The Death of Etiquette

Pop quiz

What President said: “They (capitalists) are unanimous in their hatred of me and I welcome that hatred.”?

A government official of what country said: “People won’t pay taxes to support refugees who don’t work.”?

What philosopher observed that: “Republics decline into democracies; and democracies degenerate into despotisms.”?

Who said: “Etiquette requires the presumption of good until the contrary is proved.”?

Answers at the end of the post.

The more things change…What political party platform included among its policy positions the following: 1. Non-citizens may live in our country but only as guests and must be subject to laws for aliens. 2. The right to vote for government and legislation shall be enjoyed only by citizens. 3. We demand that the State shall make its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens. 4. All citizens must have equal rights and duties. 5. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform mental or physical work. 6. We demand the nationalization of all businesses. 7. We demand profit sharing in large industrial enterprises. 8. We demand insurance for old age. 9. We demand land reform including the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation and the prohibition of all land speculation. 10. We demand ruthless prosecution of those activities that are injurious to the common interest. 11. The State must ensure the nation’s health standards.

These were part of one of the first political statements put forth by the National Socialist Party of Germany in 1920. The leader of this fledgling movement was none other than the little corporal Adolf Hitler. It was a far cry from the blueprint he laid out in Mein Kampf. But it was enough to get the attention of the German people because it seemed harmless on its face. Compare this to the Biden/Sanders political treaty.

Political dialogue has become an oxymoron. Public discussion is dominated by vituperation and personal insult. Gone is the etiquette of debate and the acceptance of contrary opinions. It has been replaced by personal insult and name calling much of which is fueled by ignorance of facts and history.

People often make mention of our “civil society” by which is meant a community of citizens linked by common interests and marked by open and respectful communication. It can be said, without exaggeration, that we have become a most uncivil society. Our communication is neither open (see e.g. the Ministry of Truth) nor respectful (see e.g. almost anything uttered by the squad). To make a bad situation worse we have stigmatized the practice of questioning the emperor’s wardrobe. We are indeed a nation of snowflakes who simply cannot abide having to hear anything with which they have no knowledge or which does not conform to their worldview. A mere disagreement is perceived by young people as a vile insult requiring satisfaction without the duel. They require that you be silenced, censored and relegated to purgatory.

Mencken once said: “A man can be a fool and not know it, but not if he is married.” Perhaps it is time to gently push back on these pampered, spoiled ignorant fools and drag them kicking and screaming into a thoughtful dialogue. Our world is suffering from a surplus of ignorance but we should not suffer it willingly. Herewith some examples…

How should we respond when some self-righteous Democrat sees in proposed voting laws the specter of a new and enhanced Jim Crow 2.0? You should immediately request a definition of the term Jim Crow and its origin. Ask whether the new Georgia voting law requires white and colored voting booths or, worse, separate but (un)equal polling locations. Determine if the new law requires intelligent tests as the Democrat party did across the South before the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What is the proper response when some virtue signaling leftist tells you with pure contempt that Trump is a racist? Point out that you are confused by their opposition to lower unemployment levels for blacks generally and, more specifically, black teenagers. Ask if they are aware that under Trump black small businesses thrived in the enterprise zones that his administration supported. Mention, perhaps, that Trump was in the public eye for more than 25 years before riding down that escalator in 2015 and had never accused of racism…what changed exactly?

When you encounter that cute as a button AOC worshiper who indignantly points out that stopping the torrent of immigrants at the border is racist how should you respond? Ask why she wants to deprive poor black Americans of jobs because about 20% of black unemployment is attributed to illegal immigration. And applaud her support for depressing wages for the poorest workers which helps line the pockets of the rich capitalists.

If you are accosted by an America hating leftist who firmly believes that the 1619 project shows that we have “always been a racist nation” what is the proper retort? Try pointing out that there should be a 1620 project based on the Plymouth Colony which included no slaves and was marked by peaceful relations with the Native Americans. Feel free to mention Tisquantum, aka Squanto, by name. Suggested reading: The Mayflower Compact.

