I rediscovered the following in this site’s “media library”. From the book The Scientist as Rebel by Freeman J. Dyson (published 2008):
The last stop on our tour was the city museum of Vladimir. Here we found the densest concentration of schoolchildren. The museum is in a tower over one of the ancient gates of the city. Its emphasis is historical rather than artistic. The main exhibit is an enormous diorama of the city as it was at the moment of its destruction in 1238, with every detail faithfully modeled in wood and clay. Across the plains come riding endless lines of Mongol horsemen slashing arms, legs, and heads off defenseless Russians whom they meet outside the city walls. The armed defenders of the city are on top of the walls, but the flaming arrows of the Mongols have set fire to the buildings behind them. Already a party of horsemen has broken into the city through a side gate and is beginning a general slaughter of the inhabitants. Blood is running in the streets and flames are rising from the churches. On the wall above this scene of horror there is a large notice for schoolchildren and other visitors to read. It says: “The heroic people of Vladimir chose to die rather than submit to the invader. By their self-sacrifice they saved Western Europe from suffering the same fate, and saved European civilization from extinction.”
The diorama of Vladimir gives visible form to the dreams and fears which have molded the Russian people’s perception of themselves and their place in history. Central to their dreams is the Mongol horde slicing through their country, swift and implacable.
It took the Russians 150 years to learn to fight them on equal terms, and three hundred years to defeat them decisively. The horde in the folk memory of Russia means an alien presence moving through the homeland, ravaging and consuming the substance of the people, subverting the loyalty of their leaders with blackmail and bribes. This is the image of Asia which three centuries of suffering implanted in the Russian mind. It is easy for us in the strategically inviolate West to dismiss Russian fears of China as “paranoid.” If we had lived for three centuries at the mercy of the alien horsemen, we would be paranoid too.
British prime minsters, soon after they come into office, customarily visit Washington and Moscow to get acquainted with American and Russian leaders. When Prime Minister James Callahan made his state visit to Moscow he had two amicable meetings with Chairman Leonid Brezhnev. At the end of the second day he remarked that he was happy to discover that there were no urgent problems threatening to bring the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union into conflict. Brezhnev then replied with some emphatic words in Russian. Callahan’s interpreter hesitated, and instead of translating Brezhnev’s remark asked him to repeat it. Brezhnev repeated it and the interpreter translated: “Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question whether the white race will survive.” Callahan was so taken aback that he did not venture either to agree or to disagree with this sentiment. He made his exit without further comment. What he had heard was a distant echo of the Mongol hoofbeat still reverberating in Russian memory.
It took them three hundred years to drive out the Mongols but only four years to drive out the Germans.
During the intervening centuries the Russians, while still thinking of themselves as victims, had become in fact a nation of warriors. In order to survive in a territory perennially exposed to invasion, they maintained great armies and gave serious study to the art of war. They imposed upon themselves a regime of rigid political unity and military discipline. They gave high honor and prestige to their soldiers, and devoted a large fraction of their resources to the production of weapons. Within a few years after 1941, the Russians who survived the German invasion had organized themselves into the most formidable army on earth. The more they think of themselves as victims, the more formidable they become.
James Callaghan was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1979.
Continue Reading »
Posted under Political Correctness
Richard Spencer has hit the big time. Salon just published a hit piece on him called “The Hatemonger Next Door.”
Is it really asking too much that if a journalist accuses someone of hate in an article that the article actually attempt to support the allegation of hate? What she proved in the article is that she thinks Richard Spencer is a politically incorrect wrongthinker and he offended her oh so rightthinking sensibilities But what the author believes to be politically incorrect wrongthink does not equal hate, and the use of the word hate is rank demagoguery.
FTR, I do not support the idea of selective breeding or forced steralization because I don’t think steralization, much less forced, is consistent with Christianity. But I don’t call Richard a hater because I disagree with him.
Columbia University’s copy is not working at the time of this post, so it’s being republished here.
Text of Address by
at Harvard Class Day Afternoon Exercises,
Thursday, June 8, 1978
I am sincerely happy to be here with you on this occasion and to become personally acquainted with this old and most prestigious University. My congratulations and very best wishes to all of today’s graduates.
Harvard’s motto is “Veritas.” Many of you have already found out and others will find out in the course of their lives that truth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter. There is some bitterness in my speech today, too. But I want to stress that it comes not from an adversary but from a friend.
