The indispensible Patrick Henry

Having only recently posted a copious excerpt from his momentous “Give me liberty or give me death” address, I can’t argue with the proposition.

After finishing a biography titled, Patrick Henry: Champion of Liberty, by John Kukla, I am convinced that Mr. Henry, Colonel Henry, nay, Governor Henry is the real father of our country instead of the beloved General, President George Washington. As I become more familiar with the particular history of Old Dominion and her role and that of her leading citizens in the first war for independence, it seems that Patrick Henry was the actual indispensable man. It was his writings that first dared name the final object while others were still calling it treason. It was his resolutions that prepared Virginia to become economically independent and arm herself when England’s aggression first became apparent. It was his conviction and energy that moved the goal of independence forward among a people whose timidity and lack of vision made them reluctant to pursue it.

In cannot be disputed that Virginia lead the revolution, so it must follow that one of her leading residents must be credited with spearheading the charge, defining its course, and seeing it through to fruition. I submit that it was the unchallenged leader of Virginia at the time; the man whose influence trumped all others, Patrick Henry, who was the real author of an independent America. Neither Thomas Jefferson, nor George Washington held positions with influence great enough to rival Henry during the true formative years of early American government. Patrick Henry’s education, experience, talents, and temperament gave him more credibility in the colonies than any other man. Jefferson may have written the final founding documents of the country, but before Jefferson was Henry, paving the way. Washington may have taken the helm when the new constitution was in place, but it was during his years of leadership that the principles of independence saw immediate decay.

No doubt Henry’s greatest talents were in law and legislation. He had no rival when it came to articulating and persuading through the written word and oratory how the rights of men were to be upheld, and a significant amount of his contributions came during his years serving as a burgess in Virginia and on various legislative committees. His career as a lawyer gave him experience in the judiciary sphere and unique resilience when it came to discussion and debate of the issues of the day that many of his peers lacked. Neither was he was devoid of military knowledge and even reluctantly served in a military command when the thrust of the independence movement turned to combat maneuvers in Virginia. He was willing to serve wherever the cause needed him.

At the conclusion of the war and as attention turned to augmenting the government connecting the states, Patrick Henry stayed alert and informed in order to be prepared to protect the liberty of the people when changes were proposed.

And what relationship should my proposed ‘Father of our Country’ have to the adopted Constitution? Ever faithful to principles of liberty, he naturally opposed it. Regardless of the promises and assurances given by its proponents, Patrick Henry was the one who prophetically saw its flaws and the abuses that were inevitable. Perhaps it was his superior ability to observe and judge the hearts of the people around him that allowed him to see that the Constitution had too much potential to be construed by imperfect human nature. He knew that Virginia’s sovereign happiness would be destroyed by being under the same rule as regions different and hostile to her culture. He was right and his perception deserves to be acknowledged.

Why do men like Jefferson, Madison, and Washington take center stage? Similar to the fate of the South after the ‘Civil War’, those that won the war wrote the history. The Federalists won the ratification debate and became major players in the new government. Henry recedes into Virginia history working to remedy the threats to Liberty instead of taking the national limelight. When this man said, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” they were not just idle words.  He truly meant that Liberty was more important than anything else, even union, and he proved to be its greatest advocate until his death. Regardless of what America has become today, Patrick Henry represents its true spirit, the protection of individual rights, and the best of what it should be; free and independent states.

This short piece is from the Abbeville Institute, whose site I became aware of not long ago. It appears to be a top-notch resource for articles not only on America’s Founding, but also for current events; ideology and philosophy; and Southern-specific political and cultural history as well. Top-notch enough, in fact, that at present I have three more of their articles sitting in open tabs, awaiting their appearance here as soon as I can make time to git ‘er done. Until then, into Ye Olde CF Blogrolle with ye, AI.

Update! Okay, I’m gonna shirk my sworn duty to you folks a wee mite and commend your attention to these two excellent Abbeville posts without any commentary from me: this one, an in-depth account of the rise of representative government in Virginia and the men involved in its creation; and this one, a review of the first book-length treatment ever published on Spencer Roane, son in law of Patrick Henry and a staunch defender of Jeffersonian principle who has fallen into undeserved obscurity.

1

The Thrubbles, American-style

Alarming parallels.

The Irish Troubles is one of six models I’ve identified that could have (loosely) an American equivalent.

Of course, I’m not talking about Catholics versus Protestants, but a sectarian conflict featuring sporadic armed political violence where the government’s primary mission is peacekeeping followed by counterterrorism.

The Irish Troubles resulted in over 50,000 casualties and 3,500 deaths over a 30-year span (1969-1998). Armed violence was widespread across Northern Ireland, but this map illustrating the deaths of civilians and British Security Forces gives us a good glimpse of where casualty-producing attacks occurred.

One of my key assumptions for this model remains that armed political volence would be geographically limited. I wouldn’t expect much from, say, central Nebraska or northern Alabama, for instance, just like many areas of Northern Ireland had very few instances of armed violence over a 30-year span. I expect most places to remain… well, pretty quiet as far as fighting is concerned. (Criminality is another matter!)

A few things… First, civilian deaths are roughly equal to deaths of all belligerents. High civilian casualties are the norm for domestic conflicts, going all the way back to at least the 1500s. As French Renaissance philosopher Michel de Montaigne (1532-1592) observed, “In truth a forraine warre is nothing so dangerous a disease as a civill.”

Second, while the 1970s were by far the most violent, war-related deaths continued to stack up over the following decades. The total death toll of 3,483 works out to an average of 116 deaths per year, or roughly one death every three days. For 30 years. Low intensity conflicts, especially insurgencies and guerrilla wars, are often protracted. Nothing happening in the United States today signals that our own domestic conflict would be short lived.

Third, I’m still compiling the numbers of fighters as a percentage of the overall populace. The end result will show that a small percentage was actively engaged in the fighting at any given time. As we see in most low intensity conflicts, a small percentage actually takes part in the fighting, followed by maybe 5-15% of the total population involved in active support at some level, and everyone else is just trying to live their lives. I suspect that the American Troubles would be similar.

The real problem for most Americans will be the economic, financial, and monetary destruction that results from armed conflict. While you’d think that high unemployment would enable the mobilization of millions of military-aged males, the disruption to transportation, shipping, and production likely means that many Americans will be focused on week to week survival, as opposed to actively fighting.

The greater the operational tempo and mass of fighters, the greater logistics you need. This likely means that the number of fighters remains relatively small compared to the efforts required to support them. Again, less than 5%, maybe even less than 1%, is likely to be engaged at any time. (That’s still a lot of people.)

On that note, the United States population today is some 200 times larger than Northern Ireland was from 1969-1998. So could we see 200 times the death toll? Certainly.

Although I still maintain that there is simply no possible way to accurately predict where this is headed or how it’s all going to end up, Culper’s comparison with The Thrubbles (hey, I’m Irish all to hell and gone on my mom’s side, so I can say it that way if I want to, dammit) seems entirely apt to me, and just as likely to yield some useful indications as any. At the end of the day, though, the one and only sure thing is that it’s going to positively SUCK.

(Via WRSA)

4

WAKE UP, BLACK AMERICA!

You folks know by now that I am resolutely immune to the bizarre ((((((JOOOOOOOOOOO!!!™)))))) obssessiveness currently fashionable in certain other quarters, for reasons I’ve already gone through here plenty enough times. Being more of a William of Occam devotee, I’ve never really had any truck with conspiracy theorizing of any flavor, which admittedly has become a much more difficult mindset to maintain the last two years. But once in a VERY great while, a conspiracy theory comes along that is so damned compelling, so brilliantly conceived, so clearly beyond argument that no sensible soul could possibly do anything other than embrace it without reservation.

This would be one of those.

San Francisco State University Prof Says Jewish Pot is Making Black Men Gay
“It is Jewish genius that has helped…to weaponize the weed.”

Wesley Muhammad believes that the U.S. government and the Jews are using marijuana to make black men gay. The “Pot Plot” is a popular theory in Muhammad’s Nation of Islam cult.

At the Saviours Day Convention in Chicago, an official Nation of Islam event, Wesley Muhammad claimed that, “It is Jewish genius that has helped… to weaponize the weed so that it may effeminize the black male of America. And be clear, it is Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam that is standing in between the total demasculinization of the black man in America.”

Some years back, Wesley Muhammad’s lecture, “How to Make a Homosexual: The Scientific Assault on Black America” was canceled at a Philly black beauty expo because of its hateful content. But what wasn’t good enough for the 23rd Annual International Locks Conference, a black natural hair expo, is unfortunately all too welcome at San Francisco State University.

It’s not too surprising that a black “wholistic” hair expo has higher standards than the most antisemitic university in America. Or that Muhammad fits in so well at SFSU.

“It is clear that the two most powerful lobbies in America – the Jewish and the Homosexual – are hellbent on the information in this lecture, “How To Make A Homosexualm (sic)” NEVER makes it to the public’s awareness,” Muhammad complained on Facebook.

San Francisco State University has however been happy to provide Muhammad with a platform despite no shortage of ethnically Jewish and gay people on the faculty and in the administration.

Wesley Muhammad’s bio at the taxpayer-funded university notes that he is a lecturer in the Africana Studies Department of SFSU’s College of Ethnic Studies. It mentions his publications in the Final Call newspaper of the Nation of Islam hate group, and his book, “Understanding the Assault on the Black Man, Black Manhood and Black Masculinity” which contains thoughtful chapters such as “Why Saggin is Faggin” and “Birth of the Black Man (God)”. 

This one scores straight A’s all across the board: for creativity; for originality; for weaving widely disparate threads into a wholly incoherent narrative fabric; for entertainment value; for sheer bugfuck lunacy, it tops every category. I must confess that I haven’t read all of it yet, mainly because I can only get another ‘graph or so deeper in before keeling over in helpless laughter and having to start all over again.

Damn pesky JOOOOOZ, getting all the brothas hung up on de weeeit ‘n’ fucking dey shit up ‘n’shit! Nomesay’n? Yup, it takes a nation of millions to hold ’em back. WE WUZ KANGS ‘N’SHIT!!!

6
3

Happy Columbus Day Victory Over Indigenous Peoples Day!

The straight dope about the man, facts they don’t teach in government schools.

The explorer Christopher Columbus made four trips across the Atlantic Ocean from Spain: in 1492, 1493, 1498 and 1502. He was determined to find a direct water route west from Europe to Asia, but he never did. Instead, he stumbled upon the Americas. Though he did not really “discover” the so-called New World—millions of people already lived there—his journeys marked the beginning of centuries of exploration and colonization of North and South America.

Christopher Columbus, the son of a wool merchant, is believed to have been born in Genoa, Italy, in 1451. When he was still a teenager, he got a job on a merchant ship. He remained at sea until 1476, when pirates attacked his ship as it sailed north along the Portuguese coast.

The boat sank, but the young Columbus floated to shore on a scrap of wood and made his way to Lisbon, where he eventually studied mathematics, astronomy, cartography and navigation. He also began to hatch the plan that would change the world forever.

At the end of the 15th century, it was nearly impossible to reach Asia from Europe by land. The route was long and arduous, and encounters with hostile armies were difficult to avoid. Portuguese explorers solved this problem by taking to the sea: They sailed south along the West African coast and around the Cape of Good Hope.

But Columbus had a different idea: Why not sail west across the Atlantic instead of around the massive African continent? The young navigator’s logic was sound, but his math was faulty. He argued (incorrectly) that the circumference of the Earth was much smaller than his contemporaries believed it was; accordingly, he believed that the journey by boat from Europe to Asia should be not only possible, but comparatively easy via an as-yet undiscovered Northwest Passage. 

He presented his plan to officials in Portugal and England, but it was not until 1492 that he found a sympathetic audience: the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile.

Columbus wanted fame and fortune. Ferdinand and Isabella wanted the same, along with the opportunity to export Catholicism to lands across the globe. (Columbus, a devout Catholic, was equally enthusiastic about this possibility.)

Columbus’ contract with the Spanish rulers promised that he could keep 10 percent of whatever riches he found, along with a noble title and the governorship of any lands he should encounter.

Today, Columbus has a controversial legacy—he is remembered as a daring and path-breaking explorer who transformed the New World, yet his actions also unleashed changes that would eventually devastate the native populations he and his fellow explorers encountered.

