Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

“Did Trump Really Save America From Socialism?”

For the moment, yeah.

Americans need to understand that the shocking refusal by a major political party to accept the results of the last election and the onslaught of verbal, legal, and physical assaults the Democrats have engendered, are not specific to Donald Trump. In other words, it is now clear plans were made by Obama to exploit federal power during his presidency to give the Democrats control of our nation — perpetually. It really didn’t matter if Trump was the GOP nominee or not. In other words, the chaos we are witnessing today would not have been much different had, for example, Ted Cruz won the presidency.

Sure, the issues and the phony narratives would be different but the intensity of the attacks would be the same and the illegal politicizing of Federal agencies would probably still have occurred. There is little doubt the Dems would have created phony narratives customized for whoever the nominee was, similar to how they customized the Russian collusion hoax for Trump. This is what the establishment Republicans and the Never-Trumpers don’t understand. Long before Trump’s candidacy, total war was declared on the GOP when the Obama administration strategically created the conditions to make its progressive revolution a permanent one. Or so they thought.

First, let’s dump the naivety. Obama has been fully in charge of both the pre- and post- election attacks on Trump. He is the leader of the resistance. The idea that his appointees at the FBI, DOJ, IRS, CIA, State Department, etc., would risk committing multiple felonies without direction from him or his henchman is simply not believable as many long-time political leaders and observers have stated.

Obama’s goal was to weaponize his agencies so as to create the conditions to make it impossible for any Republican to win the presidency again. The circumstantial evidence over the last ten years strongly suggests that Obama was determined to make the 2016 election the last real free election, meaning one in which legal citizens elected the president. Based on his actions during his presidency, it is difficult to not conclude otherwise.

Indeed, Obama even did an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez in which he made clear that illegal aliens who vote won’t be investigated by his administration because the voting records are not cross-checked against the immigration databases.

This is also why Obama ally and socialist billionaire George Soros funds a network of Obama-aligned groups to carry out much of the dirty work. For example, Soros funds a plethora of groups that promote open borders, attack ICE, and make it easier for illegals to avoid arrest.

These groups also fight all efforts to implement any kind of voter ID system that would make it difficult for illegals to vote. Indeed, the current DNC Chairman, Tom Perez, worked with “Casa De Maryland,” a Soros-funded group that successfully convinced the city of College Park to allow illegals to vote in local elections.

But Soros plays an even bigger role in the Obama-led resistance. The House Intelligence Committee reported that Soros and seven to ten other heavy hitters spent $50 million trying to convince people that the phony intel contained in the Dossier was authentic. Soros also funds Media Matters, a leftist group that works to convince social media companies to censor conservatives, a necessary tactic in order for Obama’s soft coup to be successful. And Google, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook appear to be dutifully following the left’s demands.

Are you getting the picture yet? It’s a nifty formula: Register illegals and felons to vote but suppress the votes of conservatives and those who serve our country. Add up all these actions and it’s difficult to not conclude Obama and his leftist allies in various states were engaged in a massive conspiracy to use the power of federal and state governments to influence the electoral process. And much of this occurred before Obama knew Trump would be the GOP nominee.

But let’s bring this conspiracy up to the present. All of this flows nicely into Obama’s plan to use his intelligence agencies as an appendage of the DNC. There is now little doubt that Obama’s appointees involved themselves in a scam to purchase phony intel and then used it as the basis for an application to the FISA court so they could spy on Trump’s campaign. This plot had little to do with Russia and everything to do with creating a damaging narrative about “treason” and “collusion” that was to be spoon fed to their media allies and used to try to remove Trump from office.

But something happened on the way to socialist utopia. Trump won. That was not supposed to happen.

To be blunt, the plan was for Hillary to win and continue the destruction of the American system of limited government, the rule of law, and the free enterprise system. A Hillary victory would have continued Obama’s agenda of open borders, government control of many industries, a cradle to grave welfare system, and emaciated military and socialist policies that would continue economic stagnation. Future elections would appear to be legit but they wouldn’t be.

Under a Clinton presidency, she would continue the Obama immigration policies, thereby allowing a few million more illegals to enter the country and would also massively increase Third World refugees who vote heavily Democratic. Indeed, in 2016 she announced that as president she would increase Syrian refuges alone by 550%. Add to this the aggressive federal/state/private voter registration programs targeting these groups and the result would be a boost of Democrat vote numbers probably large enough to keep winning the White House on a perpetual basis, essentially invalidating the will of the legal majority.

Elections would just be a formality to make the masses feel like they still lived in a free country, but the only free elections would be between Democrats in their own primary. The result would be the transformation of America to a full blown socialist country within a decade. Just as Obama had promised.

Nor should there be any doubt about Obama’s socialist vision for America. This is important because his ideology explains why he is leading the resistance: socialists believe in the Marxist theory that capitalism cannot coexist with socialism, hence they are obligated to destroy the free enterprise system and all the cultural traditions that go along with it. It was not a coincidence that the attacks on traditional marriage, the undermining of religious freedom, the promotion of transgendered “rights,” and other issues challenging traditional mores came to a fore during the Obama years. Obama and the progressives seek to undermine America’s cultural traditions because they are linked to America’s Christian and capitalist heritage. Their socialist ideology explains the chaos we find everywhere we look today. Historically, socialists detest free speech, free press, freedom of religion, and other constitutional rights we all take for granted. Just walk down any big city street with a Trump hat on and you will witness the attacks for yourself. Start getting used to it.

This one is long, it’s deep, and covers one hell of a lot of ground, with a ton of supporting evidence to back up the premise. Nonetheless, I still have a few problems with it. For starters, I can’t buy Obama as the evil genius behind it all. For all his narcissistic arrogance, he’s a stuttering, shambolic, inept moron, and it’s always been my contention that he was never much more than a puppet, with darker, more clever and obscure players pulling his strings from way offstage. Moreover, our descent into socialist darkness started way before he came along anyway.

On the other hand, the ineptness and slow implosion of the Klown Kar Koup does seem to provide some basis for the argument that he was more than just a figurehead, at that.

I also have a problem with this bit:

If the GOP cannot unify to pursue a scandal this deep-rooted and consequential, then they don’t deserve to win in 2020 and will not likely survive as a viable party. It’s as if the Republican establishment wants the Deep State to prevail, Trump to be removed, and America returned to the socialist path it was on under Obama. Are they really that naïve that they don’t understand that once we go down that road, it’s unlikely the damage can be undone?

Dude: the Republican establishment IS the Deep State. Are you really that naive that, even after decades of being betrayed again and again by them, you don’t understand that yet?

Moreover, AG Jeff Sessions needs to take back control of his agency. It is alarming that he appears to be not involved in any DOJ investigations concerning anything remotely related to Russia or Hillary, because he was advised to recuse himself by career DOJ attorney Scott Schools, even though the legal case for Session’s recusal was non-existent. Not surprisingly, Schools was hired by Obama official Sally Yates who was fired by Trump for refusing to support his travel ban. Sessions needs to reverse this silly recusal, hire new staff who are actually loyal to him, and get back on top of investigating the biggest political scandal in American history.

I advise all and sundry not to be holding their breath waiting for it. Whatever he may once have been, Sessions is just another Swamp rat now. His nonchalant willingness to sit idly by as the rogue agency he is supposedly in charge of attempts a blatant overthrow of the legitimately elected government is proof enough of that. This next is certainly right enough, though:

This is do or die time. Failure to act now by the GOP will cost the country dearly. Obama and his progressive allies have an aggressive multi-prong plan to survive congressional investigations, win back the White House in 2020, and resume their effort to take America down the socialist path. This is war, and the Democrats know it, but it’s not clear the Republican leadership understands this moment in history.

Occam’s Razor tells us that they understand it’s war well enough. It’s just that they’re on the other side.

Anything can happen, of course, but I really don’t see the Democrat Socialists winning the White House back in 2020. They might well have “an aggressive multi-prong plan” sure enough. But it’s going to take somebody other than Lieawatha/Fauxcahontas, Crazy Bernie, Sick Hillary!™, or Gropy Joe Biden to implement it. Unless they’re willing to enrage their base by reining in the lunatics; dialing back the howling Marxism and tacking a bit to the middle; and can dig up a complete unknown untainted by scandal, corruption, youthful indiscretion, sexual deviancy, or the kind of greasy, unctuous smarm that oozes off of almost every Democrat-Socialist candidate like oil out of a cracked transmission case, I tend to think their chances of ever selling their chaotic flea circus to Mainstream America again dwindle with every AntiFa assault, Muslim terrorist attack, transgender parade, BlackLiesMurder riot, and accidentally-honest expression of hatred and loathing uttered by one of their bumbling, ignorant Flavors of the Month.

