Waiting for Blood

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

I’ve been ending day lately with an hour or two of reading Jose Maria Gironella’s, The Cypresses Believe in God, a massive novel set on the eve of the Spanish Civil War. Given the novel’s sheer size, and that it starts out spending so much time just giving a sense of early 30s Spain as a place and time, as the civil war itself begins to approach one feels with the characters a certain creeping unreality, as the descent of politics and then society as a whole into factional violence seems to become first imaginable, then possible, and finally inevitable.

Having fallen asleep, as it were, in 1935 Catalonia, it was with an odd sense of unreality that I clicked on a link this morning and found a New York Times columnist declaring it impossible to work with his political opponents peacefully and darkly predicting “there will be blood”.

More to explorer

Grant on the Civil War

  I have never liked Presidents’ Day.  Why celebrate all presidents when only a select few of them, like Washington and Lincoln, deserve to

PopeWatch: Uncle Ted

 “Yeah, five years. If we had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.”


  1. That is not news.

    In the 1960’s and 1970’s, violence was their (SDS, weathermen, SLA, black panthers, etc.) MO.

    I don’t read the NYT. It’s replete with detritus – class envy, distortions, exaggerations, fabrications, class hatred, omissions, left-wing ideology.

    The totalitarians have been waging class war for over 100 years. Until recently, the liberals’ program was to disarm we the people so they could “peacefully” take away our liberties and property.

    I was a boy scout. Be prepared.

    PS: imagine if Sarah Palin, or any other tea party fanatic, said or wrote such hate-filled nonsense.

  2. I recall reading the memoirs of a nationalist fighter pilot, Combat Over Spain, where he mentions that an anarchist decided to shoot up his sister’s wedding for no appreciable reason, this was before the Spanish Civl War, leaving her blind. The remarkable thing to me is that he mentions it so matter of factly, as one would discuss a relative who had experienced an injury in a car crash. When political violence becomes that endemic in a society, normal life becomes a cold war that inevitably will become a hot one. I think the US will be spared this, in spite of the maunderings of idiots like Krugman.


  3. I think, for the most part, both parties are to blame. Both the democrats and republicans are more interested in grabbing and holding onto as much power as they can, and both sides will use any technique they think they can get away with to do.

    The extension of the Bush Tax cuts is an example of this. The majority of democrats and republicans agree on extending the cuts for all but people making over $250,000. Neither side is willing to compromise on this last little bit, despite the fact that they both agree on 90% of the total.

    Now this is an issue of tax policy. While I am sure one can argue that the taxes on those making $250,000+ a year are too high (or not high enough depending on your perspective), this really can’t be an issue of principal here like it might be for issues like abortion or the wars we are fighting.

    Both sides seem to be letting all of us take a tax hit (since even the those making more than $250,000 will keep the tax cuts for income up to that amount) to score points with their base.

  4. The good news is that Krugman isn’t representative of anything other than a small slice of elite opinion. The man immolated his credibility by defending Obama’s annihilating deficit spending after railing for years against Bush’s smaller (but still problematic) deficits.

    Partisan shills aren’t a good barometer of overall public opinion.

  5. The irony is that by recklessly impugning other people’s motives and character, Krugman has done more than his share to poison political discourse for nearly ten years now. In so doing, he sacrificed his reputation among the bulk of those of that public which reads topical commentary as well as damaging his reputation among economists. What he got out of it, who knows?

    Argentina endured a violent economic contraction and multiple political crises without much more than some riots, so I would not pay too much attention to this prognostication. Still, if he want’s to bring it on, he ought to remember that the American military likely does not have a network of Grand-Orient lodges to be mobilized on behalf of neo-Jacobins and Marxists and that Manuel Azana died in exile, broke and alone.

  6. Phillip stole my answer.

    The last few years has proven that the quickest route to winning some prize or the other is to trash conservatives (see, e.g., Krugman, Gore, Carter, Obama, Katie Couric, Kathleen Parker, Tina Fey, etc.)

  7. Actually, he won the John Bates Clark medal about 20 years ago. He was authentically respected for his theoretical work in the economics of trade. As far as I am aware, he has not published applied research in macroeconomics, nor has he published theoretical or applied work in finance. He is channelling other economists when he is writing on the current situation.

    He also wrote topical commentary and general interest books which were not sectarian pieces. They were favorably reviewed in National Review ,among other places. About ten years ago, he did a complete about face and began writing what he writes now. Why is a mystery.

    Sorry to be literal-minded, but Kathleen Parker is about the only person on that list whose career of late has benefitted from trashing Republicans, et al, becuase it makes her a useful mannequin on CNN and op-ed pages.

  8. I suppose my point is that each of the people I listed have won major prizes over the last few years, the justification for which can only be explained as their having received either the “Not Named George W. Bush Award” or the “Outstanding Achievment in Anti-Palinism Award”.

  9. When elitists like Krugman start whining about how the country is “ungovernable”, watch out.

    It wasn’t too long ago that Thomas Friedman of the same publication lauded the the Chinese government. These people are intoxicated by power, they believe that sufficiently enlightened and educated will can bring order to chaos (much of which government caused in the first place).

    Whereas I believe that if the government would simply protect our natural rights, we would do that all on our own.

  10. Gore, Carter, and Obama all won the Nobel Peace Prize, which originates in the Norwegian legislature and is of scant value except for the cash. (Or if it did mean something, awarding it to B.O. promptly debased it thoroughly). I would say you’re right, though. I hadn’t thought of that.

Comments are closed.