The consensus view on Columbus the man is, and has been for many years, that he was in fact something of a grubby, treacherous little prick. I like the guy anyway, though, seeing as how the mere mention of his name usually reduces shitlibs to frothing paroxysms of rage, almost all of it centered on the “genocide” he unleashed on “Native Americans,” ie, the Red Injun. But the fact is, Columbus never even set foot on what we today know as American soil, thus never “genocided” any American Injuns, nor even set eyes on one to my knowledge. More little-known facts, randomly plucked from both hither and yon. First, the hither:

3. He Was a Cheapskate
On his famous 1492 voyage, Columbus had promised a reward of gold to whoever saw land first. A sailor named Rodrigo de Triana was the first to see land on October 12, 1492: a small island in the present-day Bahamas Columbus named San Salvador. Poor Rodrigo never got the reward, however: Columbus kept it for himself, telling everyone he had seen a hazy sort of light the night before. He had not spoken up because the light was indistinct. Rodrigo may have gotten hosed, but there is a nice statue of him sighting land in a park in Seville.

4. Half of His Voyages Ended in Disaster
On Columbus’ famed 1492 voyage, his flagship the Santa Maria ran aground and sank, causing him to leave 39 men behind at a settlement named La Navidad. He was supposed to return to Spain loaded with spices and other valuable goods and knowledge of an important new trade route. Instead, he returned empty-handed and without the best of the three ships entrusted to him. On his fourth voyage, his ship rotted out from under him and he spent a year with his men marooned on Jamaica.

5. He Was a Terrible Governor
Grateful for the new lands he had found for them, the King and Queen of Spain made Columbus governor in the newly-established settlement of Santo Domingo. Columbus, who was a fine explorer, turned out to be a lousy governor. He and his brothers ruled the settlement like kings, taking most of the profits for themselves and antagonizing the other settlers. Although Columbus instructed his settlers to make sure that the Tainos on Hispaniola be protected, during his frequent absences, the settlers rampaged the villages, robbing, raping, and enslaving. Disciplinary actions by Columbus and his brother were met with open revolt.

It got so bad that the Spanish crown sent an investigator, who took over as governor, arrested Columbus, and sent him back to Spain in chains. The new governor was far worse.

8. He Never Believed He Had Found a New World
Columbus was looking for a new passage to Asia… and that’s just what he found, or so he said until his dying day. In spite of mounting facts that seemed to indicate that he had discovered lands previously unknown, he continued to believe that Japan, China and the court of the Great Khan were very close to the lands he had discovered. Isabella and Ferdinand knew better: the geographers and astronomers they consulted knew the world was spherical and estimated that Japan was 12,000 miles from Spain (correct if you go by ship heading eastward from Bilbao), while Columbus held out for 2,400 miles.

According to biographer Washington Irving (1783–1859), Columbus even proposed a ridiculous theory for the discrepancy: that the Earth was shaped like a pear, and that he had not found Asia because of the part of the pear that bulges out towards the stem. At court, it was the width of the ocean westward that was in question, not the shape of the world. Fortunately for Columbus, the Bahamas was located about the distance he expected to find Japan.

By the end of his life, he was a laughingstock in Europe because of his stubborn refusal to accept the obvious.

Next, the yon:

7. He was stranded in Jamaica
When Columbus sailed for the New World for the last time, shipworms gnawed parts of his fleet, forcing him to abandon two ships and land on modern-day Jamaica. He and his crew were stranded, but the native Arawak Indians welcomed them and fed them for months.

8. A lunar eclipse saved Columbus in Jamaica
As months dragged on, Columbus’ crew mutinied, robbed and murdered some of the Arawaks. To quell the chaos, Columbus pretended to bring down the wrath of God. He had a copy of an astronomical almanac, which predicts a total lunar eclipse. Three days before the celestial event, Columbus requested an audience with the Arawak chief, saying that his God was angry for the lack of provisions for his men and that he would send a sign of his displeasure.

True enough, the moon turned a blood-red colour and terrified the natives. The Arawaks asked Columbus to intercede, promising to provide for them if his God restores the moon. Columbus pretended to pray in his cabin and emerged only when the eclipse has subsided. The Arawaks then provided for them until a caravel from Hispaniola arrived to fetch them.

9. Columbus didn’t prove that the Earth was round
Many credit the discovery of a round Earth to Columbus, but he wasn’t the first to prove it. Humans have known that the Earth was round since ancient Greece, so this wasn’t a surprising fact, even for Christopher Columbus. The Greeks observed the movements of the sun and other planetary properties to conclude that the Earth was a sphere. What he wanted to do was to create a sea route across the Atlantic towards Asia.

11. He miscalculated the Earth’s circumference
It’s a little-known fact that Christopher Columbus had many miscalculations during his journeys. He underestimated the circumference of the Earth by 25%. Also, his estimate of the naval distance to Marco Polo’s great port of Cathay was inaccurate.

12. His famous ships had nicknames
Columbus’ ships are known as Niña, Pinta and Santa Maria, but the first two are likely nicknames. In Columbus’ time, it was custom to name ships after saints and then give them a simpler moniker. The real name of Niña was Santa Clara, while Santa Maria’s nickname was La Gallega, after Galicia, where it was built. Pinta’s real name is unknown.

17. His death caused three decades of legal proceedings
When Columbus died, his heirs filed lawsuits known as the Pleitos colombinos against the Crown of Castile and Leon to assert the rewards for discovering the New World for Spain. Legal proceedings lasted three decades until the Crown granted honorific titles to Columbus’ grandson.

Whatever his personal flaws and failings, Christopher Columbus was inarguably a most intriguing man, as all great explorers tend to be. My own fondness for him dates back to my NYC days, when every Fall the annual controversy over the Columbus Day Parade would predictably erupt like a modern-day Mt Vesuvius. In one corner: Kid Shitlib, spluttering hysterically for all the stale reasons you’d expect. In the other: Dago Red, who had long since adopted Columbus as the symbolic Trevi Fountain from whence springs all Italian-American heritage, history, and pride.

Oh, but the yearly battle over the big Columbus Day Parade was epic, with Kid Shitlib rope-a-doping in hopes of permanently ending this shameful celebration of racism, imperialism, slavery, and genocide through legal and political maneuvering. Meanwhile, the pugnacious Dago Red would charge doggedly straight into the fray, vowing that if the City didn’t fund, manage, and endorse the shindig officially this year, they’d do it all themselves and to hell with everybody. Which, I’m sure they would have at that, if only for spite, and more power to ’em.

On the glorious day itself, the Eyeties would emerge en masse from their Mulberry Street enclave to march alongside the Parade as it wound its way along Fifth Ave, their backs straight and jaws jutting in open challenge to the shitlib pussies to man up and start some shit. The shitlibs, in keeping with their own rich Columbus Day tradition, would limit expression of their disapproval and protest to weeping piteously in terror, pleading for mercy from the intimidating Wop palookas enjoying the parade, flapping their noodle-like arms in frustration, then speedily retiring further uptown to take part in the annual public beat-off contest on the steps of Saint Ignatius Loyola church.

Yep, those were the days alright.

Update! Because OF COURSE he did.

On Monday, Ron DeSantis did something which surely steamed the Left.

Again.

Florida’s governor signed a proclamation honoring Columbus Day.

“Columbus Day commemorates the life and legacy of the Italian explorer who made Europeans conscious of the existence of the New World,” he observed, “and whose travels opened the door for the development of European settlements in the Western Hemisphere, which would ultimately lead to the establishment of the United States of America.”

That ain’t even the half of it, as you will find out when you click on over and read the rest.

4

Stalin’s war, Stalin’s win

Reviewing a book that offers a different perspective on WW2.

The goals of the Western Allies in World War II were to defeat Hitler and prevent a hostile power from entrenching itself in Europe and Asia, threatening the freedom and survival of the West. From a narrow perspective, the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan in 1945 fulfilled this objective: it was a victory for the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies, and we celebrate V-E Day every May 8 and V-J Day on September 2. But for a large number of nations that fought against Berlin and Tokyo, at enormous sacrifice, 1945 is a dark year that ended one tyranny only to be replaced by another one, the Communist one, which was (and continues to be) no less vicious and in fact was much more lasting and pervasive. Stalin replaced Hitler. Or, to put it in the context of World War II, Stalin was the clear winner of that conflict. It was his war, and he got the most out of it.

This is the argument of a new book, Stalin’s War, by a prolific and excellent historian, Sean McMeekin of Bard College. The author is already well known, having written highly readable and incisive books exploring the role of Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Germany in the origins of World War I. In his new work, he focuses on Stalin, his objectives, his tactics, his actions, and, above all, his ability to obtain from his Western counterparts everything (and more!) that he wanted. The book presents the story of Stalin’s success that brought an enormous human cost to his own people and to those who came under Communist domination, as well as an enduring geopolitical cost. Through this war, Stalin succeeded in anchoring Soviet power and influence over Eurasia, benefiting from the frailty of European powers. Germany was obviously reduced to rubble by 1945, but even the victorious powers, from France and the UK to the other smaller states across the continent, were mere shadows of their former selves. Stalin gained strategic real estate and the tools, looted from Europe or given to him by the United States, to turn Russia into an industrial superpower. The conditions for the Cold War were in place, and in the immediate aftermath of the war, the possibility that Stalin could become the master of Eurasia was not out of the question. And, for the U.S., victory in 1945 meant not a satisfying and prolonged age of peace, but the beginning of a new and massive investment in preserving its security and the stability threatened by the Soviet Union.

The story presented in such a way is not new, and its broad contours are accepted by most, except those who still see Communist ideology and the USSR as a benign progressive force or those who blame American post-war support of Western Europe for the Cold War. But McMeekin digs deeper and his goal is to change two pervasive myths. One presents Stalin as a paranoid dictator bumbling across the European chessboard, getting caught unprepared for Hitler’s aggressive intents, and then rising to the historic occasion and motivating his people to fight the “Great Patriotic War” to liberate Russia and the adjoining lands from the Nazis. In brief, a dictator to be sure, but a naive one with a great patriotic heart backed by a Russian nation willing to accept great sacrifices.

The other myth is of a strategically wise leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, skillfully making their moves across the world’s map, negotiating with a vast array of strategic partners (including Stalin) and organizing bold military actions that ultimately lead to the 1945 triumph. Neither myth, however, is entirely correct, as McMeekin brilliantly argues backed by abundant facts supplied through impeccable research.

After a look into Stalin’s acquisitive designs on Western Europe, all undone by Hitler’s doomed invasion of the USSR in 1941, we direct our attention still further Westward.

McMeekin then focuses on how the Western allies, Churchill but especially FDR, abetted Stalin’s ambitions. This part of the book is fascinating and depressing at the same time. In a nutshell, Stalin obtained from FDR more than he expected: territory, influence, and materiel. And he did not give anything in exchange for it because FDR and his advisors never asked him for it. For instance, FDR supported the Lend-Lease program, putting his friend Harry Hopkins in charge. Under this program of military aid, the United States supplied a massive amount of weapons, trucks, airplanes, tanks, foodstuff to the Soviet Union in the months of its greatest need, as German troops were driving deep into Russia while the vaunted Soviet armies were melting away. Without such aid, the USSR would have likely been unable to stop the German onslaught and certainly would have been incapable of mustering the resources necessary to push westward. Hence, in this moment there was a good strategic rationale for the American support of Stalin’s defensive efforts against Nazi Germany.

But the problem was that FDR—and Hopkins—went much further than simply buttressing a collapsing Soviet power. The most stunning mistake—a policy willfully pursued by FDR—was that Stalin was never asked for anything in exchange for this material aid. The United States had the upper hand because the Soviets were desperate for any help and would have paid a price for these goods. As McMeekin comments, FDR “could have asked any price: payment in cash, by loan, or in kind; political concessions inside Russia; or promises from Stalin of better behavior abroad, such as abandoning his spying operations in Washington or offering token support for the US-British war against Japan. Instead, the Americans simply gave and demanded nothing in return aside from a vague, nonbinding promise of loan repayment beginning five years after the war was over, at no interest.”

Such a naivete could have been the result of FDR’s belief in his personal capacity to persuade people. But, at best, FDR profoundly misunderstood Stalin, despite the evidence of Soviet actions and even of Stalin’s own words and behavior toward the US President. FDR thought that he could build goodwill with Stalin. As he put it, “I think that if I give him everything I can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.” This is the point where naivete became stupidity.