I could be all wet about that, I admit. But in any event, it’s what comes after Trump that we need to be concerned about. And we admittedly have a recruitment problem of our own there. Unless we can somehow find another battle-ready Trump-ish outsider to put forward, it’s going to be a return to DC business as usual when the professional-politican vultures waiting in the wings make Mordor On The Potomac their exclusive domain once more, probably for good.

Share

The Great Unmasking

Ooooops.

Thanks to the election of President Trump, we are in the midst of a process I call “the great unmasking.” American leftists and progressives have, until President Trump, gone out of their way to hide their disdain for this country and its (mostly) free-market economy. They are enraged that everything is not perfect by their lights and imagine that they could produce a much better system if only they had absolute power.  

Because the deplorables out there in the American public still cling to patriotism (ever since Karl Marx, the left has disdained nationalism as obstructing worldwide proletarian class solidarity), progressive politicians have hidden their disdain.

But Donald Trump’s election has engendered a mass neurosis we call “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” which has engendered a frenzy to be rid of him. Frenzied is never a good mode of action, for it blinds one to obvious pitfalls.

That’s why yesterday, the governor of New York, speaking to a friendly group, let slip a genuine gaffe, in the meaning of Michael Kinsley’s definition: accidentally telling the truth. Nobody could ever state in public that America “was never that great” unless he believed that. That’s why the expression has a ring of sincerity when Cuomo uttered those words.

He’s a Leftard and a Democrat-Socialist (BIRM), so the only surprising thing is that he was stupid and politically maladroit enough to slip up and express his true beliefs right out loud. And even that ain’t much of a surprise, given how completely Out about such things so many of them are since we smacked ’em right in their filthy gobs with President Donald J Trump.

They hate America. They hate the white guys who founded it. They hate the white guys who held it together and made it work all along. They hate the very idea that anybody might believe it’s great (or ever was). They hate the fact that we’re no longer willing to sit meekly back and tolerate their abuse. Most of all, they hate the deeply-buried, subconscious knowledge that they’re a bunch of pussified parasites whose very existence as peurile, neurotic, self-loathing, eternally-complaining, shit-stirring brats would be measurable in minutes in the Marxist shitholes they so admire.

Nemo provides a few worthy ripostes over in Bill’s comment section. As for Koo-mo, naturally he got busy backpedaling and non-apology apologizing, for all the good it’ll do him anywhere outside NYC—where they won’t see what all the fuss was about anyway.

Share

Relentless

At what point do we draw a line under this and call it what it truly is: government-endrosed and -abetted harrassment and persecution of a member of a hated religion to deny his Contitutionally-protected (supposedly) right to freely practice and express his beliefs?

In June, the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, issuing a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the commission had compared his decision to religious arguments in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.

Now, the commission is again going after Phillips for declining to create a custom cake — this time a cake celebrating transgenderism. On Tuesday night, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian law firm that represented Phillips before the Supreme Court and helped him gain an important 7-2 victory, filed a federal lawsuit against the commission to forestall action against Phillips.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner declared in a statement. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

On the very day the Supreme Court decided to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop (June 26, 2017), a caller asked the bakery to make a cake with a pink inside and a blue outside, celebrating a gender transition from male to female. The shop politely declined, but Phillips believes that the same lawyer, on other occasions, requested that he create other custom cakes with messages that violate his faith — a cake celebrating Satan and a cake with Satanic symbols. The lawyer, a man identifying as a woman, goes by the name Autumn Scardina.

Shortly after the Supreme Court gave Jack Phillips his win, denouncing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “religious hostility,” the state began to investigate Phillips again, finding probable cause that he had discriminated against the transgender lawyer who Phillips believes placed the call.

In other words, the horribly-misnomered Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission—a mangling of language so staggering in its grotesquerie as to shatter credulity—is nothing more than the exclusive plaything of a single obssessive psychotic freak.

That’s your tax dollars at work, Colorodans. Which means that now, it’s your move.

To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

All well and good, I guess. But it couldn’t be more clear at this point that when it comes to getting these odious fascists off our backs and out of our lives, the only thing that’s ever going to do the trick is to start killing them in job lots. At the very least, this Autumn Scardina creature in particular should be doxxed, terrorized, robbed of his/her/its livelihood, surrounded by screaming, fist-waving protesters every minute of his/her/its day, and generally hounded until he/she/it breaks down into a blubbering, trembling pile of disagreggated protoplasm.

And in case anybody out there persists in making the mistake of thinking this is about cakes in any way, shape or form:

While the commission — and some liberal Supreme Court justices — argued that Phillips had discriminated against the same-sex couple in 2012 based on their sexual orientation, he constantly argued that he merely wished to opt out of creating a cake to celebrate an event he did not consider a true wedding. This was not the first time Phillips had turned town such cake orders, either. He has always refused to bake any Halloween-themed cakes, which are consistently in demand every October.

Furthermore, when Craig and Mullins requested their cake, Phillips offered to sell them anything else in the store, but they refused. Phillips was not engaging in discrimination against them — he was refusing to bake a cake that would convey a message he disagreed with.

Ironically, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission actually defended another baker who refused to bake a cake that would convey a message. In 2015, the commission declined to take up an appeal involving Azucar Bakery, which refused to bake Bible-shaped cakes with messages against homosexuality. The bakery’s owner, Marjorie Silva, said she refused to bake the cakes because the writing and imagery were “hateful and offensive.”

The very same commission that defended Silva’s free speech rights trampled on Phillips’ free speech rights. This was one major reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips. (The Court was also persuaded by the commission’s outrageously offensive comparison between Phillips’ religious refusal to bake the cake and a defense of Nazism, which was particularly egregious because Phillips’ father fought in World War II and liberated a concentration camp.)

If all the freak actually wanted was a goddamned cake to “celebrate” his/her/its dementia and depravity, he/she/it could have gone to who even knows how many other bakeries and gotten one easily enough, up to and including the above-mentioned Silva’s shop. No, this self-loathing abomination’s true goal is the suppression of the right to practice one’s religion freely and in peace. Bottom line:

“The most common misconception amongst people generally and people who care about religious freedom is that you can win a case and then walk away,” Tedesco, the ADF lawyer, explained. “We always tell our friends that our opposition doesn’t rest. I don’t think there’s any better example of that principle than this same commission taking up essentially the same case against the same man.”

“The Left and progressively-minded commissions like this will never rest,” Tedesco warned. “It’s just a matter of eternal vigilance.”

“If we tire out, if we become weary in defending these things, we will ultimately lose these freedoms for the next generation,” he added, ominously.

Taking this and every other God-given freedom away from those who desire only to be left alone is precisely the goal of Leftist swine, and they will never tire or relent in pursuit of it. They will rise from their own noxious ashes again and again and again, as many times as it takes, until they get what they want.

Repeat after me: they will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. Lawyers and lawsuits won’t do it. Angry op-eds won’t do it. Listening to Rush Limbaugh every day won’t do it. Voting certainly won’t do it. Nothing short of actual physical confrontation and violence will.

Well, so be it then. Kill ’em all. Let God sort ’em out. Try as I might, I can no longer see any way this restart of the long-stalled Darwinian-selection process doesn’t begin soon. As dismal as I once considered the prospect, I can no longer honestly say I give a damn. Let them reap what they’ve sown; may they have joy of their foolish, fascist choice.

Share

Slavery, re-branded

Socialism 101.

It is important for people to learn the connection between property rights as being directly protected by liberty, and how this connection ensures life. To help picture this clearly, think of yourself as Robinson Crusoe. Or Tom Hanks in Cast Away. Or if you’re talking to the very young, Matt Damon in The Martian.

These fictional characters illustrate this bond between property and life. When these castaways were shipwrecked alone, the only choices presented to them is either to survive or to perish. In order to live, they will have to employ the use of their mind and direct their body to produce the necessary requirement of survival: shelter, water, food.

A socialist will bring up the example: imagine if a year later, another castaway is stranded on the same patch of land as you. Don’t you have the moral obligation to share your shelter, water and food with him? The answer to this is not “yes you’re obligated morally to share” nor “no, you’re not obligated morally to share”, but rather, the correct answer is: “you shall decide”.

Why is “you shall decide” the right answer? It is because the shelter, water and food you’ve created is a product of your mind and body, which is an extension to your very life.

The laws of survival which applies to you when you were first shipwrecked applies to the new castaway, as well. He too must employ his mind and body to ensuring his own survival. Because if he did produce the requirement for his survival, you yourself do not have the right to take the product of his labor from him against his will in the case where you fail to produce what you need to survive.

Naturally, logic obliges, that if another person is shipwrecked, you’d want to help him, because he will in turn, be a useful addition to your life. You could request that he help you plow your land in exchange for food. In this case, both parties engage in the exchange of value for value. No one is required to involuntary give up their property.