Three years ago in the United States I said certain things which at that time appeared unacceptable. Today, however, many people agree with what I then said…
A World Split Apart
by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The split in today’s world is perceptible even to a hasty glance. Any of our contemporaries readily identifies two world powers, each of them already capable of entirely destroying the other. However, understanding of the split often is limited to this political conception, to the illusion that danger may be abolished through successful diplomatic negotiations or by achieving a balance of armed forces. The truth is that the split is a much profounder and a more alienating one, that the rifts are more than one can see at first glance. This deep manifold split bears the danger of manifold disaster for all of us, in accordance with the ancient truth that a Kingdom — in this case, our Earth — divided against itself cannot stand.
Continue Reading »
Posted under TV
*** spoiler alert***
This is sad, but as I await the final episode of one of the best TV shows ever, I feel anxious the same way I do before a big game or a big fight. Most great TV shows finish poorly or at least disappoint a lot of people. But the last three episodes of Breaking Bad have been increadible. Last week was a bit slow at first, but it was necessary to set up the ending which I thought was one of the greatest scenes ever.
Walter White was a beaten man, ready to turn himself in. His realizes his son hates him, and he knows he will never be able to get them the money he made. Then we see that old Walter White ego spring into action. Elliot and Gretchen have done gone and done it now. Untold death and destruction awaits because they dared to dis Heisenberg on national TV. That was a bad move. I get goose bumps watching this scene.
I’ll be satisfied with the ending as long as Walter gets to go all “Say my name!” on Gretchen and Elliot. And please don’t kill Lydia who is sneaky hot.
Update: Nooooo! Why did he have to kill Lydia!!!!!
I sometimes have to help my daughter with here math homework. The most common type of problem she needs help with are word problems. That has got me thinking in that mode. So here is an ObamaCare word problem:
There are 46 Republicans in the Senate. Only 19 Republican Senators voted against cloture on ObamaCare. Therefore, how many Republicans are RINOs? (Or alternatively – Therefore, how many Republicans deserve primary challenges?)
Barilla is an Italian company and the world’s largest pasta maker. Company chairman Guido Barilla sparked outrage recently when he dared to uphold the traditional family on The Mosquito, an Italian radio show. In an attempt at preserving Guido’s comments in context, Google Chrome has been used to translate them completely from the Italian source (Radio 24 website).:
“I would never do a commercial with a homosexual family. Not out of disrespect, but because we do not think like them; ours is a traditional family where the woman has a crucial role.” Guido Barilla, chairman of Barilla Group, says to The Mosquito.
“We,” Barilla continues, “have a concept different from the gay family. For us, the concept of family sacral remains a core value of the company.” But Gays also eat the pasta, observe the conductor Giuseppe Cruciani and David Porec. “Okay, if they like our pasta and our communication, then eat, or eat another pasta. One cannot always please everyone.” “I respect everyone,” adds Barilla; “let them do what they want without disturbing others. I am also in favor of gay marriage, but no gay adoption for a family. As the father of several children, I think it is very complex for a same-sex couple to raise children.”
The Daily Mail also covered this.
Since homo-marriage advocates are calling for a boycott, traditional-marriage advocates ought to encourage purchase of Barilla products, as well as support for Chick-Fil-A. Despite the bad press, Chick-Fil-A continues to expand. And traditional marriage advocates ought to counter-boycott those companies promoting homo-marriage.
According to Business Insider, Whole Foods, Macy’s, and Coca-Cola advocate homo-marriage. So buy Pepsi, shop at Dillard’s, and visit another local health-food store.
Perhaps those with large traditional families can’t afford to buy much from Whole Foods, but traditional marriage remains popular. Advocates can force businesses, other than perhaps Whole Foods, to become neutral. Since the traditional tend to out reproduce the liberal (see here and here), the traditional shall inherit the future. Contrary to the Liberal religion, Liberalism is not the force of history; it’s a speed bump.
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is stepping up her rhetoric against the “Republican establishment,” who she believes has turned its back on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), commenting that there may already be a third party in American politics.
“I dare say we already have a third party. We have the liberal party, the GOP machine, and then we’ve got the good guys,” she told Neil Cavuto on Tuesday on Fox News, while Cruz was crossing the hour and a half mark of speaking on the Senate floor. “That is the third party. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Rand Paul … Those are the players in the party whom I will support.”