With certain classifications of Western liberal, the distinction between naivete and stupidity is so thin it’s not worth the bother of making. They’re conjoined twins, constantly shifting and bleeding over one into the other, staggering clumsily about like a dancer uncertain of his stage cues. Sooner or later, though, the Libtard can be relied upon to close this pointless ballet with both feet planted squarely on Stupid. In reality, though, is that he started there, and never ventured any meaningful distance from it. Read the rest for further details of Stalin’s willful humiliation of the hapless, grossly-overmatched clown Roosevelt, and what Uncle Joe’s deftly stolen victory ended up costing the entire world, in blood and treasure.

2

The Blame Game continues

Gotta admit, here’s a culprit I hadn’t really thought of before. But after reading this, I can’t really say it’s all that much of a stretch.

So who is to blame for the current Afghanistan fiasco?

There is plenty of blame to go around. President Biden, for sure. President Obama, yes. And the second President Bush, yes, for the insane mission of nation-building, trying to install a Western-style democracy in a land that was wholly unsuited for it.

But here is a name nobody is mentioning but should. That name is…Ronald Reagan.

Yeah, I know, I know. Just slow your roll a little, and hear this guy out.

I hate saying that. I supported the sainted Reagan rabidly back in the day, and I still do in many ways. But now, in retrospect, I see Reagan as the ultimate culprit for the current fiasco. History may yet look to Ronald Reagan’s decision to intervene in Afghanistan as his biggest mistake.

But, gee, Reagan’s decision sure seemed like the right decision at the time. I certainly supported it.

The Russian war in Afghanistan consisted of three phases. Phase 1: The Russians invaded with a classical WWII army — and promptly got their backsides handed to them. The USSR lost Phase 1.

But the Russians learned their lessons and for the next phase used a modern strategy of helicopters and other air assets to obliterate the Mujaheddin. It worked. The USSR won Phase 2 and, as a result, completely controlled the country. The Mujaheddin were exiled across the Khyber Pass in Pakistan, licking their wounds.

Phase 3 can be summed up in one word: Stinger, as in Stinger missiles. With Stinger missiles, which Uncle Ronnie gave them, the Mujaheddin took air control away from the Russians, drove them out, and the rest is — not only history, but now current events, too.

For a short time, the USSR had built a classical Marxist state in Afghanistan. So what are the hallmarks of such a regime?

A police state — yes. Brutal suppression of dissent — yes. Lots of suppression of human rights, lots of imprisonment, lots of executions, lots of corruption — yes, yes, yes.

But now think of what else it means.

Suppression of organized religion. In this case, this isn’t gentle, harmless Christianity we’re talking about. Rather, this is jihadist Islam. This would have been suppressed savagely, not least because, unlike Christianity, such an Islam really is a threat to a secular, atheistic state.

So, inside this classical, secular, atheist Marxist state, there’d have been no room at all for al-Qaeda or the Taliban or ISIS. Afghanistan would never have become a world base for Islamic terror. There never would have been an attack on 9/11.

Here are other hallmarks of Marxism, and these are positive, at least in the context of a medieval Islamic nation: universal health. Universal education, and for girls as well as for boys.

If Marxism had been allowed to prevail in Afghanistan, its women would have been immensely better off than what actually happened to them.

It might sound ugly and cruel, but at this stage of things I can’t honestly say I give much of a shit about what might happen to women in ANY Moslem shithole. And while we’re being brutally honest here, I also can’t say I care much more about the fate of the thousands of American State Dept personnel who are stuck there, either. Same goes for “our Afghani allies”—translators, ANA soldiers, etc.

Yes, I do agree that they’ve been stabbed in the back—betrayed and ruthlessly abandoned by a faithless, heartless “ally.” So stipulated. But see, those poor, hapless Afghanis made the same mistake a goodly number of Normal Americans here at home still make: their conception of what the USA—specifically, the US government—is and what it actually is are, shall we say, at variance. WIDE variance.

Tens of thousands will die horribly at the hands of some of the most vicious, barbaric monsters the race is capable of producing because of all this. I’m sorry for that. I wish it wasn’t happening. But there’s also not one damned thing I can do about it. For those doomed souls who acted on their misplaced faith that the wholly-evil US government would have their backs and honor its promise to protect them, the sad fact is this:



There is a silver lining to this whole clusterfuck, however tarnished. If nothing else, after Biden’s Big Afghan Adventure, there can be NO excuse for not recognizing the true nature of the US federal government—what it is; what it does; what its intentions are; what it actually gives a shit about, and what it doesn’t. The mask has been ripped away for good; there’s no longer any way to conceal the ugly truth. The more people awakened by the revelations of this past week, the more likely that corrective action will be taken, and the sooner it will happen. If so, we’ll all be better off for it.

1
1

The most interesting man in the WORLD!!

Handlers drag Stutterin’ Jaux out into public view, hilarity ensues. Not that THAT could possibly come as any kind of surprise by now.

White House Struggles To Explain Biden’s Claim About Driving 18-Wheelers

Oh, they’re actually going to bother trying to “explain” this lapse into his typical state of mental confusion, are they? Assuming they do, and I don’t why they would really, I’m betting on the old “it was a joke” standby. That well-worn chestnut always seems to take in the rubes.

The White House is struggling to explain President Joe Biden’s claim that he has driven an 18-wheeler truck, Fox News reported.

“I used to drive an 18-wheeler, man,” Biden said on Wednesday. “I got to.” The president claimed he had driven the massive trucks before while visiting a Mack Truck facility in Pennsylvania, according to Fox News.

The White House didn’t respond to an immediate question from the Daily Caller News Foundation about evidence towards this claim.

Of course they didn’t. I mean, what could they possibly say?

Also left unexplained by White House goons was Jaux Corpsicle’s claim that, during the earliest days of his long and storied trucking career driving for Precion Tool Company in his home town of Memphis, he spent a lot of his off hours at Sun Studios with the legendary Sam Phillips—the man who produced the recording of “My Happiness” that Biden did as a birthday gift for his mother Gladys, which launched his career as one of the world’s most iconic rock and roll singers.

After the men in the long white lab jackets “escorting” Biden at the Mack plant tried desperately to steer their befuddled charge back on track mentally, the ***”””President”””*** launched into a rambling reminiscence of the very first days of his ***”””Presidency”””*** back in 1776, when he personally and singlehandedly penned both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution in less than half a day.

Upon being queried by reporters about whether and when the Great Man might sit down to write his memoirs, Biden suddenly turned beet-red with rage at the imaginary slight. “COME ON, MAN!! I did that years and years ago,” the ***”””President”””*** angrily exploded, swinging his withered arms frantically around his head as if he’d been suddenly beset by a swarm of blowflies. “The title of it was, I think, My Personal Best umpty-tumpty-tiddly something or other, can’t remember. But over time, my book became better known as simply the New Testament. Sold a hell of a lot of copies, too, once I gave that Gutenberg feller a few pointers and we got that printing press of his working right again, I tell ya what.”

The White House press corpse fell to its knees at these startling revelations, every voice raised in hosannahs of praise and humble gratitude for what must surely be the greatest leader ever to bestride this poor planet, hailing him as the mighty colossus—verily, the King of Kings—he so truly is.

1

The ground-level view

If you’ve noticed that what the people Salena Zito calls “our cultural narrative-makers” are reporting is quite often at odds with your own daily meatspace reality, particularly life as she is lived in small-town and rural America, well, it ain’t just your imagination. Since this is a relatively short piece and there’s no way to do it justice with some niggardly copy ‘n’ pastery, I’m just gonna repost the whole thing, with my apologies to Ms Zito and the good folks at American Greatness for the misappropriation. It’s an important story she’s telling, I think, and deserves to be brought before as wide an audience as possible.

Seeing America from the Ground
OTTAWA, Ohio—This is not a story about politics. Instead, it is a story about America and how sometimes, you can discover something new when you try to absorb the country’s character one mile at a time and when you take in a place on its own terms and not simply the terms of wherever you came from.

A couple of weeks ago, a native Long Islander who has called New York City his home for half a dozen years took his first trip to the Midwest for a news assignment to discuss what he found different about the way of life out here.

He flew to both Chicago and Detroit to learn about this foreign land.

The social media criticism of the resulting story was swift and brutal. The piece wasn’t any worse than the typical story flyover country folk read about themselves. But the oddest thing was that he tried to find the “Midwest” solely in the big cities of Chicago and Detroit. The true measure of the Midwest begins somewhere near the Pennsylvania state line.

Had he driven the 21 hours and 18 minutes it would take on the back roads between New York City and Chicago, he would have had one heck of a story to write about the country and the Midwest.

Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania, is a beautiful town surrounded by the mountains of Pisgah Ridge and is dotted with architectural styles that range from Federalist, Greek Revival, Romanesque Revival, and Queen Anne to Richardsonian Romanesque. How the former town of Mauch Chunk was renamed for the Native American sports legend is, in microcosm, the story of this town: the ingenuity of civic leaders who deeply care about preserving a place in a changing world.

Then, at the Ohio-Pennsylvania border, by some measures the official threshold of the Midwest, he would have found himself in Ashtabula, Ohio. There, he could have begun his education as to how the Great Lakes Midwest has struggled and adapted to the tides of progress and technology that have stripped it from its robust industrial past as a major port city and railroad hub.

Deep poverty, crime, and despair, associated with the collapsed inner-city neighborhoods of Chicago and Detroit, would have greeted him in a different form had he driven down Lincoln Highway and found himself in Ford Heights, Illinois. Once a blue-collar, middle-class black suburb, Ford Heights has died so hard, it has been consistently the poorest suburb in America since the beginning of this century.

It’s also one of the most dangerous places in the state. The violent crime rate is so high, it is unimaginable to not be a victim of crime if you live here.

I remember the first time I came through this town nearly a decade ago and found a makeshift altar on the side of an abandoned gas station lined with bottles of hard liquor, candles, a wilted red rose and the word “love” spelled out with decals. I wept for all of the loss that happened here. A visitor here, with his or her eyes open, learns quickly that deindustrialization is colorblind in sowing despair.

For the majority of my career as a journalist, I have had the opportunity to report on this country from the vantage point of taking the back roads to get from point A to point B for whatever assignment I was given.

I found early in my career in covering politics that parachuting into a city for an event or an interview or a rally or an election gave me little understanding of what was happening in the region. Yet if I made my way there, taking the back roads, I was able to see how things were changing—for better or worse.

When I stopped to talk to people, I learned early on that listening was much more important than talking and that my duty was not to report their stories from my perspective or experiences but instead from theirs.

The story of America isn’t exclusively the story that comes from the perspective of larger cities. Unfortunately, it often appears that way because those are the bases of our cultural narrative-makers: news organizations, institutions, academia, think tanks, major-league sports, and entertainment.

They are so disconnected from most places that it would astound them if they took the time to get on the road and ask them how they feel about the issues of the day. They don’t want their police departments defunded. They want their bridges and roads fixed and their water to be clean. They don’t want critical race theory jammed down their children’s throats. They are horrified at how political the military has become and are worried about the long-lasting impact of the crisis at the border.

They are good neighbors. They love God and aren’t ashamed to show it as much as they like pickles in their beer and ranch dressing on everything.

Whether you take a ride for half an hour, half a day, an entire week, or even a month, there is more good than not out here in this country, despite what you may read in the New York Times or the Washington Post; it cannot be seen or smelt or heard or felt with a mask on in an airplane. It can be experienced if you take the time.

As the saying goes, you can’t report on a country you’ve never been to yourself. Zito, bless her heart, has long been doing the job MFM “journalists” just won’t do. Kudos to her for that.

Back in my road-dog days, there was an outfit from Chicago called Three Blue Teardrops. They were briefly label-mates of ours; we played with ’em a bunch, stayed at their house a few times when we were playing Chi-town, and got to be very good friends with the guys. Hell, we even covered some of their songs, one of them being this ‘un:



Another 3BT tune we did:



According to 3BT’s singer/guitarist Dave Sisson, they were once being hollered at during a show to play that one, and Dave flatly refused to do it. When I asked him why he’d done that, since the song had always been one of their most reliable late-night house-bringer-downers, he told me he considered our version so good as to be the very last word on it, and that he now thought of “Long Hard Night” as a Belmont Playboys song. I was flabbergasted by that one.