When you encounter some hyperventilating feminist fulminating about the myth that women are paid 30% less than men what should you say by way of response? Point out that if this were in fact true the level of unemployment among women would be precisely zero. After all don’t all those greedy employers want to maximize their profits? They would, as a manifestation of their greed, employ only women thereby realizing a 30% reduction in labor costs, n’est-ce pas?

Should you have the temerity to suggest that the 2020 election may have involved random fraud in key states how should you respond when a graduate of some Pavlovian training program calls you a liar, a prevaricator (too many syllables therefore unlikely) and a lying dog faced pony soldier? Lean in and, in a conspiratorial whisper, offer up a plan to expose those Republican fabulists once and for all. Ask them to support a forensic audit of the voting in every state which will (wink, wink) likely expose the lies of Fox News. Mention also that if, in the unlikely event, there were “irregularities” discovered that legislation should be put forth to ensure that the Republicans could never exploit those vulnerabilities.

What should you tell a follower of St. Greta of Thunberg who fears we will all have to tread water endlessly after the seas rise? You could gain their confidence by agreeing that we need renewable energy sources that do not emit those pesky greenhouse gases. Then (shock and awe warning) suggest that we embrace nuclear energy which meets all those requirements. Have smelling salts available just in case.

When your HR team is singing the praises of affirmative action how do you bring them back to reality? It might be instructive to point out that affirmative action in college admissions has had some unintended negative consequences. You may have to take a moment to explain what that means. It seems that schools felt that they needed to fill a quota for each protected class. So a school like Harvard would admit students who did not have the academic background to compete with the likes of Adam Schiff and Teddy Kennedy. The unintended consequence: higher failure rates among such students, a loss of confidence in their ability to succeed in college and a perception that such students cannot learn thereby reinforcing long held Democrat stereotypes. Solution: watered down academic standards and social promotions. A legacy of LBJ.

Occasionally you may come across some environmental enthusiast who believes the EPA is saving people and other endangered species. In response you can cite one example of bureaucratic overreach. The entire environmental community demanded a ban of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (aka DDT) based on some very weak science. Unintended consequence: mosquitoes thrived and malaria came back with a vengeance in sub-Saharan Africa. It was devastating to the black population. Solution: Continue to back the ban despite the evidence which allows endless moral preening by those folks not residing in sub-Saharan Africa.

There are many benighted souls who still believe there was an “armed insurrection” on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol. Perhaps it should be pointed out that there is no evidence that any of the people at the protest were armed. You can be assured that had there been armed insurrectionists on the scene the forces arrayed to investigate the events of the day would have found them. There are endless references to the five people who died at the protest: two by natural causes, one suicide, one drug overdose and one veteran who was shot by a yet unnamed Capitol policeman. There was also one near death event: AOC was in a building not under “attack” and she was scurrying about trying to hide in a cupboard to avoid being killed, perhaps by Ted Cruz who she thought had designs on her life.

These are examples of how we can begin to bring these ignorant fools from the dark to the light. It might even kick start some critical thought about what they have been force fed on the internet. We might be too optimistic about this but it is time to challenge what is being taught in the schools and what the Ministry of Truth and leftist media spoon feed to the masses as “news” 24/7.

Things to Ponder

We have, on a number of occasions, thoughtlessly referred to Biden as our “special needs President”. One reader has correctly pointed out that it is a slander against the special needs community to compare them directly or indirectly the embarrassment who occupies the White House. Please accept our heartfelt apology for the insult.

There is a rumor that what is left of Hollywood is considering a remake of the classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The title will be Close Encounters with a Third Rate Mind and it will be based on our Vice President, Kamala Harris. It will feature her hectoring of a candidate for the position of Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). She continually compared ICE to the KKK based on a “perception” that exists only in her fevered mind. No evidence was put forward. It would not have been a surprise if she had discovered this perception in an emanation of a penumbra arising from a history of the Democrat Party.

The VP showed her diplomatic skill set when, after shaking hands with the Japanese leader, she immediately wiped her hand off on her pants. Class act!

Po quiz answers: FDR, Sweden, Aristotle and Emily Post.