Palin isn’t really suggesting the formation of a third party, but there is an implied threat here. Palin has hinted around about a third party in the past.
My question is how much of this is just posturing for the proles on her part, and how much is real. I don’t think it’s out of the question that Palin has been genuinely wounded by the way she has been cast aside by the Establishment. Forming a third party would be a perfect way to screw them. Never underestimate what a powerful motivation that lack of recognition and appreciation can be for a narcissist. Just ask Walter White.
This American Spectator review of Rich Lowry’s recent on Lincoln starts by saying:
Rich Lowry answers the question all Republicans should be asking: What would Lincoln do today?
Yeah Rich and the rest of the Lincoln syncophants, what would Lincoln do today? He would send troops to arrest his political opponents like Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center which advocates nullification, and Tom Woods who wrote a book about nullification, and the League of the South secessionists who will be protesting immigration in Tennessee next month, and all those Red State residents who signed secession petitions after Obama was re-elected, etc.
Check out the comments. I love how you can no longer write pro-Lincoln propaganda on conservative websites any longer without getting called out. Unless the “conservative” site tightly supresses dissent. We are making progress.
Ted Cruz is filibustering (sort of) ObamaCare at this moment. The technical details of why this isn’t an actual filibuster are here.
There will be a cloture vote tomorrow (Wednesday 25 Sept 13). All that is needed is 41 votes to defeat cloture. There are more than 41 Republican Senators. This should be an easy victory. No Republican Senator should want to be responsible for supporting cloture and foisting ObamaCare on their base which hates it. But alas, we still have a lot of Establishment Republicans who are more interested in staying in the good graces of Beltway centrists than they are the good graces of their base.
Call or e-mail your Senator and tell them to vote against cloture.
Here’s everything you need to know about Samantha Lewthwaite:
A British official told Andrew Malone of the London Daily Mail that a British woman known as the “White Widow” was suspected to be among the terrorists involved in the Kenya attack. Samantha Lewthwaite, 29, converted to Islam and married a Muslim man, Jermaine Lindsay, she met through an online chat room when she was 17. Lindsay killed himself in a suicide bombing that was one of the so-called “7/7? attacks on July 7, 2005, that killed 52 people in bombings on subways and buses in London.
Self-hating whites are as misguided and evil as the adherents of any other suicide cult. It’s a pity they have to take others down with them.
Posted under Sports
I’m rooting for Gustafsson. I really don’t like Jon Jones, and I have liked Gustafsson from the start.
On a humorous note, I accidentally ordered the Spanish language version of the pay per view. I was trying to order the non HD version because it is $10 cheaper, but ended up ordering the Spanish version instead. Oh well!
Update: I had Gustafsson winning rounds 1-3 and Jones winning rounds 4 and 5. But Jones came close to finishing the fight in the 4th, while Gustafsson never did.
In a recent open letter to the American people, Russian president Vladimir Putin assured us he likes and respects us, but asked us to realize we’re embarrassing ourselves and doing a lot of harm with our delusion of “American Exceptionalism.” Both the mainstream American left and right rushed to prop up our most beloved myth against this iconoclastic Cossack.
What’s interesting is that both wings of accepted American thought agree on what “exceptionalism” means–and more significantly, that both, though supposedly rivals, are actually in lockstep on all other major issues as a result.
For example, liberal columnist Dana Milbank shot back at President Putin with this bristling retort:
When we say we are exceptional, what we really are saying is we are different. With few exceptions, we are all strangers to our land; our families came from all corners of the world and brought all of its colors, religions and languages. We believe this mixing, together with our free society, has produced generations of creative energy and ingenuity, from the Declaration of Independence to Facebook, from Thomas Jefferson to Miley Cyrus. There is no other country quite like that.
Americans aren’t better than others, but our American experience is unique — exceptional — and it has created the world’s most powerful economy and military, which, more often than not, has been used for good in the world.
Miley Cyrus? Really? My pride floweth over.
And former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, now president of The Heritage Foundation, also defended “exceptionalism” by invoking the image of America as the Multi-Culti Empire that roams the globe doing good:
We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans…. When we have used our power, however, we have done it for good.”