Now, the reason I bring the Teardrops up at all is that when they were out on the road, they always went with what I considered an ingenius approach: routing and timing everything to allow for taking those side-roads and byways Zito talks about above, rather than the frantic, get-there-quick-as-you-can interstate dash much more common among harried, hungover road warriors. Whenever our paths would cross, Dave and his crew would wax rhapsodic about having visited the Cadillac Ranch in Texas, or seeing the World’s Biggest Ball of Twine, or what have you. They NEVER took the interstate. For the Teardrops, see, touring wasn’t only about doing shows, making money, selling CDs, or getting your music in front of as many disparate audiences as you could. It was also about enjoying the ride—about experiencing as much of Real America as they could squeeze in, between gigs.

That had never occurred to me before Dave told me about their way of doing things, and after he did I was kinda envious. For instance, the BPs drove within shouting distance of Gettysburg I don’t even know how many times…but never did we have enough time to make a stop and tour the battlefield, which every one of us in that van would LOVED to have done. Hell, my brother even drove up there on his own hook once to do the tour. But I’ve never been, and almost certainly never will now.

Three Blue Teardrops had it right, as does Zito. The true American story can’t be found on TeeWee, the internet, or the interstate highways. It’s out there still, but you gotta take the backroads to get there.

1

Pay heed or die

Some serious sagacity from one of contemporary America’s most perspicacious, sober, and capable writers: Claire Wolf.

Over the years, when people have asked me, “Is it time yet, Claire?” my response has always been something like this: It may be moral to ‘shoot the bastards’ who kill freedom, but this isn’t the time. It doesn’t make tactical or strategic sense. Violence now will only make things much, much worse.

That’s still my strong conviction. To any members of the Deep State trolling the ‘Net desperately searching for those elusive “domestic terrorists” they’re so determined to locate invent: I’m a useless target for you. I don’t advocate violence except in self-defense and I dread seeing anybody, especially freedomistas, start a shooting war.

My hope is, as always, that a bloated, overreaching government will ultimately undermine itself and fall non-violently, as the Soviet Union did. It already seems well on its way.

But lately I’ve been asking myself if perhaps I’m in denial about the depth and urgency — and the possibilities — of our situation.

—-

I’ve been reading the book Comrade X sent me, American Insurgents, American Patriots by T.H. Breen. It focuses on the way ordinary citizens drove the colonies toward revolution, ultimately forcing the more famous leaders to step up and lead.

A large part of it so far concerns the Intolerable Acts and public outrage over them.

Many histories of the Revolution, IIRC, trace a steady growth of resistance from the Stamp Act through the Townshend Acts through the Boston Massacre through the Boston Tea Party through the Intolerable Acts to Lexington and Concord and on to the Declaration of Independence. Maybe so, but Breen positions the Intolerable Acts as the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. What Britain accurately but inadequately called the Coercive Acts turned ordinary, respectable farmers, lawyers, craftsmen, and housewives from angry — but loyal! — British colonists into an outraged force of active, uncompromising, and sometimes ruthless American insurgents.

One thing that struck me as I read was that both sides labored under delusions in the months leading up to the passage of the Acts in the spring of 1774. After the Boston Tea Party on December 16, 1773, American colonists, especially in Massachusetts, held their breath. They knew punishment would come, but not what form it would take. Because most information about British politics arrived in the form of imported and re-posted newspaper articles, colonists believed the British people were sympathetic to their cause and therefore that punishment would be limited and probably focused only on the guilty.

That was their delusion. Or one of them. They also held a long-cherished a belief that they were the legal, intellectual, and moral equal of any Englishmen, and that their fellow Englishmen saw them in the same light as they saw themselves.

They didn’t realize how implacably — if ineptly — British power brokers were against them. They didn’t realize that much of the English public, and especially the elite, looked down on them as being barely steps above the “savages” they lived among. They were, in short, viewed as the “deplorables,” “bitter clingers,” and “neanderthals” of their day.

While colonists waited and held high hopes, the government of King George III and Lord North decided to crush Boston by closing its harbor and place all of proud, self-governing Massachusetts under the direct supervision of agents of the crown. Listening only to their own self-interested contacts, parliament, lords, and king concluded that a) the ignorant rabble of Boston could be easily starved into submission and that b) nobody outside of Boston would step up in defense.

British authorities assumed the citizens of rural Massachusetts would blame Boston troublemakers, not the British government, for any problems that befell them as a result of the Coercive Acts (which the short-sighted British never considered might be intolerable, because subjects would be forced at gunpoint to tolerate them). Furthermore, and fatally, they assumed residents of the other 12 forever-squabbling colonies would regard the whole mess as a local New England matter and wouldn’t defend their neighbors or, heaven forbid, any general principles of liberty.

Those were their delusions.

While the colonists quickly realized how wrongly they’d judged the British government, the British government never did quite get A Clue about how it had misjudged the colonists.

From the moment the Intolerable Acts were brought across the Atlantic, the colonists were roused into such radical action that British authority was virtually demolished outside of cities, at least in New England. From late spring 1774 to April 19, 1775, resistance was fierce, spreading, and increasingly organized. Yet even once the shooting war began on that fateful spring day, some British officials and loyalists were shocked, truly shocked, that mere colonists had the temerity to shoot at British soldiers. (I saw statements in evidence of this stunned cluelessness at Minuteman National Park during my visit.)

British authorities and functionaries had been warned. They had been subjected to years of mostly polite resistance, followed by a year of decidedly impolite resistance. Yet many simply couldn’t believe it when Americans not only stood their ground against the greatest army in the world, but crouched behind stone walls and emerged from boulder-strewn hillsides to wage a new kind of — unsporting! unfair! — warfare against their smug, conventional, and “superior” masters.

Both sides began in denial. One side rapidly shook off denial and acted accordingly. The other — hidebound in its conventionality, its authority, and its certainty of rightness — couldn’t get over its delusions.

—-

Ours is very unlike the situation of our colonial forebears. They knew each other. They were neighbors, fellow parishioners, fellow militiamen, fellow small-town residents, sharers of mutual interests. They hugely outnumbered their would-be rulers, who had to cross an ocean to impose their will. They shared pride in self-government, in self-sufficiency (yet also in their economic contributions to the British homeland), in their historic rights. They aimed to be beholden to nobody. They eschewed debt. They would have found government handouts repellent, if they thought of them at all.

Unlike moderns, the insurgent colonists had more spies operating within British ranks than the British ever managed to insert into their ranks. Before the shooting began, they faced a limited number of British government officials in their midst and were able to intimidate and unseat them with sheer force of numbers that seem incredible to us, looking back on the sizes of the towns and villages of the day. They knew who the ardent loyalists and traitors in their midst were and were able to keep an eye on them as crises heated up.

We have no such advantages. We have the disadvantages of being under an extreme authoritarian — now wannabe totalitarian — government that is not only thick in our midst, but which oppresses with overwhelming numbers, with bevvies of armed agents from random agencies, and with unthinkable surveillance and control capabilities. And this coercive monstrosity is abetted by a populace that it has largely custom-schooled, propagandized, and above all bought off with virtually limitless supplies of funny money. This is a populace highly disinclined to bite the hand that feeds.

Anybody who imagines they can rise up and “shoot the bastards” now and gain the widespread public support any insurgency needs to succeed is delusional.

Yet…sometimes the “wrong” time to rise up turns by fate into the exact right time to rise up. And its hard to tell when the wrong time is truly, disastrously wrong and simply brings more oppression and when the wrong time is ripe to become right.

Out of so many lessons from the history of our Founding that Real Americans would benefit from studying closely, Claire has just spelled out the most vital one of all. We ignore it, and the others, at our mortal peril.

(Via WRSA)

Let he who is without sin cast the first etc

Lest we forget, lest we forget.

Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry were wealthy landowners in South Carolina’s Colleton District in the 1830s, in what is now Charleston County. The couple owned 84 slaves each for a total of 168, at a time when most of their peers owned a handful. Their slaves worked their plantation and made them rich. Angel and Horry also traded slaves for profit, showing no regard for dissolving slave families. They were no kinder or crueler to their slaves than anyone else. They were considered “slave magnates” because of the number of slaves they owned. They were referred to as the “economic elite.” They were also black.

Black people owned black people in all 13 original colonies and in every state that allowed slavery. Frequently, freed black people would go on to own more slaves than their white neighbors. In 1830, nearly a fourth of the free black slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves, and several owned more than 30, far surpassing their white slave-owning neighbors.

Yes, black people, frequently former slaves themselves, owned slaves. While it can be said that many black people owned family members to protect them and keep them close, black slave owners also bought and sold slaves for profit. Renowned African-American historian and Duke University Professor, John Hope Franklin, wrote “The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property. There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status.” Franklin also wrote that roughly 3,000  free black people in New Orleans alone owned slaves.

Sorry if I seem to be harping on this Civil War v1.0 history a bit extravagantly tonight, but I swear to you all that running across this article on PJM was pure coinkydink.

Anyways, after citing a few more examples we come to this:

Why don’t history teachers include this in their curriculum? You know why!

Why yes, I surely do. And then there’s this, just as a gentle reminder.

Today, 167 countries still have slavery, affecting about 46 million people. Although governments have taken steps and raised awareness about modern slavery, it is difficult to detect and recognize in many cases. It’s important to know the signs of slavery so that authorities and organizations can be alerted.

While over a hundred countries still have slavery, six countries have significantly high numbers:

  1. India (18.4 million)
  2. China (3.4 million)
  3. Pakistan (2.1 million)
  4. Bangladesh (1.5 million)
  5. Uzbekistan (1.2 million)
  6. North Korea (1.1 million)

India has the highest number of slaves in the world at 18.4 million slaves. This number is higher than the Netherlands’ population and is approximately 1.4% of India’s entire population. All forms of modern slavery exist in India, including forced child labor, forced marriage, commercial sexual exploitation, bonded labor, and forced recruitment into non-state armed groups.

China has the second-highest number of slaves at 3.4 million, which is less than a quarter of India’s. Other countries with significantly high slave populations are Russia, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Egypt, Myanmar, Iran, Turkey, and Sudan.

More information here, for those interested. Kinda odd, how the American Left doesn’t seem to have much interest in the present-day persistence of the Peculiar Institution, innit? Why, it’s almost as if their sole interest in the issue is as a cudgel to bash America with or something.

1

The bones of Bedford Forrest

Okay, that’s it. This is the final straw. Far as I’m concerned, it is now officially Clobberin’ Time.

The remains of Confederate Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife Mary Ann Montgomery have been dug up as part of the lefts efforts to remove all markers and monuments to the historic cancelled. The bodies are now being held in an undisclosed location until they can be brought to their new resting place at the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ National Confederate Museum in Columbia, Tennessee.

The museum is roughly 200 miles from their previous grave in Memphis.

Contra Cassandra’s implication that the shitlibs were behind disturbing the eternal rest of one of the greatest cavalrymen in all history and his wife, I consider this to be a good thing. The Sons, may the good Lord bless and keep them, were the ones who did the dig, and vow that they’ll see to it no further bullshit from the ghoulish, history-revising, grave-robbing Left will be tolerated.

The former slave trader and with his wife have been entombed in the park for more than 100 years. Moving them is a complicated procedure that will take weeks to complete.

“The Forrest family felt that the remains of Forrest and his wife should be some place where he can be respected, protected, and visited without any danger, which is not the case here,” said Lee Millar with the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Amen to that, brother. Again: bless you and your fine, noble organization. More welcome news:

It’s been three years since the general’s statue was removed from the pedestal. Years of legal wrangling followed until both sides reached this settlement. Memphis Greenspace owns the park. Its leader is pleased with the outcome.

“And so we’re out here working together to get this job done,” said Memphis Greenspace President Van Turner. “And I think it sends a message that we’re much stronger when we work together and we unite for one common task.”

That unity was interrupted by a very vocal volunteer who unloaded expletives on Shelby County Commissioner Tami Sawyer at the site.

She led the ‘Take ‘Em Down 901’ effort in 2017 to remove the statue. She spoke with reporters as the man belted out a loud rendition of “Dixie” behind her.

“We are not post-racial America,” said Sawyer. “We are not post-racial Memphis. This hatred and this racism is large and loud.”

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I repeat. Not that they’re listening, or care.

YouDid.jpg

Back over to GP for more of same:

The park where the Forrest’s were laid to rest was called Forrest Park until a name change in 2013. A statue of him in the park was removed in 2017, after Greenspace bought the park.

The Hill reports that in April, Atlanta’s school board unanimously voted to rename Forrest Hill Academy, named after the Confederate general, to the Hank Aaron New Beginnings Academy.

This is not the only grave the left is digging up.

The city of Richmond, Virginia is also planning to dig up the grave of Confederate General Ambrose Powell Hill.

