You can call it a trifecta or any of the obvious synonyms (trio, triplex, triad, etc.), but in any event, the contemporary political abstract is aligned as a unit melded from three: one of the three being mostly admirable (within the bounds of mortal sinfulness), the second, mostly consist of pitifully weak sissified men (and their cable-news whore), and the third monstrously dishonorable human trash (this bunch hardly makes any effort at decency).
We’ll get to Gordon later.
A trifecta, etc. of politicians battling for truth by one, and for money and souls by the other two.
But enough political puzzlement. Let’s bring them out of the closet and attach their commonly used nom de plumes, labeled and used by the “press,” and aligned with parenthetically attached opinion.
1. Conservatives (mostly Southern, or claimants to its cause—hurrah for the Bonnie Blue). They mostly support Trump.
2. Republicans–occasional quasi conservatives who love war and erroneously call the War Between the States a Civil War–and who lie about the South and its history generally, rarely, it seems, ever having read a book. They lie a lot, but not as much as number three. These claim to support Trump.
3. Democrats. They hate Trump. Nuff said.
The (again) “press” pulls out one side against the other from this political abstract as something called “left” vs “right.”
It is common for the “media” and many of those who love their own political hash to present themselves as “historians” while offering themselves as historical analysts and/or experts on a day-in-day-out waltz with news junkies. This is the primary battleground for the participants above.
The (again) “media” suggest, usually with their bright lights and heavy camera makeup apps, smiling at their own individual reflections (for the most part they seem to be actors), that they know, or know whom to ask, about the (again) “left” or the “right” and each’s political callings and shenanigans.
They babble with their guests as if the face-off is a great Socratic moment where such give and take is supposedly pouring from academician brilliance while in reality (such that they cannot recognize) it is mostly comic book unreality.
As an example, the other day (4-4-25) on Sean Hannity’s (radio) program Hannity and his guest, Gordon Chang had a discussion on Trump’s recent tariff orders. Chang who supports the tariffs and while, apparently, feeling his Socratic-Confucius oats said that China posted high tariffs on the U.S. while they, China, used slave labor. Chang, an attorney (they are everywhere) from New Jersey said, as if he had just published a graduate dissertation on American history, that we could not compete with slave labor. Then with Hannity (of far less historical insight, certainly) listening, Chang said: “We fought a war to end slave labor in 1860.” I guess he confuses the numbers 60 and 61, regardless of his premise—but then he did go to “law” school) for a “history” lesson.
Anway, who the hell is we? And what war to end slave labor? And this is our history? A contemporary Chinese American polling Americans about slave labor. Leland Stanford must be turning in his bigoted plot of ground.
This is the brilliance of comic book politics and Southern history. The listener must assume that sometime around 1860 a war was declared by someone? on slavery (which would include New Jersey, I guess). This is typical of the brain-stem-dwarfs of number two above. True, this is but a single example, but among numbers two and three above these historical solecisms are like dandelions, scattered everywhere but never will be a bouquet of truth. The deeper darker historical lies by numbers two and three are the weeds that simply make the dandelions look like planted flowers, though they are not. They are weed flowers, hardly for a corsage.
But worse for the truth is that number one above is told that number two is its friend and ally. As most of us know, manure will grow almost anything. It also draws flies.
The point of this slap-happy literary spitfire (where is Charley Reese when we need him, God rest his soul?) is mostly to point out to those who may think that we are in a world of two political sides, each at war with the other– that it just ain’t so. And the further thought is, of course, it is not the good guys vs. the bad guys. Never. It is the good guys and the weak guys against the bad guys. One and two against three.
Sorry Rush. You tried but you had too many of the William Buckley soothsayers whispering in your ear for their own Neocon reasons. I do, however, believe you tried. But it rains on the “right” and the “left.”
It is number three above against numbers one and two above in the great political battle. Number two smells like a skunk. Number three smells like dead skunk. Number one are honorable men who, like all of God’s children, are sinners.
Sorry for so many terms (included herein) adding QUOTED emphasis, but most of the ones so labeled are not really what they lay claim or they make little sense even as metaphors, similes or analogies. Most were framed by damned idiots!
NO? A printed encyclopedia could be published on the stupidity of what these dolts say or print: Boys are girls; money is free; The Constitution is the greatest document that man has ever conceived; inflation is a function of supply and demand; Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves; everyone is a Nazi who is not one of them, etc.; and the moron list goes on and on—including the concept that morons are not morons, but mentally challenged happy little folks of the world (that would be the globalist one-worlders, I suppose). But I am wandering. Difficult to get out of the weeds when you are stomping around in manure.
I will have to admit that I voted for Trump. I hope things work out. I am a bit of an old timer, so I may not be on the trail when he finishes his work. I do believe that number two above will never read (at all) history with regard to number one above. Just as the number three Democrats above will never… and so on–nuff said.
Maybe Gordon Chang will never get a truthful history lesson, but perhaps a third-grade lesson in number theory would help his law practice.
But I did vote for Donald Trump. What the hell. The first man since FDR to be elected to three consecutive terms as president.
The views expressed at AbbevilleInstitute.org are not necessarily the views of the Abbeville Institute.