Both echoed what Madeleine Albright said as secretary of state:
It is the threat of the use of force [against Iraq] and our line-up there that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us.
That self-image still inspires the Obama regime’s global aggression:
In their more honest moments, White House officials concede they got here the messiest way possible — with a mix of luck in the case of Syria, years of sanctions on Iran and then some unpredicted chess moves executed by three players Mr. Obama deeply distrusts: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, and Iran’s erratic mullahs. But, the officials say, these are the long-delayed fruits of the administration’s selective use of coercion in a part of the world where that is understood.
“The common thread is that you don’t achieve diplomatic progress in the Middle East without significant pressure,” Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, said Thursday. “In Syria, it was the serious threat of a military strike; in Iran it was a sanctions regime built up over five years.”
If your identity is that of a polyglot hegemon endowed with greater wisdom than the rest of the world, how can you NOT support open borders? Or the invasion of Iraq? Or Iran? Or Syria?
First of all, the US was NOT founded as a unique blend of whatever ethnic group decided to elbow its way in; it was founded as an outpost of Western civilization.
More important, the notion that the American people have always been committed to a never-ending global war to impose democracy and equality is a pure lie, and a fairly recent one at that. Previous “Wars of Liberation,” including Lincoln’s invasion of the South, the Spanish-American War, Vietnam, and Iraq, later turned out to be based on massive propaganda and misinformation.
The core idea expressed in “American Exceptionalism” is that the role of America’s elite is to serve as the global mind bringing reason and order to a chaotic, degenerate world. That is Gnosticism, an anti-Christian concept that explicitly glorifies abstract knowledge while scorning the physical. I argued here that Northern thought degenerated from its Puritan roots into militant Gnosticism, while Southerners upheld and lived by a balance between the spiritual and the physical.
Author John C. Wright said this of the Gnostic foundations of today’s statists and their leftist enablers:
In sum, they are idolaters who substitute the worship of Caesar for the worship of Christ; they are Gnostics in the posture of eternal rebellion both against God in Heaven and civil society on Earth. They are chameleons who adopt any ideals or values or party lines needed for so long as needed to destroy them, including Pragmatism, including Worldliness. They are Politically Correct and factually incorrect.
They seek to destroy civilized institutions here on Earth and drag Utopia down from heaven to replace them, indifferent, or even glorying, in the bloodshed required.
To avoid confusion, let us call them Ideologues. They are utterly unworldly, rejecting the pragmatism of the Worldly Man as cold and loveless and unspiritual.
The Ideologues are as nearly a pure evil as mankind has ever produced or can imagine, but please note that their motives are the highest and noblest imaginable: they seek things of the spirit, peace on earth, food for the poor, dignity given to all men, and all such things which are the only things, the holy things, that can electrify dull mankind and stir him to take up the banner and trumpet and shining lance of high and holy crusade.
Ever wonder why leftists see “education” as the cure to all ills? Or why they fancy themselves superior to those they see as living in the darkness of tradition and irrationality? Their contempt for the physical explains their hatred of heritage and tradition–and of life itself. But as John C. Wright pointed out, there’s a terrible price to pay for the spreading of their concept of the good. When Madeleine Albright proclaimed the death of a half-million Iraqi children as “worth it,” she was expressing what all Gnostics believe.
By their fruits ye shall know them.
Posted under Uncategorized
To clarify the following: A plane flying over North Carolina actually falls apart, two bombs stronger than those used on Japan (WWII) were dropped, one nearly activates.
From The Guardian:
This document was written on 22 October 1969 by Parker F Jones, the supervisor of the nuclear weapons safety department at Sandia national laboratories. The document has recently been declassified having been acquired under freedom of information provisions by the investigative reporter Eric Schlosser for his new book Command and Control. It is published here for the first time.
In the document, Jones gives his response to a passage in a book by Dr Ralph Lapp, a physicist involved in the Manhattan Project that developed the first nuclear bombs, that describes the accident in 1961 in which two hydrogen bombs were dropped inadvertently over North Carolina. An extract of Lapp’s book is reprinted on the left hand column of the first page of this document, and Jones’s expert response is printed on the right hand column.