AP Hill, of course, was another accomplished and respected officer of the Confederacy.

As for Forrest, I’ve posted in detail on the man Sherman once acknowledged as “the most remarkable man our civil war produced on either side” before—more than once, if memory serves—but without even checking I’m going to just assume that those archives were lost along with the rest of the nigh-upon twenty years’ worth of ’em after our little Rooskie incursion here. So although it’s probably a rerun, have yourself a little more info anyway on the man once both respected and feared (depending on what side you were on, natch) as The Wizard Of The Saddle that most people are completely in the dark about.

Easily the most controversial figure in the Civil War, probably the most controversial figure in American history, Nathan Bedford Forrest has always been the subject of fierce debate. Self-made millionaire who rose from poverty with much of his money made as a slaver trader; a semi-literate whose tactics and strategies as the most successful cavalry commander of the  Civil War are still studied at military academies around the world; a brilliant general celebrated by the South and condemned by the North as the perpetrator of a massacre at Fort Pillow; a man who killed in combat 31 Union soldiers in the War but who after the War constantly had former Union soldiers visit him to shake his hand; and  a racist who helped found the Ku Klux Klan after the War, but who also made a remarkable speech near the end of his life.

In 1875 Forrest was invited to address a meeting of the Independent Order of Pole Bearers, an early black civil rights organization in Memphis, at their Fourth of July barbecue on July 5.  Forrest was told by many whites that he should not accept, but Forrest went. Just before he spoke he was presented a bouquet of flowers by Miss Flora Lewis, a daughter of one of the members of the Pole Bearers. Here is Forrest’s speech.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the Southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man, to depress none.

(Applause.)

I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.)

After his brief speech, Forrest warmly thanked Lewis for the flowers and then unabashedly and unhesitatingly kissed her on the cheek, an incredibly bold move at a time when such a thing was unheard of either North or South, but entirely in character for the always-audacious Forrest. In fact, it was that very Devil-may-care audacity which was a huge component of what made him such a fiendishly brilliant cavalry officer.

At the start of the Civil War, Forrest enlisted as a private in the Tennessee Mounted Rifles. As more men joined the outfit, Forrest personally purchased guns, uniforms and supplies to equip the unit. He was soon promoted to lieutenant colonel and placed in charge of raising and training his own battalion. In February 1862, Forrest and his troops were cornered by Union general Ulysses S. Grant at Fort Donelson, Kentucky. His command refused to surrender to Grant and Union forces charged in to take the fort. Forrest led 700 cavalrymen through the snow, past the Union lines, and escaped to Nashville where he coordinated evacuation efforts.

Two months later, in the aftermath of the Battle of Shiloh, at Fallen Timbers, Forrest was commanding the rear guard of the withdrawing Confederate troops. In an attempt to hit the enemy one more time, Forrest drove deep the advancing Union line far ahead of his own men and found himself surrounded by Union troops. After he emptied his two revolvers, he drew his saber and began slashing at the oncoming enemy. One soldier stuck his rifle into Forrest’s side and fired, lifting Forrest off his saddle and lodging a mini ball near his spine. Forrest regained control of his horse, remounted and took off. As Union forces shot after him, he reached down and grabbed an unsuspecting Union soldier and brought him up on the back of his horse, then dumping the man to the ground once he was in the clear.

Beginning in December 1862 and well into 1863, Forrest and his cavalry harassed General Ulysses S. Grant’s forces as they prepared for an attack on Vicksburg. Cutting off communication lines and raiding stores of supplies, Forrest relied on guerrilla tactics and never fully engaged the enemy’s superior forces. As a result, General Grant was forced to revise his strategy. Eventually, after a six-month siege, Vicksburg fell, but Forrest continued to attack boldly and retreat swiftly, frustrating one Union commander after the other and further expanding his reputation.

There’s tons more yet to know about Bedford Forrest; love him or hate him, as is the case with so many other historical figures the story is a lot deeper and more complex than conventional wisdom tells. As our most colorful and intriguing icons fade deeper into the mists of time the tale of their lives, their exploits, and their personalities becomes ever more expurgated. This is NOT an accident.

With well-known Confederates like Forrest, the problem is not so much one of forgetfulness or a need for brevity as it is one of ill intent: the Left needs the honor of our Southern heroes to be stained and besmirched for purely utilitarian reasons, and so they have been. When a man as upright, humane, and scrupulously virtuous as the great Robert E Lee is routinely tarred as some kind of infernal demon, then the agenda is revealed, for all with eyes to see.

All of which just goes to make tonight’s Tune Damage selection an obvious one, I’d say.




As I said way back when all this cancel-culture horseshit began: letting them take down the Confederate flags and statues was a bad, bad mistake. We all should have known that would be only the beginning. And like they say, sooner or later, they WILL get around to something you care about. Our friend and esteemed colleague Nitzhakon knows why.

Donkey-Terminator-notice-j.jpg

S’truth. It is absolutely imperative that the Left not be allowed to take that first bite, because they’ll always come back for another, and another, and another until all is consumed. Real Americans have seen plenty enough demonstrations of that most essential truth by now. If we haven’t learned the lesson by now, well, that’s on us.

Update! Annnnd we have another. Because of course we do.

For more than one hundred years, a statue of General Thomas J. Jackson, known to the world as “Stonewall” Jackson, stood overlooking the grounds of the Main Post at the Virginia Military Institute, or VMI. Jackson taught at the school for the ten years before the Civil War broke out and he became a general in the Confederate Army. VMI graduate Moses Ezekiel, who fought as a cadet at the Battle of New Market, sculpted the statue. A Washington Post article from December 7th called the statue the “spiritual centerpiece” of the institute.

No longer. In the wake of the George Floyd murder, Black Lives Matter protests, and an explosive Washington Post article alleging racism at VMI, the institute’s Board of Visitors voted to remove the statue. Completely. They didn’t relocate it to a less-prominent place on the campus. They sent it completely off post. Stonewall’s statue ended up seventy miles away, in New Market, at a VMI-run museum that commemorates the cadet corps’ fight there against Union troops in 1864.

If VMI needed to atone for past racism, banishing Stonewall Jackson’s statue was an odd way to do it – and especially odd for a military school. Stonewall Jackson was one of America’s most accomplished battlefield generals. In the spring of 1862, Jackson commanded a Confederate force defending Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley against three separate Federal commands. Stonewall led his troops from battle to battle, marching over 350 miles in one month. He defeated all three of those Union commands, whose combined strength was three times that of his force. Jackson’s campaign prevented Lincoln from reinforcing Union troops menacing Richmond, the Confederate capital. Jackson then eluded his pursuers in the Valley, joined up with Robert E. Lee, and assisted Lee in defeating the Union army outside Richmond, which saved the city.

But, was Jackson an evil racist?

Doesn’t matter. Old Blue Light was a Confederate general, which now makes him merely a means to an end, another tool for the Left to use on their long march down the Shining Path.

It beggars belief that VMI (or the activists pressuring it) can’t (or won’t) devise a solution that acknowledges his shortcomings, but still honors a great general and a good person, on the campus of the school to which he dedicated much of his professional life. If, to be “inclusive” and “tolerant,” we must sandblast our past and sanitize our heritage, we risk becoming an emotionally and culturally brittle nation and a shallow people. Is this what “inclusion” has to look like? For all of us, across this country?

Good leaders lead by example, as Jackson did with his Sunday School. The Stonewall Jackson statue affair could have set a good example for others to follow, by showing how modern-day Americans can acknowledge the flaws of our heroes (and the times they lived in), but still commemorate their character and accomplishments.

No, no, a thousand times no. To hell with any pissypants “acknowledge their shortcomings” bending of the knee; I hereby declare myself all done with such weakness, if there ever had been any doubt about it before. From now on, best practice for all who oppose the Leftist Enemy can only be nothing short of open, unyielding hostility in rejection of EVERY ONE of their premises, contentions, accusations, and demands. Not one more inch of ground ceded; not one more gesture towards “compromise,” reconciliation, or comity offered.

NOT. ONE.

Either we destroy them, or we go down fighting to the very last ounce of strength. There is no Third Way—a cold, hard reality that has been made so compellingly clear that it can no longer be denied. So that’s it then; no more pretending that they’re acting in good faith, or that they’re at all amenable to reason or appeals to fairness and/or decency, or that they share so much as a single belief or ambition in common with Real Americans.

To bargain with them is folly; to shy from confrontation with them is disastrous; to submit to them is death. Treat them as what they actually are: The Enemy. No concessions. No surrender. Period, full stop, end of fucking story.

1

Truth hurts

Some questions are better left unasked.

The Turkish DNA Project, an online endeavor to track Turkish genetics, is enraged at the popular genealogy site Ancestry.com and has called for it to be boycotted for stating an inconvenient truth: many, and possibly most, modern Turks are the descendants of the Greeks who once formed the overwhelming majority of the population of the land that is now Turkey. In this as in so many other instances, the truth hurts, but that doesn’t make it any less the truth.

Greek City Times reported that the Turkish DNA Project tweeted: “AncestryDNA prioritizes to demonize the Turkish people and delegitimaze [sic] their presence in Turkey rather than giving information about the genetic structure of the relevant population.” The Turkish DNA Project called upon “all Turks to boycott this company: Ancestry.”

After Greek City Times called attention to the tweet, the Turkish DNA Project took it down, but it still has up a retweet calling for a boycott of Ancestry.com, as well as a tweet fulminating with incandescent rage against Greek City Times’ Athens Bureau chief Paul Antopoulos, whom it calls a “white supremacist.” Very original line of attack you got there, guys.

Greek City Times explained that the Turkish group was enraged “because Ancestry.com correctly highlighted that many Turkish citizens are indeed mostly unrelated to Turkic peoples from Central Asia and are rather native Anatolian people that have been Turkified….Ancestry.com highlighted that after the Ottoman conquest of Pontos in today’s Turkey’s southeastern Black Sea coast, the “Pontian Greeks adopted Turkish language and culture, and many converted to Islam in order to have greater opportunities in Turkish society. Ancestry.com also highlighted that another round of Turkification of Pontian Greeks occurred after the second Russo-Turkish War (1828-29).”

This is not at all surprising, and nowhere even close to a false claim. Throughout history, when Muslims have conquered an area, they relegate the non-Muslims to second-class status, denying them numerous rights and mandating that they pay a tax, the jizya, for the privilege of practicing their religions without being killed. There is one easy way for the subjugated dhimmis to escape this state of humiliation and degradation: they can convert to Islam.

(Turkish journalist Uzay) Bulut observed: “Why are Turkish nationalists so terrified of the truth? Because if they face it, the lies they’ve come up with will be shattered to the ground. Through these lies, hatred has grown which made them commit so many crimes against Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, Jews and others. Then they will realize that by destroying those peoples, they’ve actually destroyed their own ancestors and cultural heritage. The truth will set us all free and bring much needed peace to the region.”

We can only hope.

I couldn’t begin to guess why, but I just can’t stop laughing at this story.

1

Everything old is new again, and again, and again…

For us Southrons, it’s always a good time for another discussion of Civil War history. Francis kicks things off.

The first Negro slaves arrived in North America long before the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Slavery was an established and accepted practice virtually everywhere on Earth at that time. The great men who crafted the founding documents of the United States of America largely recognized the moral horror of it – yet they refrained from abolishing it in the new nation. Some felt they could not endanger the Revolution, or the eventual acceptance of the Constitution, by acting too swiftly to expunge it. Even so, anti-slavery sentiment was sufficiently strong in 1787 that the states where slavery was practiced accepted the provisions made for the curbing and gradual abolition of slavery twenty years after the Constitution’s ratification:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. [Article I, Section 9, first clause]

While the approach might not be to the taste of contemporary moralists, nevertheless it probably struck the Founders as the best they could do.

Now, the main thrust of Fran’s post isn’t CW v1.0, or slavery itself. But as a callow stripling I found Civil War history an entirely captivating topic, and I do to this day, so his glancing mention of it above got me to thinking. That inspired me to poke around what you might call the historical record’s dusty old manse a bit; there’s an almighty lot of good stuff to be found in those dim, musty rooms, so much of it that it’s quite easy to get lost in ’em. For example:

10 Surprising Facts About The Confederacy
I  made this list in order to clear up some misconceptions people had about the Confederacy. This is not a comprehensive list of facts about the Confederacy; I picked a few that I thought most people wouldn’t be familiar with. Overall, I intended for this to be a fun and informative list, and not to start a North versus South debate.