This is capitalism. This is the reason why socialist despises the defining of liberty as being tied to property rights, and want to do away with property rights completely, by condemning the profit motive in capitalism. It is because capitalism isn’t slavery.

A bit awkardly-written, shall we say, in spots—but let he who is without sin cast the first etc…ahem. I suspect maybe English is not her first language, not that there’s anything wrong with that. No biggie, of course; all in all, she lays out the core philosophical case defining socialism as slavery simply and well, I think, without resort to the practical argument reciting the litany of its sure-thing-every-time failure. How useful her argument might be in terms of persuasion is open to question at best, sadly enough, since the blockhead Left isn’t listening anyway.

(Via Insty)

Share

Best of times, worst of times

Unbearable thoughts.

Anti-Americanism has the same psychological dynamic as anti-Semitism. When the anti-Semite launches into his harangue, we instinctively recoil. We recognize that he is a troubled soul. We understand that he is obsessively tracing the inner contours of a mental cage that exists beyond the reach of rationality.

The insights of Revel and Rangel suggest that the Americans who suffer from anti-Americanism must also be afflicted by an unbearable thought.

What unbearable thought? The answer is ready at hand. The Progressive project has gone from strength to strength politically in America – and everywhere it has brought ruin in its wake. Detroit was once an economic powerhouse, and San Francisco was once America’s most beautiful city. Decades of one-party rule according to the Progressive project have wrecked Detroit, and San Francisco is becoming something truly strange, a modern city overwhelmed by human excrement in public places.

Hm. Must be a coincidence, right?

How did these three beautiful and prosperous American cities morph from the best of cities to the worst of cities in only a couple of generations? Let’s look at who is in charge.

San Francisco has not had a Republican mayor since 1964, the height of Motown music in one of the other cities we are discussing. For the past fifty-plus years, San Francisco has been led by a procession of Democrats.

Detroit’s last Republican mayor finished his term in 1962, around the time the Supremes were singing “Where Did Our Love Go?” Now they would be singing, “Where did our city go?” Since the early 1960s, Detroit has had a succession of Democrat mayors, including Coleman Young and their famous hip-hop mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, now serving a long prison term. Michigan, similar to Illinois and California, has two Democrat U.S. senators.

Anyone see a common thread here? Cities run by liberal Democrats, implementing liberal policies, with predictable results. These are certainly not the only American cities ruined by Democrat governance – there are also Newark; New Orleans; and Washington, D.C. to name a few others.

Back to my first link for the only rational conclusion:

The Progressives’ failure is not a failure to enact their agenda. They have dominated America politically for the past century. FDR gave us really big government, and the federal government has become a scandal of fraud, waste, and abuse – a scandal that even the Big Government Press cannot keep hidden from us. LBJ declared War on Poverty – and that war was lost. Instead of eliminating poverty, the War on Poverty has made poverty more pathological, creating an underclass, often now described as “permanent,” living on government handouts. Even the Progressives’ anti-Americanism was given free rein with the election of Barack Obama, who shared their obsession with “fundamentally transforming” America. Yet wave after wave of electoral victory has not made American Progressives happy.

Whenever the voters put the Progressives in charge, the result is governmental metastasis and social catastrophe – by necessity. The left is simply wrong about how things work. It is easy to come up with programs that defy common sense. It is also possible to use governmental power to impose those programs on society. But the power of government can’t make them work.

As I always say: their argument isn’t with us. It’s with reality.

Share

Who and what we’re fighting

Hate to say it, but he’s right. For now, anyway.

At this moment, Ohio Democrats and their Beltway masters are diligently working to steal the state’s 12th Congressional District from Republican Troy Balderson. Balderson’s Democratic opponent, Danny O’Connor, refused to concede after narrowly losing the special election and a few hours later — the county where he works — miraculously “discovered” 588 uncounted votes in a “routine audit.” When they were counted, Balderson’s lead shrank by 190. Similar skullduggery will accompany the count of provisional and absentee ballots, which will inevitably lead to an automatic recount, which will ultimately lead to an O’Connor “victory.”

What does this have to do with conservative confusion?

It’s a timely reminder that the Democratic Party is little more than a criminal conspiracy and that any conservative who sits at home during the midterms, griping about “GOPes,” will be complicit in the destruction of the republic. If this sounds over the top, think about who will take over the leadership of crucial committees if the Democrats flip enough seats to regain a majority in the House: Adam Schiff will probably become the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee — Adam Schiff! Before we go any further, think about that. This buffoon is still braying about Russian collusion even as he covers up the crimes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Schiff’s first order of business as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee will be to halt any ongoing investigations into Obama administration abuses of power — particularly the illegal deploymentof the FBI, CIA, and IRS against domestic political opponents of the Democratic Party, including the Trump presidential campaign. Schiff will likewise close down all inquiries into Mrs. Clinton’s copious catalogue of crimes. Having thus enabled Obama administration officials to escape justice, Schiff will then pivot to his primary goal — destroying the Trump Presidency.

OH-12 shouldn’t have been close enough for the Democrats to steal. The razor-thin majority by which Balderson won is the result of absent suburban voters who have forgotten that, after 2006, the Democrats nearly destroyed the U.S. economy and set the stage for the Obama era with all its trademark criminality. The Democrats are crooks and liars. Even worse, they are incompetent. If they are allowed to get their tentacles on the levers of power again, they will ruin everything they touch, and it will probably require more than mere votes to get rid of them next time. Conservatives can save the republic from all this by showing up for the midterms.

I repeat: he’s right. The GOPe is certainly overdue for a serious reckoning itself, as I’ve long argued here. But with Trump making serious progress hacking away at the Deep State, the first order of business right now has to be the total destruction of the Democrat Socialist Party as anything resembling a nationally-viable organization. There’s never going to be a better time; their collapse into a degenerate, hysterical horror show has provided normal Americans with an appalling picture of what they really have in mind for them.

All that said, though, I can’t quite agree with the assertion of the subhed that “the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat.” I’d posit that the worst Republican IS a Democrat—a stealth Democrat, that is. Which means that, now that the Dem-Soc bastards are letting their freak flag fly openly, they’re actually the more honest of the two. Nice thing is, as the Vichy GOPers lapse deeper and deeper into abject Trump derangement in their own right, they might just end up destroying themselves without further active measures required from us.

So yeah, we hold our noses this one last time and go vote GOP. Till now, that was a frustrating and infuriating exercise resulting only in a tacit endorsement of the endless DC circle-jerk. Now, we can do so contentedly, secure in the knowledge that the nullification of the greatest threat to whatever’s left of the American way of life might at last be on the horizon. After that, we kick Leviathan’s other leg out from under him and bring him down in a sodden heap.

Share

The Tyranny Party

Tell me again all about how Trump’s the “authoritarian,” libtards.

One of the nice things about a core curriculum—sadly disappearing from most of higher education—is that it forces you to read books you would otherwise have skipped. Although this can be painful in the moment, it often pays off in unexpected ways.

Sigmund Freud is not a writer I would have picked up had he not been assigned. But I’m glad he was. The older I get, and the more of the Left I see, the more useful becomes Freud’s concept of “projection,” an unconscious defense mechanism that protects the ego from guilt or anxiety. It has amazing explanatory power and can help one make sense of a trove of recent books by left-wing writers, and one disgruntled former conservative, that blame Donald Trump for “authoritarianism” in American politics.

What, according to the authors reviewed here, is authoritarianism? They all attempt definitions, which are more or less similar. We may therefore take one as representative. The authoritarian, say Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die,

1) Rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game,
2) denies the legitimacy of opponents,
3) tolerates or encourages violence, or
4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

Gee, none of THAT sounds familiar at all, does it? Final analysis:

The most certain way a once-stable republic gives way to tyranny is when the republican spirit of its people is eliminated or undermined. All such regimes decisively depend for their success and longevity on a foundation of virtue in the people. How’s that going in our time? None of these books has anything at all to say about the family, the bedrock of representative republicanism. Only Mounk treats religion at any length, and then mainly to lambaste figures and societies to his right for being insufficiently deferential to Islam. Nor do these writers even mention the government-driven erosion of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “mediating institutions,” another bedrock of American democracy. All of these goods—and more—have been under persistent left-wing attack for at least two generations. The health of democracy seems not to have improved during that period. The connection seems obvious enough but these authors glide right past.