From the first page of the document, Lapp writes:
[T]he 24 megaton warhead [Jones: bomb, not warhead] was equipped with six [Jones: not six, four] interlocking safety mechanisms, all of which had to be triggered in sequence to explode the bomb. When Air Force experts rushed to the North Carolina farm to examine the weapon after the accident, they found that five of the six had been set off by the fall [Jones: one "set off" by the fall. Two rendered ineffective by aircraft breakup.]
From the second page of the document, Jones writes:
One simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe!
If a short to an “arm” line occurred in a mid-air breakup, a postulate that seems credible, the Mk 39 Mod 2 bomb could have given a nuclear burst.
As a British admirer of America, G.K. Chesterton, once put it: “America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed.” We are, in other words, not a nation based on ethnicity, but on beliefs, and not coincidentally, that is why we attract people of all ethnicities and they become proud Americans.
Now in America this is no idle theory. It may have been theoretical, though it was thoroughly sincere, when that great Virginian gentleman declared it in surroundings that still had something of the character of an English countryside. It is not merely theoretical now. There is nothing to prevent America being literally invaded by Turks, as she is invaded by Jews or Bulgars. In the most exquisitely inconsequent of the Bab Ballads, we are told concerning Pasha Bailey Ben:
One morning knocked at half-past eight A tall Red Indian at his gate. In Turkey, as you’r’ p’raps aware, Red Indians are extremely rare.
But the converse need by no means be true. There is nothing in the nature of things to prevent an emigration of Turks increasing and multiplying on the plains where the Red Indians wandered; there is nothing to necessitate the Turks being extremely rare. The Red Indians, alas, are likely to be rarer. And as I much prefer Red Indians to Turks, I speak without prejudice; but the point here is that America, partly by original theory and partly by historical accident, does lie open to racial admixtures which most countries would think incongruous or comic. That is why it is only fair to read any American definitions or rules in a certain light, and relatively to a rather unique position. It is not fair to compare the position of those who may meet Turks in the back street with that of those who have never met Turks except in the Bab Ballads. It is not fair simply to compare America with England in its regulations about the Turk. In short, it is not fair to do what almost every Englishman probably does; to look at the American international examination paper, and laugh and be satisfied with saying, “We don’t have any of that nonsense in England.”
We do not have any of that nonsense in England because we have never attempted to have any of that philosophy in England. And, above all, because we have the enormous advantage of feeling it natural to be national, because there is nothing else to be. England in these days is not well governed; England is not well educated; England suffers from wealth and poverty that are not well distributed. But England is English–esto perpetua. England is English as France is French or Ireland is Irish; the great mass of men taking certain national traditions for granted. Now this gives us a totally different and a very much easier task. We have not got an inquisition, because we have not got a creed; but it is arguable that we do not need a creed, because we have got a character. In any of the old nations the national unity is preserved by the national type. Because we have a type we do not need to have a test.
Chesterton even includes in the closing paragraph:
I am very far from intending to imply that … there is no danger of tyranny becoming the temptation of America.
So, in arguing in favour of ideological nationalism, DeMint quotes a critic arguing the opposite. It’s at least heartening that Heritage might have a real conservative in the woodwork, since DeMint is provided a quote by Chesterton instead of Horowitz. If readers aren’t aware, Chesterton is one of ours. DeMint is President of The Heritage Foundation, the same that asked Jason Richwine to leave for having written this brilliant study.
Hopefully DeMint learns from this embarrassment and takes the path of Harvard political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, in asking, “Who are we?“
Posted under Education
During an “On Point” interview on September 18th, Diane Ravitch outburst:
Now maybe what he’ll do is he’ll find a charter school that only accepts kids with high scores. Then he’ll get a better quality of education. Keep the poor kids out, resegregate them, keep them locked in ghettos where they won’t be near his kids; and then we will create in this country a dual school system such as we had before Brown vs. Board of Education, where the poor kids and the kids who don’t make it and the cutoffs are segregated, where the kids with disabilities are kept out of the school, where the kids who are English language learners are kept out of the school. That works, but it’s wrong.
Recording times: 23:14-23:47
From Diane’s website:
Diane Ravitch is Research Professor of Education at New York University and a historian of education.
She blogs at dianeravitch.net, a site which has had nearly 3.5 million page views in less than a year.
From 1991 to 1993, she was Assistant Secretary of Education and Counselor to Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. She was responsible for the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education. As Assistant Secretary, she led the federal effort to promote the creation of voluntary state and national academic standards.