10 Battle Names
Union troops were primarily city and town dwellers. They named battles after natural objects near the scene of the conflict. Confederate troops were, chiefly, from the country and named battles after impressive artificial (man-made) objects near the scene of the conflict. The battle of “1st Manassas / Bull Run”: The Union army named the battle “Bull Run” after a little stream near the scene, called Bull Run, and the Confederate army named the battle “Manassas” because of the Manassas railroad station located nearby. There were at least 230 actions that were known to have more than one name. In “Ball’s Bluff / Leesburg”- The Union troops noted the steep 100-foot-high bank rising above the Potomac on the Virginia shore, and the Confederate army noted the nearby city of Leesburg, Virginia. “Pea Ridge / Elkhorn Tavern”: Elkhorn was a nearby tavern and Pea Ridge was the name of a crest of the Ozark’s Ridge.

Follows, more stuff your run-of-the-mill, woefully undereducated Amerikan probably neither knows nor cares a whit about, which we’ll just casually skip past. But here’s a couple of fun facts that even someone of above-average erudition might not have been aware of:

2 Equal Pay
The confederate Congress specified that black soldiers were to receive the same pay as the white soldiers. The Union army’s black soldiers were paid less than the white soldiers. A black soldier in the Union army would have been paid $10 a month with a $3 clothing fee taken out, leaving the soldier with $7 a month. White soldiers were paid $13 a month and were not forced to pay a clothing allowance, which is almost twice as much as the black soldiers. By contrast the Confederate army paid their privates of both races $11/month until 1864. Equal pay for both races in the federal army did not come into effect until June 1864. The Confederate Army also authorized a salary for black musicians in 1862.

1 Slavery
In 1864, the Confederate States began to abandon slavery. There are some indications that even without a war, the Confederacy would have ended slavery. Most historians believe that the Confederacy only started to abandon slavery once their defeat was imminent. If that were true then we are to believe that the CSA wanted independence more than they wanted to hold on to slavery. The CSA’s highest ranking generals, Robert E. Lee and Joseph E. Johnston were not slave holders and did not believe in slavery. And according to an 1860 census, only 31% of families owned slaves. 75% of families that owned slaves owned less than 10 and often worked beside them in the fields. The Confederate Constitution banned the overseas slave trade, and permitted Confederate states to abolish slavery within their borders if they wanted to do so. Slavery wasn’t abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland and Delaware still had slaves.

Yes, the Civil War was fought to end slavery…in part. But by no means was slavery the sole issue. In fact, a good argument could be made that it wasn’t even the main one, although as the situation developed the Abolitionist cause grew in importance until it had finally become pretty much the whole point before the end. That gradual shift in opinion was in large measure due to Lincoln’s canny use of sympathy for the plight of the poor Nee-Grows as a means of firming up support among restive Yanks—especially in the northernmost portions of the Union—whose patience for an ever-more-costly and agonizing war was steadily dwindling as ever-more-horrific casualty lists kept on pouring in. All this has been the subject of quite a few discussions at this humble websty over lo, these many years.

Which leads us to more fun if seldom-acknowledged facts.

Most historical accounts portray Southern blacks as anxiously awaiting President Abraham Lincoln’s “liberty-dispensing troops” marching south in the War Between the States. But there’s more to the story; let’s look at it.

Black Confederate military units, both as freemen and slaves, fought federal troops. Louisiana free blacks gave their reason for fighting in a letter written to New Orleans’ Daily Delta: “The free colored population love their home, their property, their own slaves and recognize no other country than Louisiana, and are ready to shed their blood for her defense. They have no sympathy for Abolitionism; no love for the North, but they have plenty for Louisiana. They will fight for her in 1861 as they fought in 1814-15.” As to bravery, one black scolded the commanding general of the state militia, saying, “Pardon me, general, but the only cowardly blood we have got in our veins is the white blood.”

Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest had slaves and freemen serving in units under his command. After the war, Forrest said of the black men who served under him, “These boys stayed with me.. – and better Confederates did not live.” Articles in “Black Southerners in Gray,” edited by Richard Rollins, gives numerous accounts of blacks serving as fighting men or servants in every battle from Gettysburg to Vicksburg.

Professor Ed Smith, director of American Studies at American University, says Stonewall Jackson had 3,000 fully equipped black troops scattered throughout his corps at Antietam – the war’s bloodiest battle. Mr. Smith calculates that between 60,000 and 93,000 blacks served the Confederacy in some capacity. They fought for the same reason they fought in previous wars and wars afterward: “to position themselves. They had to prove they were patriots in the hope the future would be better…they hoped to be rewarded.”

Many knew Lincoln had little love for enslaved blacks and didn’t wage war against the South for their benefit. Lincoln made that plain, saying, “I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races…I am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” The very words of his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation revealed his deceit and cunning; it freed those slaves held “within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States.” It didn’t apply to slaves in West Virginia and areas and states not in rebellion. Like Gen. Ulysses Grant’s slaves, they had to wait for the 13th Amendment, Grant explained why he didn’t free his slaves earlier, saying, “Good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Interesting indeed, and somewhat puzzling also. Before anybody starts in shrieking here, I’d better say once more that NONE of this is to be construed as an argument in support of slavery. I won’t further belabor that point, because I see no reason to; it’s entirely obvious, and only a hysterical fool would say otherwise. Onwards.

No circumstances connected with the late war caused more surprise, perhaps, than the general conduct of the slave population of the South during the whole contest. This surprise was common to the people of both sections, for there were few persons at the North who did not expect, and at the South who did not fear, a servile insurrection as the Federal armies penetrated deeper into the Southern territory. The people of the South did not, of course, have any great opinion of the negros’ courage, but still they felt apprehensive about the women and children left at home, and fearful, too, in regard to neglected plantation work; and the fact of this apprehension is embodied in all the draft schemes and conscription laws of the Confederacy, which, both under the State government regimen, and later under the general conscription system, made specific provision for a certain line of exemptions, looking to the peace and good order of the plantations, and keeping the negroes at work. These exemptions included detailed officers and veterans, home guards, etc., and, even in the last and severest conscription law passed in the fall of 1864, one overseer was exempted “for each plantation containing over fifteen able-bodied male slaves.”

On the other hand, a slave insurrection was counted on at the North as one factor in the war. It was deprecated, of course; it was not invited, but it was still looked for, and the Emancipation Proclamation was calculated upon as a means of inciting the negroes to strike for their freedom. Those who will examine the periodicals of the period-the Atlantic Monthly, for instance; the Continental Monthly, etc.-will find them teeming with historical instances written up of slaves who had so risen. The Atlantic, in particular, in urging the Emancipation Proclamation, took occasion to give, as arguments for it, detailed accounts of the revolt of Spartacus, of the Maroons, of Nat. Turner’s outbreak, etc.; all showing the wish that was father to the thought. Butler speculated in this sort of business at Fortress Monroe and New Orleans, and Hunter tried it in South Carolina and Florida. Higginson’s regiment at Beaufort was intended to be a nucleus for the negro rising which was looked for on the Carolina coast.

The negroes, however, refused to disturb the Confederates with any fire in the rear. They behaved in the most exemplary manner everywhere. Where the Federal armies settled down they came in in large numbers, and established their camps upon the fringes of the army, playing the parts of “intelligent contrabands” to perfection. They told miraculous stories, and brought in no end of “grape-vine ” intelligence for the divertissement of the newspaper correspondents, and the gobemouches; but they were disgustingly apathetic on the subject of striking “blows for liberty.” They had no fight in them, in fact, and, when they came into camp, had no idea of any other freedom than freedom from work and free rations. The best of the negroes, where they could, stayed at home and worked along as usual, and there was no general enlistment of the negroes until the substitute brokers began to buy them up, and put them in the army by wholesale.

There can be no doubt that the negroes behaved very well, and that the Confederate people had a lively and very grateful appreciation of the fact. There is evidence enough and to spare of this. I have before me a curious pamphlet, “Marginalia; or, Gleanings from an Army Note-book,” by “Personne,” army correspondent of the Charleston Courier, published at Columbia, S. C., in 1864, which abounds with instances and recitals of the good conduct of the negroes. Thus, “Personne” relates the story of Daniel, a slave of Lieutenant Bellinger, who was shot to pieces trying to take his master’s sword to him, in the fort at Secessionville, during the assault on that post, and he says: “Such instances of genuine loyalty have their parallel nowhere so frequently as in the pages of Southern history, and gives a flat contradiction to all the partial and puritanical statements ever made by Mrs. Stowe and her tribe of worshiping abolitionists.” “The fidelity of our negroes,” this writer says, in another Place, “has been as much a subject of gratification to us as of surprise to the enemy. It has been thought that every slave would gladly avail himself of an opportunity to regain his freedom; but the prophets have been disappointed. General John B. Gordon, United States Senator from Georgia, who used to own several plantations and a great many slaves, in his testimony before the Ku-Klux Investigating Committee, in July, 1871, spoke in the strongest terms of the good conduct of the Southern negroes during and after the war. He said that “they have behaved so well since the war that the remark is not uncommon in Georgia, that no race, relieved from servitude under such circumstances as they were, would have behaved so well.”

This article, of which you should read the all, is particularly intriguing. Again: NOT as an argument in support of the “Peculiar Institution,” but for its depiction of the overall attitude and character of many Negro slaves in the Southern Confederacy. It restores a panel of history’s tapestry that the victors very carefully painted over after the war was won, something no history buff will find at all surprising or unusual.

Okay, that ought to be enough Civil War talk to get everybody riled up and yelling at everybody else in the comments, I reckon. Have at it, y’all.

1

All part of a Plan, and the Plan is working as intended

Working very damned well, in fact.

There are a lot of unprecedented things happening, but not all of them are shocking. For example, it probably shouldn’t surprise you that, once they got their hands on real power, the same lunatics who don’t believe in human biology immediately made a serious mess of our economy. It took them less than six months to do it. First, they acted like the U.S. dollar had no value. They spent money like they’d just printed it for the occasion, which, needless to say, they had. Predictably, we wound up with frightening levels of inflation, which for the record they still deny exists. But inflation does exist, as you well know if you live here. Corn prices, to name just one example of a staple commodity that’s now out of control, have risen by 50 percent just since January. But that wasn’t bad enough. The lunatics decided to make it worse. They paid millions of Americans more than they make at work, to stay home and do nothing. To justify doing this, they used the word “COVID” quite a bit, but it had nothing to do with the pandemic. They just wanted to break the system. And so they did. And the rest of us immediately wound up with a bewildering combination of rising unemployment in the middle of a severe labor shortage. So, at the very same time, we found ourselves with too many workers, and also too few workers. That doesn’t even make sense, but thanks to their policies, that’s now exactly what we have. And then, finally, in case 2021 didn’t remind you enough of a grimmer version of the 1970s, we now have serious gas shortages, in a country that just recently was energy independent. All along the east coast of the country today, people couldn’t fill up their cars. The footage looks like Venezuela.

What is this about? Well, you know. On some level — let’s be honest about it — the White House approves of this disaster.

Yes, some gas stations are closed tonight. But soon enough, the lunatics plan to close them all — every gas station in the entire United States, shuttered forever, to make way for some new, as-yet-undefined means of transportation that will magically replace the gasoline engines we’ve used for more than 100 years. This is a green revolution. So who cares about some old pipeline?

Remember that on his first day in office, Joe Biden shut down a pipeline, that’s the first thing he did. It was the massive Keystone XL. Biden didn’t wait for mysterious hackers to shut it down. He shut it down himself. And more than 11,000 people lost their jobs. And, by the way, gas prices went up. In case you haven’t noticed, gas prices have never gone down.  

Why? This is the result of policy decisions made by the new administration. This is the Green New Deal. We’ve got it already. And if you love gas shortages and electricity blackouts and $80 plywood, this is the program for you.

Typically, in the material world, where the laws of nature apply when the price of something jumps that quickly and that high, you’ve got a supply problem. Because it’s supply and demand. There isn’t enough of that thing to go around. Does that apply to lumber? Are there fewer spruce trees out there than there were a year ago? Are those trees growing more slowly than they once did? Have we seen a 280% in new houses being built? The answers: no, no and no. The answer, as you may have guessed, is that bad federal policies are distorting the price of everything in this country, from two by fours, to diesel fuel to corn dogs. None of this is an accident. Just as it wasn’t an accident when the power went out in Texas over the winter. It wasn’t a cold snap that did it, it was a federal policy that encouraged the state to rely on windmills that don’t actually work. So, it’s not a natural cycle. Somebody did this to us on purpose.