In any event, it’s rich to read the Left fret about the end of “democracy” when they have spent so much conscious effort undermining its necessary preconditions. They have done so, I think, for two reasons. First, they long ago came to equate liberty with license. Philosophically, once nature was discarded as the standard by which to guide and judge human life, the satisfaction of appetites became the only conceivable end. Hence in matters of personal morality, the contemporary Left is a curious combination of libertine and censor. Any physical—especially sexual or pharmaceutical—act that does not draw blood or pick a pocket is permitted. There are no mores that are simply necessary to society or to personal well-being. If you’re not directly harming someone else, then no one has any business even passing judgment on what you do. But you deserve to be crushed for thinking or saying the wrong thing—especially for passing judgment! Witness the recent massive freak-out over Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s praise of the once-commonplace concept of “bourgeois norms.” How dare she!

The second is that the Left has internalized, mostly without realizing it, the classical case that the only truly legitimate regime is the rule of the wise. For them, it comes dressed up in its modern guise as Hegelian historicism, but either way, it’s ironic that in today’s cisgender Euro-bashing fiesta, their whole political philosophy rests on two quintessentially dead white male arguments. But, hey—they believe they are the wise. Not those dumb rednecks. When the pieces start to fit together in your mind, you begin to realize why the modern Left wants to make America more like those South American countries with a pale upper class, a darker lower class—and no middle of any shade. Because they get to be in charge. Uppity low-income, middling-I.Q. whites are troublemakers. They think they deserve a say. Trump gives those nettlesome, red-hat-wearing proles a voice. What else do you need to know to grasp that Trump is bad?

The greatest factor in hastening the end of American-style democracy over the past 125 years (at least) has been increasing government centralization and administrative rule. To answer the question posed by Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein’s edited volume: it already did happen here! The project all along has been, and still is, to end politics. That is, to foreclose as illegitimate public debate and disagreement on issues allegedly settled by science and administered via expertise. As our personal freedom to abuse our bodies, sate our appetites, and neglect our duties ever expands, our actual freedom to govern ourselves and determine our collective future radically contracts. The people writing these ostensible democratic laments are all in the intellectual lineage of those who brought us to this point. Their aim is to complete the project. Trump’s aim—however inchoate or implicit—is to reverse it. Who’s the real anti-democrat?

It’s Michael Anton, so there’s plenty more between my excerpt blocks, all of which you’ll want to read.

Share

Playing with matches

Little sparks can sometimes grow into huge conflagrations.

Since the election, the Left has been dreaming up scenarios in which the results of the election are overturned. For a long time they were sure Trump would be impeached, but that seems to have faded. Last year my left-wing office manager was deep into the impeachment scenarios. Now the talk is of revolution, which probably fits better with their conception of themselves as the heroic resistance. They imagine Trump as a strong man, against whom they must resist until the system cracks, and then the revolution begins.

On the other hand, there are limits to everything. As the outrages from the Left stack up, the average white person in American grows more angry. Talk to anyone sympathetic to this line of thinking and they will tell you they have grown far less tolerant of their remaining liberal friends. I know I’ve lost touch with quite a few former friends, because I will not tolerate their nonsense. I have friends who just a few years ago thought Ben Shapiro was edgy and now think the alt-right is too soft. There is a reaction brewing in the country.

The question is what would it take to move people from yelling at their televisions over the latest liberal outrage to marching in the streets. This is never easy to know. Sometimes, the smallest spark sets off the biggest fire. The reaction to Alex Jones getting purged from the internet has been surprising, given that he is not a serious person. I got questions from people, who never heard of him until yesterday, angry over his banishment. My guess is the percentage of people thinking fondly of Pinochet is at an all-time high right now.

As far as the spark, a move against Trump is good bet. The glue that keeps things from flying apart right now is middle-class white people, who still have faith in the political system. These are the middle American radicals Sam Francis wrote about 30 years ago during the Reagan moment. They will tolerate just about anything, as long as they think they can fight the other side within the system. An effort to remove Trump or even silence his advocates, could be a spark that gets these people into the streets.

It is tempting to think this will all blow over. I was in the camp until recently. Now, I just don’t see how it will ever be possible to make peace with the Left. They hate us and will use any means necessary. The lack of code is the critical part. How does one make peace with someone that will never abide by the rules? Whether this results in revolution, counter revolution or civil war is hard to know, but the number of people thinking the gap cannot be bridged is growing every day. Now we wait for the Cossak’s wink.

The gap CAN’T be bridged, as I’ve said for a long, long time now. The conflict is between people who want total, unquestioned control (“We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives“) and people who insist on their right to be left alone—between people who believe in the Founding vision of limited government and people who want no limits on government whatsoever. How can anyone possibly imagine that those positions are reconcilable? As I’ve asked before: if you’d prefer to see Constitutional government reinstated yet also favor “compromise” with the Left, exactly which parts of the Constitution are you willing to see thrown out?

As for Alex Jones, I kinda don’t get the high dudgeon over his “deplatforming.” YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al have been doing the exact same thing to both strident Dissident Right types and far milder and more innocuous “conservatives” for a long while now without nearly this much ballyhoo over it. Now all of a sudden people are willing to draw a stark line around a nut like Jones? Not saying they shouldn’t, mind; if it had been done long ago, maybe we wouldn’t be where we are now. It just seems kind of weird to me that Alex Jones ends up being the Bridge Too Far, that’s all.

But it’s easy enough to explain. The Left has stayed frenziedly on the attack for so long now that people are fed up with them. Seeing as how they still show no sign at all of being willing to dial back on the cray-cray one little bit—on the contrary, they’re doubling down each and every day, seemingly incapable of perceiving the mainstream’s rapidly eroding forbearance not as the warning it is but as further incitement—it almost doesn’t matter WHO it was they went after this time.

And then the spark ignites the dry tinder, it blazes up and out of control, and everydamnedbody winds up getting burned.

Share

Culture war?

Nope. Call it culture vandalism, culture takeover, or…what this guy does, which is more apt than just about anything else.

Liberals, similar to but reputedly more reasonable than progs, always notice the single MAGA hat in a crowd but never the destructive prog behavior raging all around them. And it’s liberals who write the columns and tweets next day, dripping venom about the hateful normals. Yet any objective, disinterested observer would notice that it’s progressives who regularly run out of control in angry, violent spasms of incivility and ugliness.

This isn’t “culture war.”  Culture has nothing to do with it. It’s war on normality by Brownshirts, incited or paid for by the likes of George Soros and Tom Steyer. It has now graduated from street-fighting to trying to take down the U.S. government.

I will never understand these people’s hatred of America. They are unreachable by reason. 

Nobody should be squandering any effort on the attempt. As I keep saying: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Get woke update! Schlichter gets down to the nut-cuttin’:

Some of you need to cease the denial and accept the harsh reality that the left hates you. It’s a fact, as much as the liberal gaslight gang and the conserva-sissy weakhearts deny it. You can tell that leftists hate you by the way that leftists tell you that they hate you.

Leftists don’t get to pull this garbage and just get away with it. Cut the nonsense about “outrage mobs.” Regardless of the principles of True Conservatism™, it’s perfectly okay under actual conservative principles to protest the liberal elite’s public embrace of outright race-based hatred. Hell, it’s mandatory. And this imbroglio is a perfect weapon for us, because it perfectly encapsulates our enemy’s hateful view of us in a way every midterm voter between the coasts is going to understand. We need to wield it like a sledgehammer in anticipation of the upcoming election.

You soft boys can pivot back to your “We’re better than that” pose and go AWOL, again, like you always do. But I say the Sarah Jeong/NYT love affair is a suppository, and I say we start curing the hemorrhoid that is liberalism by giving the left a double dose good and hard right up the progressive tract.

We need to accept the harsh reality that a substantial number of our fellow citizens hate our guts. All the simpering blabber about civility, all the clichés about unity, are all just comforting lies. A bunch of them hate us. They hate us. Hate. And we need to stop pretending the truth right in front of us is not right in front of us.

What do we do? We fight. This is not going to be a single skirmish. This is a campaign, a long and difficult one with the objective of destroying the ideological cancer metastasizing through America’s body politic. Step One: We must ruthlessly attack any manifestation of their hate using all the political and cultural tools at our disposal. We need to make liberal racism painful, so they are incentivized to abandon it. We’re not here to win moral victories. We’re here to win victory victories.

He has suggestions for actions that need taking in the right-now so as to be prepared for all the ugly eventualities, and he’s right about all of it.

Settling things update! Francis mulls it over:

I shall say this: ordinary private citizens are now being hunted and attacked by other private citizens for differing with them politically. Members of the latter group call their targets “Nazis” and attack them physically when they believe they can get away with it. A recent case of this has caused me to wonder, like the author of the linked piece, when actual fatalities will occur.

There have been cases, earlier in American history, of violence over political disputes. We fought a rather large war over one such dispute. It says something about such conflicts that the Civil War did not resolve the question it was fought over, namely whether the states remain sovereign: i.e., whether a state has the right to withdraw from the United States as defined by its Constitution.