She is the author of:
The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education (2010)
Edspeak: A Glossary of Education Terms, Phrases, Buzzwords, and Jargon (2007)
The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn (2003)
Left Back: A Century of Battles Over School Reform (2000)
National Standards in American Education: A Citizen’s Guide (1995)
What Do Our 17-Year-Olds Know? (with Chester Finn, Jr.) 
The Schools We Deserve (1985)
The Troubled Crusade: American Education, 1945–1980 (1983)
The Revisionists Revised (1978)
The Great School Wars: New York City, 1805–1973 (1974)
In addition, she has edited fourteen books, including The American Reader (1991); The English Reader (with Michael Ravitch) ; The Democracy Reader (with Abigail Thernstrom) ;Forgotten Heroes of American Education (with Wesley Null) ; Learning from the Past (with Maris Vinovskis) ; and New Schools for a New Century (with Joseph Viteritti) . She has written more than 500 articles and reviews for scholarly and popular publications.
If you write for a right-of-center magazine perhaps you shouldn’t dis “right-of-center” magazines. Just sayin’.
Take a look at this post at American Spectator by Matthew Walther. The post is about intelligent design. I have some thoughts on intelligent design, but they are complicated and more than I want to go into now. My point here is about this offending paragraph, which I just couldn’t let go.
Nagel’s book was published under one of the world’s best university press trade imprints, Oxford UP; Meyer’s, on the other hand, has been brought out by a house whose biases are, for good or ill, so well known that their titles go virtually unreviewed outside the right-of-center press. Where Nagel’s book is a work of popular philosophy, Meyer’s is, or purports to be, one of science. (emphasis mine)
Ummm… dude, you’re writing this post on American Spectator. And to make it more ironic/clueless, the post is about a review of said book. Perhaps if you think the right-of-center press is so lowly and inconsequential then maybe you should look for a different venue for your thoughts.
I know some here aren’t crazy about Top Conservative News, but this is too rich to pass up.
White hater Tim Wise is in hot water for … wait for it … wait for it … alleged racism. Ha ha. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Here is the article that TCN links to. Read the anti-Wise tweets if you can stomach them. If they don’t make you weep for the future of this country, nothing will.
These White haters (often self-loathers) have their own language. If you have ever seriously uttered the words “cis male” (look it up) or “white privilege” then you should be permanently banned from polite company and nothing you say should be taken seriously again.
BTW, Tim Wise has apologized like the wuss he is.
I won’t try and defend the tone of most of my remarks. It was inappropriate. Period.
I fell into the same kind of vitriolic and sometimes personal attack mode that had gotten me angry in the first place. I shouldn’t have. I will strive to do better.
He showed a tiny flash of manhood by calling out his hecklers and now he must retreat back into eunuch status lest the anti-White peanut gallery hound him out of his profitable gig. You can’t make this crap up.
Posted under Humor
Posted under TV
***Spoiler Alert*** read ahead at your own risk.
Vince Gilligan has reportedly been surprised by how many people are still rooting for Walt. This whole final half season seems to me like Vince Gilligan’s all out effort to shake off the last of the Walt sympathizers.
First of all, it has always come naturally to me to root for the protagonist, even if he is an antihero. Were we really supposed to hope that the Feds busted Tony Soprano? When? Episode one? Then what is the point of the show? A lot of the “how could you still be rooting for Walt” feigned outrage strikes me as moral posturing. (See here for example.) It’s a TV show. Of course I don’t approve of making meth, poisoning kids or offing witnesses, but to follow the logic that we aren’t supposed to be rooting for Walt because he is a bad man we would never make fiction about anything other than positive things. While we do need more positive TV shows, spare me the “I’m supposed to hate Walt” moralizing.
Second, Walt offered all his money, 80 million dollars, to save Hank’s sorry butt, even though Hank had just arrested him and obviously could no longer stand him. He also made that phone call to take the heat off Skyler and put it all on him, presumably for the benefit of the police and Walt Jr. No one asked Jesse to be a rat. No one asked hysterical Marie (a truly hateable character) to force Skyler to tell Hank Jr. What was the point of that? And no one asked little rat Walt Jr. to call the cops. Eat some pancakes and keep your mouth shut boy. His mom clearly attacked Walt, not the other way around.
I’m defiantly on Team Walt until the end.