It’s “bad national policy” all right, but exclusively in the sense that it’s a policy that is bad for the nation. But there’s another sense to be taken into account: bad as it is, damaging as it is, it is also effective policy—because the bad things it’s doing, that damage, is the effect the policy was intended to produce.

Over time my reaction has evolved from amusement, to mild pique, to being outright annoyed when I see references to this or that putatively “failed” Democrat-Socialist policy, program, or initiative. The same blinkered narrative is applied to describe Marxism itself, which “fails every time it’s tried,” or so we’re endlessly told—as if the sole ambition of its advocates and administrators is to see to it that all are adequately fed, housed, and liberated from servitude and want. Bless their selfless, charitable hearts, Marxists just want to make sure that both the high and mighty and the downtrodden alike are fairly treated. That the State meets its obligation to ensure that avarice can never be wielded as a cudgel by one man in the bludgeoning of his brother. That all resources are equitably distributed.

Sorry, but…no. Whatever Karl Marx’s own notion might have been originally, Communism as we know it today is usually pretty danged good at achieving its true imperatives: untrammeled power and wealth for the ruthless few at the top of the heap, hopeless subjugation without mercy or surcease for the hapless serfs below.

The truth is that Communism, as well as the machinations of its Democrat-Socialist Party adherents, actually succeeds every time it’s tried. Understanding that is a matter of realizing what their ACTUAL goals and intentions are, and ignoring what they SAY they are—ie, “success” isn’t anything to do with uplifting, assisting, or liberating anybody, other than members of the Ruling Class kleptocracy—and then adjusting your own perceptions accordingly. Or, to adapt the famous words of another notorious latter-day Marxist, it all depends on what the meaning of “success” is. Once you’ve recalibrated your terms and definitions properly, it’s all perfectly obvious.

Roadmap to Hell

Myron Magnet, editor at the esteemed City Journal, provides a full synopsis of the numerous wrong turns it took to arrive at a supremely unpleasant destination.

To gauge how unbridgeable the gulf is that divides the American Left from the Right, rewind to February 19, 2009, when those who eventually elected Donald Trump first made their voices heard. As Washington jury-rigged fixes for the Great Financial Crisis, the CNBC broadcaster Rick Santelli shouted across the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor, “How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?” The Merc traders roared their televised veto across the land.

Their cry was more visceral than a policy disagreement. The traders, self-made men, had worked hard for what they had and scorned having their taxes hiked to save homebuyers with imprudently high mortgages from foreclosure. “This is America!” Santelli urged, and what the new Obama administration was doing was un-American. Didn’t the Founding Fathers establish the federal government to guarantee one’s freedom to better one’s condition, and to protect the property one industriously earns—not to redistribute it?

That’s why Santelli added that he was planning a Chicago Tea Party, an update of Boston’s 1773 event. He and the traders felt the same outrage George Washington had felt about the Stamp Act and the tea tax: it was as lawless as Parliament picking his pocket. To the new-era Tea Partiers, taxation for redistribution, rather than for common purposes, is tyranny, not government by consent.

But, though the traders and Tea Partiers didn’t quite understand it, the federal government long ago had turned from the shield of individual liberty into a vast engine of redistribution. That transformation could occur because the Framers’ Constitution was body-snatched by the doctrine of the “living constitution,” which—as Woodrow Wilson first formulated it—saw the Supreme Court sitting as a permanent Constitutional Convention, making up laws as it went along, heedless of the 1787 scheme’s checks. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal used Wilson’s doctrine as a license to remake America’s economy and society. Once the Supreme Court buckled to fdr’s threat to pack it and started voting his way, the justices allowed an utterly foreign governmental structure to devour the Framers’ republic from within, until it broke out of the shell as something altogether different.

Not that FDR was entirely frank about his transformative enterprise. Where Wilson had dismissed the Framers as obsolete relics in a Darwinian age, Roosevelt claimed to extend their great work even as he undid it. In his second inaugural address of 1937, he hailed the 150th anniversary of the Constitutional Convention, which had “created a strong government with powers of united action sufficient then and now to solve problems utterly beyond individual or local solution”—a wildly false characterization. Chastened by America’s near-loss in the Revolution, the Framers sought to create a government strong enough to protect national and individual independence but not so strong that, given mankind’s inherent power-hunger, it could become what they called an “elective despotism.” So they limited that power to such clearly enumerated tasks as raising an army, a navy, and taxes; coining and borrowing money; and regulating foreign and interstate commerce. All other matters they emphatically left to “individual or local solution.”

They certainly didn’t mean to put the whole U.S. economy under federal regulation. But as FDR later admitted, when he took the oath to defend the Constitution just before delivering the 1937 address, he had wanted to shout, “Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it.” The New Deal’s main thrust, after all, was precisely to take total control of the economy, under the ruse of federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

For one who projected such jaunty optimism, FDR had a surprisingly gloomy view of America’s future. The nation’s great days of discovery and invention, when government needed only to keep out of the way, were behind it, he thought. Now, Depression-stunned America had produced more than its purportedly underpaid workers could afford to consume, as FDR inaccurately saw it. America’s task now, he said, “is the soberer, less dramatic business of administering resources and plants already in hand,…of distributing wealth and products more equitably, of adapting existing economic organizations to the service of the people. The day of enlightened administration has come.” The bureaucrat would take over from the business titan.

As the crux of this truly magnificent piece, Magnet proposes three stages of what he calls “America’s mutation into a redistributionist welfare state,” moving next to Stage Two: the comprehensively destructive reign of one Lyndon Baines Johnson, one of the most unethical, sleazy, and generally repellent ProPols ever to besmirch American politics. This section includes a paragraph that, hard as I’m trying not to excerpt excessively here, I can’t refrain from posting:

Do you wonder why a plague of human-resources busybodies has scourged the land, or why so many institutions have become bureaucracies staffed by apparatchiks, whereas until recently doctors still ran hospitals, professors ran universities, and entrepreneurs without MBAs ran many businesses? A New Deal and a Great Society have left us, as Tocqueville predicted such centralized power would, with “a fine mesh of uniform, minute, and complex rules” that “inhibits, represses, saps, stultifies, and in the end reduces each nation to nothing but a timid and industrious flock of animals, with the government as its shepherd.” More power to the Tea Partiers, then, for recalling the spirit of ’76.

Brilliant man, that Tocqueville. The LBJ chapter closes with a grim summation:

While the Sixties’ War on Poverty failed, its Culture War succeeded. Today, the bosses of America’s institutions are cultural-revolution veterans or their acolytes, and, as their own students and children survey the arid acres of housing projects, where generations of lives have improved not one whit as LBJ’s dream turned to ashes, and the dumbed-down campuses where affirmative action kids still struggle and complain, they are reviving all the mistaken 1960s notions and launching a renewed assault on America’s culture that marks the third stage of the dismantling of the Founders’ republic. As they don’t know that the original cultural revolution wreaked much of the inner-city damage that they deplore, they can’t foresee the further harm they will inflict on black Americans and the entire nation as well. Watching the goofily optimistic worldview of long ago now ossify into a party line that resembles Mao’s cultural revolution or Nineteen Eighty-Four‘s Ministry of Truth is almost enough to make one believe that a malign god, with a vicious, Nietzschean heart, mockingly presides over history.

Hard not to, really. Myself, I always kinda liked the trouble-making Nordic Trickster God, Loki—”deity of mayhem and mischief,” as this site has it, who wasn’t really so much “malign” as he was rebellious and unpredictable. Anyhoo.

From there, it’s on to today’s preposterous, brain-dead Cultural Revolution, before coming full-circle back around to the Founders.

The Founding Fathers stressed that their republic rested not only on the Constitution’s political arrangements but also on the hearts and minds of the citizens, where the love of liberty and the truths of the Declaration of Independence are inscribed. Should Americans lose these habits of the heart, then the power-hungry men who cluster around politics like flies might impose the elective despotism the Founders feared. That’s why they cared so passionately about civic education: they had created something unique in history, and they wanted posterity to understand the high worth of that inheritance, to preserve and improve it. They believed that assent to the Founding’s culture of liberty, to its core truths of equality before the law and equality of rights, would be enough to forge a unified nation out of what was already an ethnically diverse people.

They weren’t naive about propaganda or its power. By George Washington’s presidency, America had a gutter press as partisan as The New York Times or The Washington Post. But the Founders didn’t foresee an all-out falsification of the fact of American exceptionalism such as now rages, and I think the success of the cultural subversion would have surprised them, like the octogenarian Jefferson, who had to remonstrate with the misbehaving students at his beloved University of Virginia, of which he was the founder and rector. He stepped onto the stage, opened his mouth to voice his disappointment with these unruly inheritors of republican liberty, and burst into tears.

Can anybody blame him? Although he’d have probably gotten much better results if, rather than letting his ill-mannered students get under his skin, he’d just whipped out a gat and shot the rotten bastards instead.

As I already told ya, this article is a real masterpiece, one for the ages. It’s long, deep, and superbly written and conceived. If you only read one thing I link to this whole week, it oughta be this.

When Constitutional government veered off into Tyranny Gulch

With Progressivists at the wheel, natch.

The deep significance of H.R. 1 is that we no longer live in the Founders’ republic. 

In a recent column at American Greatness, Glenn Ellmers describes how H.R. 1 would have fared in the American republic we once had (italics in original):

Instead of the unseemly groveling from the states, objecting to H.R.1, state legislatures could be instructing the Senate to reject this absurd legislation.

The state legislatures certainly would have instructed the Senate to reject H.R. 1, and they could have done so because in the original Constitution, senators were chosen by, and were answerable to, the state legislatures.

The wisdom of the Framers is nowhere more evident than in this feature of their constitutional design. It was the central pillar of the Framers’ vision for how we would rule ourselves by means of a government by, for, and of the people. As I wrote in my book about the founding entitled Common Sense Nation:

The Senate had been a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but the Senate has abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the states no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the federal government, the power of the federal government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states.

Consequently, the power of the federal government has also rapidly grown at the expense of individual liberty.

The Framers’ purpose was a regime of liberty that would endure. Their challenge was to find a way to prevent the central government from doing what central governments do: take on more and more power, crush liberty, and rule for the benefit of the rulers. Their brilliant solution was federalism. Lord Acton, the great historian of liberty, admired their innovation:

Federalism: It is coordination instead of subordination; association instead of hierarchical order; independent forces curbing each other; balance, therefore, liberty.

The direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of your liberty and mine. The result has been the erosion of the liberty that was the Founders’ precious gift to each one of us.

Which was the whole idea. We laugh at Progressivists for their stupidity, and that’s fair enough; they are stupid. But, as I so frequently warned about Bath House Barry back in the day, stupidity in no way implies one can’t be cunning. Alhough the two aren’t synonymous, they can still be more mutually reinforcing than mutually exclusive. Thus:

The ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 changed everything. It provided for the direct election of senators. By means of it, the Progressives overthrew the American republic in that year. Although it is painful to admit, we must acknowledge that the American Progressives took the lead in making the 20th century the horrendous catastrophe for liberty it was. They got out ahead of both the Bolsheviks in Russia (1917) and the National Fascist Party in Italy (1922). Not only did the Progressives get going first, they have outlasted the Bolsheviks and the fascists. The USSR, Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Tojo’s Japan are long gone, but Progressivism in America is going from strength to strength, today promising to transform America fundamentally with H.R. 1 and open borders, by abolishing the Electoral College and the 2nd Amendment, and by turning the Supreme Court into a kind of left-wing super-Legislature beyond the reach of the voters.

The Progressives have outdone the communists and the fascists by being by far the cleverest of the three. They presented the 17th Amendment to the American people in the guise of a “reform.” The Progressives knew what they were doing. 

Distasteful as it to admit it, they did at that. And still do, apparently, seeing as how they managed to oust Trump and are now firmly and fully in charge, with no respite from their all-encompassing despotism in sight.

Forever nullifying the very concept of States’ Rights via the bone-simple expedient of revoking representation of their interests in Congress, in direct contravention of the Founders’ intentions—downgrading the more or less independent status of the states as the “laboratories of democracy” to make them abject vassals of a constantly-expanding federal Leviathan—thereby converting the “several states” in one fell swoop into no more than officially-licensed subdivisions of FederalGovCo™, dependent on the financial largesse of Mordor On The Potomac and cringingly subservient to their Dark Lord, may very well have been Progressivism’s most cunning stunt ever.