It’s untrue that “violence never settles anything.” But it’s appallingly true that violence cannot settle any abstract question. It certainly can’t settle a question over rights.

Probably not. But it would settle the question of how long Normals will allow themselves to be used as punching bags for the Violent Left quite nicely. And it’s looking more and more as if it’s the ONLY way the problem of ever-escalating Lefty violence will be resolved.

Share

“We Have to Regulate Every Aspect of People’s Lives”

Any questions?

A Santa Barbara city councilman inadvertently let slip the primary purpose of progressivism in 21st century America.

The city recently criminalized the use of plastic straws. Speaking to that issue, Councilman Jesse Dominguez said, “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

Got that? “We” are smarter than you and know what’s best for you better than you do.

Go read his stumbling, shambling walkback and non-apology “apology” after realizing how badly he’d let the iron fist backing the liberal smiley-face show. It’s pathetic. Moran follows up:

Lately, individual liberty has been getting squeezed by a cadre of statists who believe they have been born with the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to live their lives. To enforce this belief, they have hijacked the enormous power of the state, nibbling away at individual rights in the name of “community.”

They couch their tyranny in soothing words, but the result is catastrophic for liberty. 

Which of course is the plan, and was all along. Steven Hayward at Powerline holds out hope that the people of Santa Barbara might turn the Mark-1, Mod-0 liberal out of office in a sudden, unprecedented show of perspicacity, but Moran has the right of it: it ain’t even remotely likely.

Forget it, Steve, it’s Cali-town.

Share

“Democratic socialism” and equality before the law

Incompatible and contradictory.

Observing the media hijinks and economic moronity of Democrat hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is prepared to increase taxation to unsustainable levels to pay for the socialist dream – “universal health care, tuition free higher education, and the 100 percent use of renewable energy, among other programs” – I could not help but reflect that infinity can be measured only by the extent of human stupidity.

Ocasio-Cortez, a lightweight even on the Bernie Sanders scale, is merely the latest in a long line of what we call today “democratic socialists” or “social justice warriors.” They are oblivious to the proven fact that socialism never works, that it has failed wherever it has been tried, that a centralized state and a command economy inevitably lead to rampant inefficiency, reduced incentive to compete and innovate, diminished production, economic stagnation, and ultimately to one or another version of the police state, whether the “velvet totalitarianism” that John Furedy speaks of or sheer brutal repression – in current terms, the Venezuela option. Socialism is the enemy not only of human flourishing and individual freedom, but, as we will note shortly, of the concept of equality before the law.

“Democratic socialism” is a contradiction in terms – or it is democratic in the same way as death is, reducing everyone to the same level. Socialism is no less a grim reaper than mortality. Similarly, “social justice” has nothing to do with the Western legacy of equality before the law. Clearly, people are not equal with respect to character, intelligence, aptitude, moral fiber, personal responsibility, and motivation, but they should be equal before the law. “Democratic socialism” ignores the complexity of human personality by reducing difference to a lowest common denominator just as “social justice” is dismissive of individual contributions to the well-being of the state. What such fantasy-laden constructs call “equality” is nothing but the dispensation of unearned privilege to the masses, culminating inexorably in the imposition of a featureless collective.

Socialism is a perversion of both equality and justice, the weaponizing of the law in the service of an unfeasible ideal and the progressivist legalization of outright theft, which can result only in the eventual destabilization of the state. It terminates in the society of Harrison Bergeron, in which everyone is equal only in the sense that everyone, apart from an echelon of exploiters, is equally poor, equally deprived, and equally miserable. This is not what Amos would have conceived as justice.

But it is what the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world – and they are legion – would in their risible ignorance inflict upon the rest of us, if we are lunatic enough to allow them. Florida candidate for governor Ron DeSantis is on the mark when he points to the utter folly of Ocasio-Cortez “running around saying, well, capitalism is going to die and…that socialism is the wave of the future. And as somebody who lives in Florida, I can tell you, we probably have more refugees from socialist countries – Cuban-Americans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans – then just about any state…and certainly they can tell you socialism doesn’t work. It’s a failed philosophy.”

Or, to go back to the Powerline meme collection:


Fleeing-capitalism.jpg


If socialism really IS “the wave of the future,” the future is gonna really, really suck.

Update! OG blogger Stephen fisks the living hell out of a socialism-pimping Reuters propaganda piece.

First the headline, which reads: “Once oil wealthy, Venezuela’s largest state struggles to keep the lights on.”

That headline gives the impression that Venezuela has run out of oil, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country still possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, so there’s plenty of oil wealth. It’s still right there in the ground. It hasn’t gone anywhere. The problem is that Bolivarian socialism has ruined the country’s extraction industry, but you wouldn’t know that from anything in the entire story.

Here’s the second graf:

The rolling power blackouts in the state of Zulia pile more misery on Venezuelans living under a fifth year of an economic crisis that has sparked malnutrition, hyperinflation and mass emigration. OPEC member Venezuela’s once-thriving socialist economy has collapsed since the 2014 fall of oil prices.

When Hugo Chavez took over the country in 1998 and began imposing his socialist regime, oil prices were at around $18 a barrel. Twenty years later they’ve “collapsed” to… about $70, with some temporary lows around $40 or so.

That is to say, oil prices since 2014 have averaged about triple what they were in 1998. And from ’98 to 2014, oil was mostly on an upward trajectory and routinely went for well over $100. So the question isn’t how this “crisis” was caused by a “collapse” in oil prices. The question is: What the hell did Maduro and Chavez do with all the damn money?

Here we have a story detailing Venezuela’s economic collapse, and every single problem can be explained by two words: Because socialism. And yet the only time reporter Mayela Armas uses the word socialism, it’s in the context of a “once-thriving socialist economy.”

It never WAS a “once-thriving socialist economy”—because when they went socialist, the economy stopped thriving. Just like they all do, every single time. One thing Stephen gets wrong, though: he calls this propaganda “malignantly uninformed,” but it’s more like MISinformed. Or, to be more precise, dezinformatsiya.

Share

Reverse evolution

Wait, Miranda Veracuz de Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex was actually right once?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the socialist congressional candidate from New York who touts honesty and authenticity as her greatest strengths, used to describe herself as a follower of Adam Smith, the so-called father of capitalism — and said that terms like “feminism” and “empowerment” were “relics from the past.”

Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has come out as an unapologetic democratic socialist, wishing to see greater taxation and expansion and creation of wide-ranging social programs such as a single-payer health care system, free education, and housing as a right.

“I think my strength is I’m honest and authentic,” she told “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah last week. Those qualities helped her in June to beat top Democrat Joe Crowley, whose name was floated as the next speaker of the U.S. House.

But not that long ago, 28-year-old Ocasio-Cortez harbored a lot milder if not radically different views.

So, if Churchill’s (apocryphal) proposition—if you’re not a liberal at 20, you have no heart; if you’re not a conservative at 40, you have no brain—holds, it would seem that Occasional-Cortex, with her personal journey of intellectual de-evolution, has neither heart NOR brain, then.

Share

One step closer

Guess all my “careful what you wish for, libs” warnings are falling on deaf ears.

A new undercover video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas features Antifa “fight instructors” teaching activists how to incapacitate political enemies by violently attacking them.

“If you get a good liver or kidney shot, it’s pretty much crippling them,” the Antifa instructor said. “They’re going to be pretty much doubled over and in a lot of pain.”

The instructor also recommended breaking one of the floating ribs to cause maximum pain on a victim. “It’s hard to move after that — to catch a breath,” he added helpfully. He told the activists that once the target is incapacitated, they can either run away or “really put a beating on them” if they want to “make it personal.”

The instructor said if they don’t knock the victim out, they should punch him in the nose or poke him in the eyes.

Well, okay, there’s that. Then there’s this.

“Why do you think you need a gun?”

It’s a question I suspect we all get asked at one time or another. We often answer that we carry for our protection, to defend ourselves or others. Others reply with a snarky, “It’s not called the ‘Bill of Needs,’ now is it?” Neither person is wrong, nor are many of the other thousands of potential answers.

However, it seems that some in Antifa are telling protestors looking to counter a right-leaning rally in Portland to “bring their own guns.”

I’m not about to tell those who are going to demonstrate peacefully to leave their guns at home, either. While I don’t want to see shootings take place, I want to see innocent people injured or killed even less. All people have a right to defend themselves, and that doesn’t change because of circumstances.

If anyone should leave their guns at home, it’s the group known to start fights over ideological differences, namely Antifa.

The Proud Boys would be no more than smart to arm up, knowing as they must that they’re attempting free speech in the no-free-speech zone of Leftardia, Oregon. As such, they can expect to be hounded, harrassed, and physically assaulted, with no support or protection of any kind from law “enforcement,” who will assuredly look the other way as rally-goers are encircled and viciously beaten by large groups of masked cowards.

