Billy Don’t Be a Hero, Don’t Be a Fool With Your Life

Leftist leaders have always maintained a precarious relationship with the fickle fanatics required to propel their careers. A canny politician rides the left up to power, and then typically down its esophagus as tastes change. No matter how much you enrich or advance the hyena cackle that calls itself the left, there is always someone moving further left still. And eventually that further left someone is going to do to you what you used them to do to others: lunge for the throat.

That’s been the case with #MeToo. This being a movement whose vaginal gravity continues to pull former lib golden boys over the event horizon. The latest Champion of Women to be flummoxed by his former floozies is that wizened stud-bull, Bill Clinton. Like most of his accused peers, ole Bill now finds himself on the business end of anathema declarations decades after his deeds.

The most recent fusillade of inward leftist fire resulted from Clinton’s recent response to a question about his old peccadillos in context of MeToo. Of course we could also interrogate King David about the immorality of his multiple wives in context of modern bigamy laws. But fortunately for him he’s too dead to deal with it. In any event, if it’s wrong now it was wrong then. At least that’s the premise until tomorrow.

Regardless, Clinton offered the following remarks:

You will note the blue highlight, as this was what sent the howler monkeys into their highest octaves. One website conjectured that…

Clinton’s comments seem to suggest that he believes there was a time in which doing anything against someone’s will was acceptable or normal.

I’m always loath to drag one of their own out of the left’s gullet, but if Clinton is suggesting there was a time in which doing anything against someone’s will was acceptable or normal, he is absolutely correct. That time is always, by the way. People do things against someone else’s will every day in practically every public setting. The only difference is what against-our-will things are in fashion and which are out. A generation ago it was acceptable to smoke tobacco around people who didn’t like it. It was acceptable to proposition women whose receptivity was not assured and to glance at their assets semi-surreptitiously. It was also acceptable to tell jokes about homosexuals and other state-preferred groups who didn’t want to be joked about. All of those things happened against someone else’s will. But since those particular wills now represent society’s moral foundation, that was unacceptable then in hindsight.

But that doesn’t mean we’ve stopped “doing anything against someone’s will.” It is presently acceptable to smoke marijuana around people who don’t like it. It is acceptable to destroy men with evidence-free sexual accusations. It is also acceptable to disparage and demonize whites who don’t want to be disparaged and demonized. All of these things happen against someone else’s will. It’s simply that those aren’t the wills we’re worried about.

Not that an admission of inconsistency will ever taint the outrage. In fact, every comment on the Clinton quote I’ve read (from right and left) has repeated the same insight: You can’t force something against someone’s will. Not now not ever! Ok, well then just go ahead and put “Whites Only” on your house rental ad as long as you’re sure.

The obvious point Clinton was making is that both workplace mores and the contours of who can force what on whom are always changing. But in saying so impotent Bill forgot the two rules of modern social survival: Always know the rules and rulers, and always deny knowing. Thus his implication that holding past behavior to present morality isn’t moral at all is saying a bit much for the twitter swarm.

As a more seasoned speaker than Bill Clinton, I know to say that the workplace has always been a sterile factory of asexual drones, diversity, and BLTs. We have always been at war with white heterosexual Eastasians. Thank you, drive through.


8 thoughts on “Billy Don’t Be a Hero, Don’t Be a Fool With Your Life

  1. Given that he’s comparatively young, it always astounds how much insight, normally gained only from long experience, Porter can cram into a few paragraphs.

    This post perfectly illustrates a latent, unspoken but perpetually present truth: the Responsible and Official Right shares the same fundamental assumptions and values as the moonbattiest Left. There is no possibility any of the paid mouthpieces at NRO or The Weekly Standard would be caught, even in full camo and under an assumed name, tolerating a citizen posting “Whites Only” in front of his private, forced-on-nobody boarding house. Muh Property Rights always remain subordinate to greater concerns, like making sure the Xtian bigot bakes the cake because Muh Rule of Law… that is, until Anthony Kennedy (of all people) gave hamfisted permission to turn off the hateful zealot’s oven, because Colorado’s Thought Police were not sufficiently tacit about their strategy.

    Once the red pill has been fully digested, the taste True Conservatives leave in one’s mouth cannot be described as sweet cake. More like the old kibble found in Katrina van den Heuvel’s dog bowl.

  2. Pingback: Billy Don’t Be a Hero, Don’t Be a Fool With Your Life | Reaction Times

  3. “…pull former lib golden boys over the event horizon”
    I am surprised that the hypocrisy of the Left knows some bounds.
    I don’t know whether Bill’s trouble is testament to the over-arching power of vaginal gravity or a reflection of Bill’s waning importance–with the losing wife and the dried-up foundation.

  4. GO: I once (almost literally) bumped into Van den Heuvel in an airport. She was very small, almost emaciated looking in person…with a face that looked like it had never suffered a smile.

    Watership: I think there’s much of both. Though waning importance is surest indicator of past misdeeds.

  5. ” Muh Property Rights always remain subordinate to greater concerns,”

    The greatest concern is status. Membership has it’s privileges, nice work if you can get it. Limited seating
    available for curmudgeons and gadflys. For pariahs, none.

    Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments is underrated.

    I think this doevetails with another Porterism, which I quote form memory, “The conservative is one who is content to walk in liberalism’s shadow, two steps behind.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s