Breath: not holding it

T’is a consummation devoutly to be wished all the same.

  1. What if the Arizona audit shows massive voter fraud and changes the outcome of their state’s election for President and Senate?
  2. What if Donald Trump declares a government in exile in Florida based on this finding?
  3. What if Governor DeSantis recognizes and protects this alternate government?
  4. What if other state governors recognize the Trump government or withdraw their consent to the Biden administration until all state audits in question are completed?

It certainly would be a good day in the neighborhood if the federal government was marginalized until a resolution is made for our future.

I can only hope that these traitors will all receive a fair trial and then publicly be hanged until dead.

Alas, hope is the only thing we can do. In the unlikely event that any of them DO have righteous justice visited upon ’em, it will have to be the street variety, and it won’t be a court that levies it. That’s all up to We The People now.

Here’s how it is: every sensible, honest person ALREADY KNOWS that there was indeed “massive voter fraud” committed, of numerous varieties. The only ones who deny or dismiss that simple fact are either A) laboring mightily to ensure that it stays suppressed, in hopes of shoring up the faith of the foolish few in a nonviable system; B) proselytizing in support of said fraud; C) active participants in said fraud; or D) working to advance the Leftist/Deep State agenda in some other fashion.

Beyond that, though, I just gotta ask: what, exactly, does anybody expect to take place even if the audits establish beyond all argument that the 2020 election was in fact fraudulent? Think the Harris/Biden Occupation Government will just humbly step aside to allow for the installation of the legitimate President? Will Kamalassar Harris or Confusticated Grampy Joe express contrition and shame, offering their most sincere apologies for their crimes? Will the Democrat-Socialist Party be sanctioned, banned, or officially disbanded? Will any of their co-conspirations be brought to trial on charges of treason?

Of course not; as pleasant a daydream as it might be, it will never amount to anything more than just that. In the deathless words of King Arthur:



Audits, investigations, and the like are all just mental masturbation at this point: satisfying, in a shallow, momentary way, but ultimately pointless. The FUSA’s dismal fate was sealed when Pence declined to meet the Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities of his office and do his sworn duty, which was abundantly clear—a despicable act by which the long-tottering moral foundation of the US federal government was rubbled, its illegitimacy indelibly proclaimed. January 6th ought forever to be remembered as (to borrow FDR’s famous phrase) “a day which will live in infamy,” but not for the reasons Real Americans have been beaten over the head with relentlessly ever since. Which, come to think of it, is a whole ‘nother fraud in itself.

How it happened

Wherein a most intriguing case is made in support of a somewhat unusual proposition: the origins of our national woes, pretty much all of them, are directly traceable to the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

For over fifty years, it has been a recurring promise of conservative candidates running for election that they will stand up for our constitutional rights and support the appointment of judges and Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution.

Yet time after time, the left seems to win both ideological and legal battles on monumental issues such as abortion, marriage, gun control, immigration, racial preferences for minorities, and the ever-expanding size and scope of government — no matter what the text of the Constitution actually says.

In The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, (2020; ISBN 978-1-5011-0689-7) author Christopher Caldwell advances the thesis that the Constitution of 1788 has been effectively nullified by our elites and supplanted with a “new constitution” that originated in, and reflects the values of, the “Civil Rights Era” of the 1960s. Though the civil rights movement began as a reformist movement within the old order, it evolved into a “revolution” that has nearly triumphed over the polity created in the 18th century:

The changes of the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the original one was frequently incompatible[.]…Much of what we have called “polarization” or “incivility” in recent years is something more grave — it is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the de jure constitution of 1788…with centuries of American culture behind it…or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as liberation.

Caldwell argues that the new “de facto constitution” has been used to supersede the Bill of Rights and the black-letter law of the traditional Constitution.  Forced busing and forced integration violated the First Amendment right to freedom of association, as did affirmative action for blacks and women. Racial and sex-based preferences offend the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These policies were enacted despite opposition from most Americans. Speech codes and political correctness designed to cater to the sensitivities of minorities infringe on the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The “right” to an abortion, which existed nowhere in the traditional Constitution and was opposed by a majority of the people (with limited exceptions), was essentially created by the Supreme Court.

Lest anybody be inclined to assume that Demonrat-appointed Justices and Presidents are entirely to blame, or nearly so, that erroneous notion is handily dispensed with. After the infuriating way in which Trump’s eagerly-anticipated USSC picks have performed so far, that comes as no big shock. Caldwell even goes so far as to rip Saint Ronald of Reagan a new ‘un for his own not-insignificant contribution to the national trainwreck. Then, from there:

If Caldwell’s thesis can be criticized, it is for understating his case — things have proven to be worse than he described.

In hindsight, the Trump presidency exposed the fact that the elites and the Deep State are now completely untethered by the original Constitution of limited and enumerated powers and by the Bill of Rights. They have demonstrated that they are willing to use the FBI to surveil presidential candidate and to fabricate a false narrative for the purposes of impeaching him. They have demonstrated that they will side with illegal aliens over American citizens, and that they will freely let black BLM and communist Antifa agitators run riot in the streets while ruthlessly prosecuting and suppressing as “domestic terrorists” patriotic and nationalist groups who caused a ruckus at the Capitol. They have demonstrated that they are willing to turn a blind eye to vicious and violent attacks by blacks against whites, but drop the hammer of “hate crimes” on any “deplorable” white who has the slightest dispute with a black, or on any cop making a traffic stop of a black criminal. They have demonstrated that they will continue to expand so-called “civil rights” to include all manner of insanity and freakishness, such as “transgenderism.”

Caldwell does not propose a solution to this situation. But recognizing the problem is a necessary first step in finding one. “Civil rights” has been used as an effective battering ram against conservatism and against the Constitution of the 1780s; conservatives can no longer allow themselves to be browbeaten by “civil rights” activists. The rigged election of 2020 and the double-impeachment of Trump should have awakened conservatives to the fact that merely voting Republican and asserting your “constitutional rights” is no longer enough. But it may be too late.

In 2014, Gov. Cuomo sneered that conservatives have no place in the state of New York. Increasingly, our elites have adopted the attitude that conservatives have no place anywhere in the country, and they are willing to act on it.

They’ll do precisely that, unless/until enough Real Americans nut up and demonstrate a willingness to act on a few things their own selves…in a way that won’t soon be forgotten, is impossible to ignore or minimize, and will leave a smarting, stinging welt.

Inconvenient truths, convenient lies

If there’s any one aspect of the overblown reaction to the January 6th doin’s that I find most sick-making of all, it’s the way putative conservatives just blandly swallowed whole the Deep Statists’ intentionally manipulative mischaracterization of the protest as “deadly riots,” “insurrection,” “coup attempt,” et al. America’s Sweetheart Julie Kelly is way too smart to be fooled by it.

January 6 Is the New Russiagate Lie
It’s impossible to count how many impressions of “five people killed” pollute government documents, news websites, social media, and the brains of tens of millions of Americans. The line is a permanent chapter in the folklore of January 6—and it’s untrue. Just like the notion the protest was an “armed insurrection” and the people involved are guilty of “sedition,” the January 6 body count is one more myth.

There will be no retractions, however, and no apologies. Last weekend, following the killing of a Capitol police officer by a Nation of Islam follower, news and opinion sites reupped the lie about Sicknick, some even laughably sticking to the completely debunked fire extinguisher attack.

The public can expect the same here. Everyone invested in the original version will ignore the evidence and keep repeating the lie that five people died at the hands of bloodthirsty Trump loyalists. Facts simply do not matter.

In some ways, the crusade to criminalize January 6 is far worse than Russiagate. Regular Americans exercising their First Amendment rights are being treated as political prisoners, held hostage by their own government, denied due process. Hyperpartisan Biden appointees in charge of the most potent government tools are aiming those weapons at the Right as a whole, threatening to create no-fly lists and warning Americans half their countrymen are wannabe domestic terrorists.

Team Mueller undoubtedly marvels at what the Biden Justice Department is getting away with.

Jules goes on to note one last point of comparison betwixt January 6th and the Russiagate swindle, which is perhaps the most nefarious of them all.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda

You’ve all seen the hysteria, the hyperbole, the agenda-driven misrepresentation. Now have a gander at what might have been.

The FBI isn’t alone in claiming the January 6 Capitol protest was the worst thing to happen to America since 9/11. A substantial share of nominally Republican politicians has joined that chorus. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went so far as to say that Donald Trump will have “a place in history” for the Capitol riot: “They could have blown the building up. They could have killed us all.”

If only.

When Graham says this, he knows perfectly well that he is lying. Trump asked the hundreds of thousands of Americans who came to show their support to walk with him peacefully to the Capitol. He made “peaceful” explicit. Nonetheless, every corrupt politician and newscaster in America has been able to find the violent subtext buried somewhere in Trump’s speech.

Well, try this on for size: Suppose if, instead of saying “let’s walk to the Capitol peacefully,” Trump instead had said what everyone accuses him of saying. Suppose he’d said, “The election is being stolen from us and I’m not giving up power.” (Remember how the Left fantasized Trump would have to be removed from the Oval Office by force?) Suppose Trump continued: “I am calling on my supporters to defend my presidency with violence. Come to Washington. Bring your guns! Bring every weapon you can lay your hands on. Don’t let anyone stop you. No justice, no peace!”

If only.

What do you suppose would have happened then? Do you think that the only person to be shot that day would have been an unarmed protester? If Trump had one ounce of the autocratic, dictatorial tendencies the press accuse him of having, he need only have asked his supporters to defend him with force. They would have.

It’s hard to say what would have followed, but it would not have been pretty. If Trump had actually encouraged violence, the “Capitol Riot” would have been a bona fide riot. We wouldn’t be able to count the death toll on a single hand. It would take hundreds, or thousands, of hands. If Americans had come to Washington actually seeking to “kill them all,” as Graham so despicably insists, you can bet that they would have succeeded in killing at least some.

By some estimates, 1.5 million Americans showed up on January 6 to protest the theft of their right to vote. They were angry as hell, but overwhelmingly peaceful. Even with the FBI in maximum repression mode, there has been a grand total of 127 arrests. No one burned cars or besieged police stations. What, in contrast, would a million-and-a-half Antifa have done to Washington, D.C.?

Hundreds of thousands or even millions of Americans would have answered a call to arms from President Trump. That he never made such a call is patently obvious, most of all to the liars and blackguards who make these accusations. They feel safe to say whatever they want because they know that Trump is a vastly better man than they: Trump believes honestly (and in my view correctly) that he won reelection. He believes the most powerful office in the world was stolen from him. Yet he loves America far too much to bring it to violence on his account. His accusers know this, or else they wouldn’t dare utter a peep—because it would actually be dangerous for them.

How ironic, then, that Trump’s sincere patriotism and reluctance to thwart the coup against him by any means required should result in the permanent loss of the very nation he so cherished. Now, all anyone can do is watch as the dismal drama plays out to its unhappy ending, with all the horror and grief that will inevitably ensue after the curtain falls. We’ll never really know all the reasons for it, but whatever they were, Trump’s failure to “cross the Rubicon” didn’t come without its own cost, and it was steep.

Another point worth mentioning: Whereas Trump loves an America that has ceased to exist, Leftards have always reserved their allegiance for a muzzy dream of some future “America” that bears absolutely no resemblance to the one conceived, created, and bequeathed to us by our Founders.

Comments policy

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't. Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

Shameless begging

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." — Daniel Webster

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.” – Frank Zappa

“The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.” - John Adams

"It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged." - GK Chesterton

"I predict that the Bush administration will be seen by freedom-wishing Americans a generation or two hence as the hinge on the cell door locking up our freedom. When my children are my age, they will not be free in any recognizably traditional American meaning of the word. I’d tell them to emigrate, but there’s nowhere left to go. I am left with nauseating near-conviction that I am a member of the last generation in the history of the world that is minimally truly free." - Donald Surber

"The only way to live free is to live unobserved." - Etienne de la Boiete

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid." — Dwight D. Eisenhower

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"There is no better way to stamp your power on people than through the dead hand of bureaucracy. You cannot reason with paperwork." - David Black, from Turn Left For Gibraltar

"The limits of tyranny are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglass

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.” - Ronald Reagan

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." - Bill Whittle

Best of the best

Neutral territory

Alternatives to shitlib social media:

Fuck you

Kill one for mommy today! Click to embiggen

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS feed

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

Contact


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

Copyright © 2021