People on our side tend to bluster a bit about Civil War 2.0, asserting that the Left needs to be careful about pushing us too far lest they get their heads handed to them with a quickness. I’ve done it plenty myself, in fact, and am still inclined to think it so. But it might also be that such talk is closely akin to that preceding CW 1.0, when both sides assumed that one good, hard skirmish would settle the issue, with all the air rushing out of the other side’s will to fight following a solid demonstration of serious intent. Once the balloon went up for real, the one side would realize that the other was serious, stack arms, and go home.

It didn’t work out that way at all, of course; the most notable thing about the first Civil War was its bloody ferocity, the willingness of rank and file farmboys, shopkeepers, and factory hands to stand firm and slaughter each other at close quarters until none were left upright—very nearly literally—again and again, over the course of years.

Against all previous expectation, the Southern soldiers in particular fought on well past the point of no hope—exhausted, outnumbered, clothed in rags, shoeless, half-starved, weary, far from home, with rocks and clubs when their ammunition ran out. Very few of them owned slaves, or knew someone who did. A fair number of my own ancestors fought for the Confederacy, and not one of them had so much as a pot to piss in, as they used to say. Slavery was an issue far, far removed from them, with little relevence. Yet they fought anyway, doggedly and without thought of surrender.

Might it not turn out the same today? How seriously does the Left take its openly-declared assessment of us as evil, murderous, bigoted, Nazi despots out to do grievous harm to all within our greedy grasp? Can people who don’t even understand what socialism is be deluded enough to lay down their lives to defend it anyway?

All signs point to yes. On the other hand, though…

FreakFags.jpg

I dunno, I gotta say I like Team Patriot’s chances here.

Share

“Sick, twisted racism”

They’re not even bothering to try to hide their hate anymore.

On Wednesday, the New York Times hired Sarah Jeong to join their editorial board. Shortly thereafter, Jeong’s old racist tweets emerged.

The tweets aren’t exactly ancient history. In 2014 and 2015, Jeong — senior writer at the Verge — unleashed a few Twitter tirades against people with a lighter complexion. She seems to have deleted them now, but screenshots showing the tweets (and her new Twitter bio as “soon to be editorial board @nytimes”) have surfaced on the Internet.

“Dumba** f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs p**sing on fire hydrants,” Jeong tweeted in November 2014. Ouch! Not only a profanity-laced tirade, but a tirade comparing people to dogs because of the color of their skin!

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” she wondered in December 2014. Make no mistake, she suggested a whole race of people were unfit for above ground habitation due to the color of their skin.

In July 2014, Jeong admitted to taking a sick pleasure from being cruel to people based on the color of their skin. “It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” she confided. This confession did not specify what Jeong did to men based on their age and the color of their skin, but she did admit taking pleasure in cruelty.

Yeah, well, in the unlikely event she ever tries something “cruel” on THIS old white man, what she’ll wind up getting isn’t going to give her any pleasure at all.

The NYT, naturally, issued a quite lame defense of their brand-spanking new hire which, who cares.

Anybody out there still feeling good about our chances of being able to live peaceably cheek-by-jowl with “people” like this? If so, could you maybe explain to me just how you figger it?

I swiped my title from a Schlichter tweet posted by Insty:



I dunno, Kurt. Trump should mention it, sure. In fact, he should wave it like a bloody flag in LibMedia’s face every time they go all ragged and weepy about A) their self-asserted integrity and lack of “bias”; B) the environment of “danger” welling up in response to their open contempt for us; C) the very idea that the “news” they present might be of the “fake” variety. But honestly, I don’t see anybody being able to make them defend anything at all; at this point, they quite obviously no longer care who sees how overflowing with insane hatred they are.

Share

Crazy, not socialist?

Embrace the healing power of “and.”

Trump’s victory tore the mask from the Democrats leaving them nothing but rage. Formerly mainstream Democrats are quick to embrace every insane lefty position from abolishing borders to supporting Hamas, not because they understand or believe in them, but because they’re “resisting” Trump.

The socialists think they’re winning. But they’re just the guys shouting things at a crazy mob. And the mob is not really for anything, it’s just enraged. It doesn’t want to build, it wants to tear down.

Tweak a normal person’s sense of outrage and they’re moved. Keep doing it a bunch of times and you can enlist them in a movement. Do it every 5 seconds and you drive them as crazy as rats in a Skinner Box. And if you want to see a sample of the Dem Skinner Box, here are a few Nancy Pelosi emails.

“A matter of life or death,” “I’m so furious I can barely write this email,” “As if it couldn’t get worse today,” EVISCERATED,” “I’m scared”, and “DOOMED”.

Peak Outrage induces feelings of frustrations, fury, helplessness and despair.

That’s why you have lefties gathering together to scream at the sky. That’s not the behavior of committed activists building a socialist future. It’s what happens when leaders drive people crazy. Everyone has emotional limits, just as they have physical limits. The madness of Germans at a Hitler rally or Russians mourning Stalin is the end result of people reaching the limits of their emotional sanity.

Madness ensues.

The ultimate beneficiaries of Peak Outrage won’t be the socialists. Crazy people who have been mainlining hate and fear for a decade aren’t really interested in nationalizing health care. They’ll cheer socialism if there’s nothing else on the table and convince themselves briefly that they care. But what they really want is someone to liberate them from their rage and helplessness by destroying the two sources of those emotions, the reviled Republicans and their own failed Democrat leaders.

They don’t want Alexadria Ocasio-Cortez. They want to be freed of their sense of helplessness.

No reason it can’t be both—especially if they believe, as they seem to, that Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex can be the instrument of their liberation. This part, though, is right on the button:

The left created a monster. And it thinks that it’s riding the monster. But you don’t control monsters.

That’s what makes them monsters.

The monster that the left created doesn’t believe in things. It hates them. It’s roaring with anger and pain. The Frankensteins of the left made the monster in their social media laboratory by taking away its hopes and replacing them with fears, keeping it angry and afraid until it was ready to open fire at a Republican charity baseball practice or phone in death threats to a congressman’s dog.

Socialists made the monster. As they always do. But as history shows us, monsters eat socialists. Ask the old Bolsheviks, Mao’s old pals or all the leftists shot by other leftists in the Spanish Civil War.

As always, they all assume they’ll be part of the nomenklatura in charge of things. They’ll go on thinking it, right up until they’re put up against a wall or heaved into a gulag by those who really ARE in charge of things. And that, folks, is why they’ve always been known as “useful idiots.”

Share

“Cerulean tsunami”?

Polls are bunk. They’re masturbatory amusements for people who either are obssessed with politics, or make their living off of them in one way or another.

Mark Penn, chairman of the Harris Poll and former pollster to President Clinton from 1995 to 2000, provides a description of the polling business that few pollsters or media types will find flattering. In a recent column for the Hill, he indicted the “pundit-polling-news establishment” for studiously ignoring the blindingly obvious lessons of 2016. In his estimation, the major polling firms and news organizations to whom they purport to provide objective data have made no meaningful changes in the methodology that led them to miss the seismic shift in voter attitudes that led to President Trump’s 2016 victory:

Almost two years later, very little has changed in polling and analysis at major institutions and news media. If anything, the polling has drifted even further from reality when you look at the questions being asked and, more importantly, the questions not being asked. You don’t need polls to see the America you live in. You need polls to understand the part of America you don’t know.

Penn clearly believes that the use of public opinion surveys as information-gathering tools with which to gauge the general mood and specific concerns of the voters is a dying art. They are now used primarily to reinforce the editorial line of the news organization for which they are ostensibly gathering information. If a news network or publication is opposed to the policies of President Trump, the pollsters tend to “focus on the anti-Trump storyline as though the point of the questions is to prove the validity of that coverage.” That may keep the customer satisfied, but it also means the “polling could be missing reality, again.”

And that is not good news for the Democrats. They can’t win a majority in either house of Congress based on media happy talk about public opinion polls that tell you more about who’s paying for them than what the voters are actually thinking. Which brings us to all those “news” stories about the generic ballot and the allegedly imminent blue wave. Does any of it really mean anything? Probably not. 

The only poll that counts is the one held on election day.

Glenn is always reminding us “don’t get cocky,” which is good enough advice in most any situation, I suppose. But the Democrat Socialists have absolutely nothing to offer but more of the same tired Tyranny Party agenda whose disastrous 70-year tenure has brought us: economic collapse; international humiliation; escalating threats from dangerous enemies which were met not with defiant resolve but with groveling, appeasement, and bribery; urban riots perpetrated with impunity by mouthy brats, wastrel ghetto thugs, and masked revolutionaries; strangling bureaucracy and red tape choking out individual freedom and independence; a refusal to properly exploit our natural resources in favor of promoting unworkable “renewable” energy with government money; rising taxes, spending, regulation, and government interference; invasion by hordes of illegal aliens and hostile, unassimilable jihadists; a failed government takeover of the health care system that resulted in more confusion, higher costs, and longer waits for inferior care—these and lots more (and worse) are the true planks of the Democrat Socialist platform.

