Ilana Mercer?

Like Clockwork: Part II

What exactly is Ilana Mercer?


The interaction at David Yeagley’s blog, after his write-up on three non-liberal commentators, sparked a theme of mine I had been trying to broach for a while, but didn’t know how to do it without coming off negative and overly critical.

Patience usually rewards with opportunity, and these last few days, there have been plenty of opportunities.

The theme that I have been pursuing is the non-conservative nature of non-MSM (NMSM) conservatives.

This is my analysis of the situation:

1. NMSM so-called conservatives tend to form a clique against those evil liberals, so anything liberals say, however true (or false, it doesn’t really matter), is to be categorically dismissed and ridiculed. So truth becomes secondary to attacking liberals.

2. Many of these NMSM conservative commentators spend an inordinate amount of time "expressing" themselves with quaint writing styles, caustic expressions, clever turns of words with which to insults liberals, and an anger which is always present, which I’ve discussed is what often fuels their energy and writing. This results with writing full of ego, which I call vanity.

3. In reality, many of these NMSM conservative writers are not conservative at all. But they need somewhere to publish their works. So they depend on true conservative media sources which often have the largest readership. When a true conservative reads their material, he is left confused with what appears to be muddled, and at times incoherent, writings which don’t really support conservative ideas.

This actually supports point #2. If the truth (of conservatism) is not their main point, what then is their purpose? To write to "express" themselves, which ultimately showcases their vanities.

In my post "Like Clockwork", Peter Brimelow provided me grist for the mill, so to speak.

And more recently I linked to Ilana Mercer, to read some of her comments that David Yeagley wrote about in his article mentioned above.

I have maintained for a while that Mercer is no conservative. She calls herself a classical liberal (as a step closer to a conservative?) on her blog, but I don't think she's even that. But more on that a little later.

Mercer’s articles get published at Taki’s Mag (another "conservative" site I will leave for another blog post). The title to her latest article included an immature expletive, which was what the editors at Taki's Mag decided on (you can still see the full title in the web address).

Shortly after I saw that post, the expletive was deleted.

This article had been up for a couple of days before this word was removed, and most likely not until Taki's Mag fans had read it and the article.

Any self-repsecting writer would have asked immediately that the word be removed. Did Mercer do this? No, and even the later removal was the work of the editor. Mercer's excuse was that she has no control over this. Well, writers who say they have no control over such things are afraid of not getting published.  

I might be picking on an unnecessary detail here, but I think it is the same character revelation as Brimelow’s "strikingly handsome" quote. And this proves my point that writers form cliques, mainly to find places where they can get published, and principles are distorted or even discarded for the sake of the writing.  

Despite describing herself on her website as a classical liberal, Mercer’s article at Taki's Mag was reprimanding libertarians to not alienate their followers, and more importantly to act as good ambassadors for the Libertarian leader Ron Paul, whom she clearly supports. So, what exactly is Mercer, a conservative, a classical liberal, or a libertarian?

One final point. How can someone who talks, albeit rather confusedly, about conservatism, write for an online magazine whose editor regularly admits to his past adulterous, drunken and prison experiences?

Like Clockwork

Writers at Vdare show us something of their true nature


Here is a post at the immigration reform website Vdare, where my suspicions about the vanity of writers are, if not confirmed, at least supported.

The editor and founder of Vdare, Peter Brimelow, posted this observation about him on Vdare's blog a few days ago:

Peter was strikingly handsome, with light-brown hair and piercing blue eyes.

Yes, it is a quote from an article by another writer – from the Vdare nemesis National Review. But who quotes from someone else how "strikingly handsome" one is?

Sorry, but Mr. Brimelow has nothing on him, light brown hair and piercing blue eyes notwithstanding (even in later years) .

But, as tempting as it is to go on about this, although it seems that readers are being goaded by Brimelow himself, I am not really interested in this. I am more interested in the content of Vdare, and what has it accomplished in the past ten years.

According to its copyright stamp at the bottom of its website, Vdare has been around since 1999. That is ten years.

So, it begs the question: What has Vdare achieved in the ten years that it has been publishing information and articles about immigration? Let me start by comparing it to another site.

Numbers USA has been around since May 2008 (at least according to their blog archives – although it seems much longer to me). They have divided their website into various categories:

- In depth articles
- Regular blogs
- Links for taking action – for political or grass-roots activities
- Other sources of practical information, including the latest immigration news, policies, governmental actions, election results, etc…
- Several ways in which to contact congressmen, including faxing or emailing them
- Updates on Numbers USA members in their grass-roots or political action, including testifying before various Senate committees.

Throughout the time I’ve been reading Numbers USA, they urge their readers (now well-informed about the issues through the blogs and articles) to actively participate in the immigration fight, including contacting their congressmen, or specific congressmen when the issues are more definite.

I’m not saying that a politics-oriented website has to enter directly into the field of politics. But Numbers USA has done an incredible job of posting researched articles, daily blogs, policy oriented information, grass roots action, and much more, for their readers. And they make things happen.