That’s been their platform for years, which is bad enough in the current climate. But it’s even worse for them now; all they have to add to that litany of loserdom is their lunatic rejection of Trump and the numerous undeniable benefits his unraveling of Progtard-mandated decline, destruction, degeneracy, and anomie have already shown. I could be all wet, but all this being so—and it is—I just can’t see any “blue wave” washing up on these shores anytime soon.

Share

Draft horses of America, unite!

You have nothing to lose but your harness…and a passel of whining, over-entitled parasites who don’t know their asses from an inner tube with wrinkles painted on it.

Congratulations, oh most insufferable of generations – against all odds and confounding the experts, you have still somehow managed to make yourselves even more annoying. Apparently, the hep new jive among your tiresome cohort is “Democratic Socialism,” resurrecting a poisonous nineteenth-century political death cult and putting a kicky new spin on it to make it palatable for the suckers. It’s the political equivalent of hipsters who insist vinyl records are superior because they didn’t grow up forced to crank their tunes on that miserable format.

The “Democratic” part is some cunning rebranding. Just stick “Democratic” in front of something awful and it’s good-to-go. “Democratic haggis”? Yummy! “Democratic herpes”? Sexy! “Democratic Nazism?” Hey, what’s the difference? National socialism, democratic socialism? It’s really just a question of who runs the camps because regardless of the particular brand of socialism, there are always camps.

Always.

No one loves socialism quite like a moron who has never experienced it firsthand. No one hates it like someone who has seen it up close. I walked around in its ruins overseas; it’s an abattoir. My wife escaped it, though her granddad didn’t – he rotted in Castro’s prisons for nearly two decades because he refused to play ball with the reds. Then he died. Oh well, gotta break a few eggs to create a paradise where somebody else pays for your college, right?

Just remember that you are an egg.

Kurt throws some very choice words at bug-eyed Mental Giant and Future Of The Democrat Socialist Party Miranda Veracruz de la Jolla Cardinale Occasional-Cortex, too. But did he say “moron” just now? Why yes, I do believe he did. And as sterling an example as she is, the word doesn’t apply only to her, either.

Democrats are less likely to know what socialism is compared to other voters but have a much more favorable opinion of it. They stop well short, however, of thinking the Democratic Party should become a national socialist party.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 28% of all Likely U.S. Voters think the national Democratic party should officially declare itself a socialist party. Fifty-three percent (53%) disagree, while 18% are undecided.

Still, 51% of Democrats have a favorable impression of socialism, with 13% who share a Very Favorable one. This compares to favorables of 21% among GOP voters and 26% among unaffiliateds, with seven percent (7%) and five percent (5%) respectively who hold a Very Favorable opinion of it.

Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democrats, however, incorrectly believe the individual has more power than the government in a socialist system, a view held by just 12% of Republicans and seventeen percent (17%) of unaffiliated voters.

Never forget, folks, they’re smarterer than you. If you don’t believe it, just ask ’em.

Those under 40 have a much more favorable opinion of socialism than their elders do and are the strongest supporters of Democrats becoming a national socialist party. But younger voters are also the most likely to believe the individual has more power under a socialist system.

Liberals like socialism a lot more than moderates and conservatives do and are much more likely to think it empowers the individual. But conservatives are the biggest fans of Democrats becoming a socialist party.

Actually, that isn’t quite right: I don’t think any of us is particularly happy that that’s what they in fact have become. What we’re in favor of is them owning up to the sad fact at last. But then, socialists ain’t exactly known for their honesty, as Schlichter reminds us:

Socialism’s perfect record of failure, misery, and slaughter is kind of a problem for them, so they pivot and distract, playing an ideological shell game by claiming that what they really want isn’t socialism. Why, they just want to be more like Canada! This, of course, begs the question of why they call themselves “socialists” if they don’t want socialism. But Normals are woke; they prefer their freedom and abundant toilet paper. They know that the current socialist fad is a lie, because socialism is built on lies. The democratic socialists keep promising Denmark and Norway, but they always deliver Cuba and Venezuela.

Of course, as I’ve noted here before myself, Norway isn’t really quite as socialist as all that, and other Scandinavian countries are beginning to back rapidly away from the Great Third-Way Experiment that has impoverished them. But socialism aside, ideology aside, honestly representing who and what they are is what the Democrat-Socialist criminal conspiracy masquerading as a political party ought to be forced to try to win elections on:

But let’s look at this. Forget ideology for a second and let’s just look at some readily available facts. We have just come off eight years of economic stagnation. No economic growth to speak of. We have had tax increases out the wazoo in the past eight years, including all of the new taxes brought on by the government taking over health care with Obamacare. We had the president of the United States, Barack Obama, running around to places like West Virginia, Indiana, and Ohio and telling people out of work:

(impression) “It’s too bad, but your jobs are never coming back — and if someone tells you that your job will be coming back, he’s waving a magic wand, but what’s he gonna do? What’s Trump gonna do? Just wave a magic wand? You gotta get ready for the fact those jobs are not coming back.” So rather than have a president that inspired people, we have a president who tried to convince them that this was the new America: A nation in decline. We didn’t really deserve our robust past, and we needed brilliant people like him to manage this decline so that resources — which would be dwindling — could be distributed more fairly and equally to the population at large.

Okay. So we’ve come off eight years of that kind of thing, exactly what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to return to. In just a year and a half of a presidency that believes in American greatness, that believes lost jobs can be brought back — who believes that this economy can once again grow and that people’s incomes can increase, that standard of living and wealth can once again start going up. In just a year and a half it’s happened. Does this woman have the ability to look at facts on the ground? The government today…

Have you looked at the latest revenue that has been collected by taxes? It’s a record high. The government is collecting record tax revenue after Trump’s tax cuts! This also happens every time it’s tried. It’s simple math. More people are working than under Obama, and thus more people are paying taxes. So even per capita taxes may be down and the amount of money individuals are paying, it’s more than made up by all the new taxpayers that are happily working, whereas a year and a half ago they weren’t.

There are stories… I have a story in the Stack today that one of the big problems that employers have today is there just aren’t enough people to fill jobs that are open, and so employers are getting ready to scrub the idea that prior experience is necessary. They need work done! There’s more job openings than there are people to fill them right now. Now, where is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? She’s an economics graduate from Boston University. Does she have the slightest idea what’s going on now?

Of course not. She’s dumb as a box of hair; credentialed, but not educated; inarticulate, not bright, and entirely arrogant about all of it.

And she’s also the brightest star in the Democrat Socialist firmament at the moment—precisely as she should be. We all ought to fervently hope not only that she wins election, but that she remains in the spotlight as an avant garde leader of her trainwreck of a Party for as long as possible. Realistically, we can’t expect anything good from a NYC Congresscritter, but sending a dumpster fire like Occasional-Cortex to Mordor On The Potomac might work out even better anyway. The more she blibbers and stammers her arrant hard-Left horsepuckey, and the more Normals see her doing it, the better off we’re all going to be. She might just finish off the Democrat Socialist Party for good all by herself.

Share

Running scared

Not the meagerest drop of sympathy from me.

WASHINGTON — New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said he warned President Trump at a face-to-face meeting July 20 that Trump consistently referring to the media as “the enemy of the people” will lead to violence.

Sulzberger said he attended, at the request of the White House, along with NYT editorial page editor James Bennet.

“My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” Sulzberger said. “I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”

“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful…”

“Untrue” it demonstrably, provably is NOT. With that blatant, self-serving lie, we got nothing more to talk about here as far as I’m concerned.

“I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair,” Sulzberger said. “Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.”

Know what really IS “dangerous and harmful to our country”? The raw propaganda the “broader” range of “journalists” have been fobbing off for years and years as “honest,” “balanced,” “unbiased” reportage. Just how many years am I talking about? Oh, ’round about a hundred and fifty, give or take:

The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

That’s a quote from a famous speech made by John Swinton, a NYT op-ed writer and hardcore Leftist himself, in…1883. The more things change, the more they etc.

If Sulzberger doesn’t want to be referred to as an “enemy of the people,” he should start doing his level best to stop acting like one.

Share

Socialism at work

Aww, ain’t she cute.

I graduated law school in 1999 and immediately went to work for a big law firm, representing big corporations. But I am a lifelong liberal and really wanted to put my law degree to work for social justice. I wanted to help the poor, and I was very interested in how a major city dealt with large-scale poverty reform, so I applied to work in New York City’s government.