The only thing I would hope Numbers USA address with equal insight, information and action, is Muslim immigration. They are so focused on Hispanics and Indian IT workers, that they have neglected this most dangerous group of immigrants.

There is no doubt that Peter Brimelow has gone through great lengths to build his website. It really is a fountain of information, with some cutting-edge, factual, empirical, research on immigration and its costs to American society.

Yet, the writers have a tendency to use the site as a grievance center, Brimelow included.

The writers seem more interested in dredging out the most horrific news, statistics, and anecdotes. Some abandon completely their grass-roots involvement with immigration (such as Joe Guizzardi, a candidate in California’s gubernatorial recall election in 2003, who fled California - according to a blog entry in Vdare -  for Pennsylvania).

Vdare could have been the powerhouse which Numbers USA is slowly becoming. Vdare has the man-power and the intellectual capacity. It apparently also has a loyal following, which nonetheless might be not so loyal if recent fundraising drives are anything to go by. People don’t want to send money to a movement which has no…motion!

I will conclude with one more point.

At a recent, very important, inaugural conference, Preserving Western Civilization, Brimelow gave the following speech: "Immigration, Innumeracy, And The Case For Impeaching Judges." Well, this is the title he gave his speech on Vdare, post conference. At the conference, it was simply called: "Problems Caused by Immigration."

Brimelow started his speech – in front of an expectant audience – with an unnecessary jibe (a tradition at Vdare) at the SPLC, and only after he got that in did he thank his host, who should have had the honors at the onset. Angry retaliation at one’s perennial enemy seems to take precedence over acknowledging the hard work and enterprising spirit of one individual who managed to get an important group of people together for an action oriented meeting, something which Brimelow so far has been unable to do.

But, beyond that breach of courtesy (anger and bitterness makes you awfully self-centered), and a flippant reference to a one-man-show website, and its author’s dedication with time spent on the internet, without complaint, to get his insights and information across to thankful readers (Brimelow always seems to be complaining about how much time his website takes to run), Brimelow gave a rambling speech on immigration in general, much of which his adroit audience probably already knew. And he provided an odd ending.

Brimelow’s final suggestion (solution to problems in immigration?) was to: impeach the judges. That was it. As an immigration expert of many years, who has all the data and information under his belt, this was all he could come up with.

In contrast, look at the leap of imagination, and a hope for something concrete and even possible, that the afore-mentioned and slightly, perhaps affectionately, mocked website author, Lawrence Auster, presented in eloquent fashion: "A Real Islam Policy for a Real America."

I have written that many writers these days, who are trying to fight the liberal world, get caught up in their own anger, bitterness, and eventual vanity (may as well be pleased with oneself – and one’s "eloquence" – if all else fails). This is what I think Vdare, despite its many good services, has become.

I think Brimelow is better off considering what his real impact on the immigration problem has been, besides giving rambling, and not so eloquent speeches at important conferences.

Calling the Bluff of "Conservative" writers

They have no desire to cure their anger

As I read the conservative commentators over the past few months, one thing I notice is that their ire with Obama gets more high-pitched by the day.

I don't know why they're spending their energy this way. Obama has consistently acted in ire-inducing ways, and gave us a sample of this even before he became president. Some incidents include:

- His church and Jeremiah Wright
- His grandmother
- His reaction on blacks and crime 
- His silence after his wife’s atrocious words

And after his election, it just continued to spiral, or at least continue in the same direction.

There is just too much anger going on in conservative writing in general. An anger that allows them to wax eloquent. 

In other words (pun intended), all those angry words the angry conservatives wrote have added up to zilch. I maintain that much of conservative writing (although it must be writing in general) is a kind of vanity. Look how angrily I write. How eloquently, how wittily, how profoundly I can write. What a tool for my writing my anger is.

I'm saying all this after an interesting interaction with David Yeagley's blog, who like all the rest, uses this anger as his crutch.

The discussion there was about the female non-liberal writers (I don't even know what to call them) [1, 2, 3], who have offered us reams of their indignations. And what are we left with? A mediocre president, who bustles around the world and around the country as he pleases. Who ignites the anger of these writers! How convenient.

My solution to their anger, which of course they would never want to let go of, is:

At the moment of the Hussein debacles, the Wright atrocities, the insult on whites, the demeaning of the grandmother, Michelle’s horrific words, writers should have just left their comfortable desks and high speed internets to do some...ground work.

- Have people sign petitions
- Do marches around D.C.
- Sit in hunger strikes
- Overtake radio stations
- Get arrested for civil disobedience
- Team up with the Minute Men
- Go to the heartland and learn to shoot
- Build an army of the unemployed (victims of out-sourcing) of Ohio

DO something about this candidate, and now president, who flames their indignation so (too) easily.

But no. If I were a psychoanalyst, I would have concluded that these writers didn’t want to lose their anger. They didn’t want things to change. I would have called their bluff.

Often writers are scorned for having no effect. There is nothing truer than that at this point.