I got a job working as a lawyer for the city in 2003, a year after Michael Bloomberg became mayor. I happily took a 20 percent pay cut because I wanted to make a difference.

I loved coming to work every day under Bloomberg. I loved the constructive discussions about how to fix the most urgent social problems — meetings that involved workers at the highest levels of government with the civil servants and case workers at the lowest. All opinions were valued. And I loved being out in the city and seeing how programs worked or didn’t work.

I felt I was making a difference.

When Bill de Blasio became mayor of New York in 2014, things changed drastically. I started to hear rumblings early on. My former colleagues who were dedicated public servants were concerned by a large-scale rollback of Bloomberg’s strategic initiatives. These seemed to be based on partisan politics and black-and-white thinking as opposed to critical analysis. It was very disappointing for me since I had also voted for de Blasio.

Although I was still working in the same social-services agency where I had remained at the end of Bloomberg’s term, my job changed radically. I had no contact with the new commissioner who appeared to be disengaged from substantive discussions about social-services programs for an extremely vulnerable population. In fact, she was much more preoccupied with renovating her office — I heard her new desk alone cost thousands of dollars. She even requested that a private bathroom be built for her. She had the attitude of an oligarch and was disturbed that she had to vet invitations to galas through legal and City Hall. She wanted carte blanche to attend expensive events.

She also refused to meet with the lawyers in her department and she kept the door to her office closed and didn’t know the names of the people who worked in her agency.

Under my commissioner, there were no benchmarks, no goals and she did not hold regular meetings with her general counsel. Under her tenure, the legal unit was gutted. And there were no consequences for failing to meet performance goals because there were no performance goals.

Bloomberg wouldn’t be mistaken for a conservative anywhere but NYC, of course. But he ain’t really a socialist either, and he certainly isn’t cut from the same filthy left-wing cloth as Red Bill. Her plaintive closing wail is perfect:

My career spanned a handful of social-service agencies under the administrations of two very different leaders. I was shocked to discover that I actually preferred Michael Bloomberg’s very corporate City Hall to Bill de Blasio’s failed socialist utopia. Who wouldn’t?

Why, only some simple, dewey-eyed whelp caught up in the arrogance of her ignorant assumptions who never actually had to live in one, natch. Any bets on whether the kid still considers herself a diehard “liberal” even now, despite her up-close-and-personal lesson in how it really works? Any further bets on how many times DeBlasio gets re-elected in spite of all the damage he’s done in his tenure so far?

Yeah, I thought not.

Share

A dubious luxury we can’t afford

Sooner or later, they run out of other people’s money.

Contemplating the silly pronouncements of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, self-declared socialist and surprise winner of Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district, I wonder if this particular form of political stupidity requires a certain level of affluence to thrive.

Capitalism is the greatest engine for the production of wealth that the ingenuity of man has ever devised. But after it achieves a certain level of prosperity, it regularly excretes characters like Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, beneficiaries of capitalism whose contempt for its strictures is equaled only by their ignorance of its tenets.

Margaret Thatcher famously observed that the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. Ocasio-Cortez hasn’t grasped that yet. Thus she has campaigned for tuition-free universities and the forgiveness of all student loan debt in the United States, the price tag for which is well in excess of $1 trillion. She wants the United States to abandon fossil fuels and somehow (physics is not her forte) run the electric grid entirely on wind and solar power. Naturally, she advocates a single-payer health care system and wants to abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

The implementation of any one of these proposals would seriously hurt US prosperity. Taken all together they would push the country far down the road towards penury, the inevitable result of socialism.

Calls for socialism recur like plagues of locusts every several years, most virulently, it seems, not when the economy is suffering but when it is booming.

That’s because socialism is parasitic in nature, unable to exist for long without the affluence provided by capitalism to feed on. Look at Europe, leeching off of America’s providing for its defense since WW2, for Exhibit A. The howls of fearful outrage over Trump DESTROYING NATO OMGOMGOMGELEVENTY!!! via his insistence that the freeloaders begin ponying up their share of the tab would be Exhibit B.

Meanwhile, the Democrat Socialist Party would like you to know that no, as a matter of fact they AREN’T socialist, despite their decades-old demands for pretty much everything Occasional-Cortex burped up above:

Both Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Elizabeth Warren got pressed on the issue this week by CNBC’s John Harwood, and both denied the “S” label.

“The Democratic Party is not a socialist party,” Waters said. But then she followed that up by saying of socialist Bernie Sanders, “I consider him basically a Democrat.”

Far-left Sen. Warren felt the need to make it clear that “I am a capitalist. Come on. I believe in markets.”

For now, Democrats don’t want to admit what their party has turned into, because the “socialist” brand isn’t very popular.

But look at what it now stands for.

The Democratic base went head over heels for socialist Bernie Sanders in 2016, to the point where he nearly stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton — who said she struggled with her own party because they thought of her as a “capitalist.”

Democrats have by and large embraced a “Medicare for all” health plan that would outlaw private insurance and is to the left of every other health system in the world, except maybe Cuba.

Many of the 2020 presidential hopefuls are on board with “government-guaranteed jobs,” an idea last seen in the Soviet Union’s constitution.

And, as if that weren’t enough, Democratic Party Chairman Tom Perez called socialist Ocasio-Cortez “the future of our party.”

We don’t doubt that many Democrats are sincere in their belief that they are sensible centrists. And there’s no doubt that some still are.

Name three. More to the point: name three that would have any hope at all of successfully competing for their criminal-conspiracy of a political party’s nomination for President, or who weren’t effectively drummed out of said Party long ago.

Now let’s see: it walks like a duck, it swims like a duck, it quacks like a duck. But it says it’s not a duck. So who you gonna believe, the Democrat Socialists or your own lyin’ eyes?

Share

The Deep State is real

An excellent synopsis of the “Russia collusion” hoax.

Under questioning, Comey admitted to the Inspector General Michael Horowitz that he authored the May 2 statement and penned every word of it himself. But then he offered the implausible claim that “he did not recall that his original draft used the term ‘gross negligence,’ and did not recall discussions about that issue.”

Comey’s amnesia is preposterous. He would have us believe that, as FBI director, he memorialized in print his decision that the leading candidate for president of the United States had committed crimes, yet later could not recollect anything about the most important decision of his career.

The truth is that Comey well remembers what he wrote, because he participated in subsequent discussions with top officials at the FBI about Clinton’s “gross negligence.” Several meetings were held on the subject and contemporaneous notes prove that Comey was in attendance. Those records show that although Comey was convinced that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in violation of the law, he was determined to clear her notwithstanding. To achieve this somersault and absolve the soon-to-be Democratic nominee, the legally damning terminology would have to be stricken from his statement. 

Amnesia must be contagious at the FBI. Testifying before Congress, Strzok feigned no recollection of using his computer to make the critical alteration that cleared Clinton. He did, however, directly implicate the FBI director.

“Ultimately, he (Comey) made the decision to change that wording,” said Strzok.

But wait, how could Comey order a change in the words he doesn’t remember writing?  Their stories don’t jibe. At least one of them is lying.

Read all of it. As confusing and convoluted as the coup attempt may seem at first blush, it’s actually quite cut and dried. To wit: our government is assuredly NOT what we’ve all been led to believe since childhood. Its shadowy, unaccountable agencies operate with neither the “consent of the governed” nor its subjects’ best interests in mind; the minions of those misbegotten agencies possess not honor nor integrity nor humility nor a sense of duty nor respect for American values, traditions, and institutions to any discernable degree.

Our government, in short, is an affront to all the Founders revered and intended. To insist, as Democrat-Socialist shitwads do when it’s politically convenient for them, that real Americans owe such rogue abominations as the FBI, CIA, IRS, and the whole diseased host of alphabet agencies even the smallest dollop of allegiance or reverence is a grotesque insult—one that ought to resound across the fruited plain continuously, until every last sewer-rat therein is forced to flee for their very lives from the environs of Mordor On The Potomac lest the righteous rage of an abused populace descend upon them in the measure they deserve.

Share

Civil War, then and now

One of these things will not be like the other.

Such gallantry seems unthinkable today, when members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants and theatres, and Confederate officers like John Lea, if they are remembered at all, are considered precursors of the German National Socialists, and their once famous and respected commanders like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeb Stuart have their statues toppled and banished from public squares, their names stripped from public schools, and their memories spat upon and disgraced.

The difference between the America of today and the America of what seems like just yesterday is that we once had a common culture. As recently as 1990, Ken Burns could make a Civil War documentary for PBS and let historian Shelby Foote wax eloquent on the martial prowess of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest —  something that now would likely get them both tarred, feathered, and Twitter-banned.

Yes, there were big differences between North and South a century and a half ago. The South was a slave-holding, free-trading, libertarian-leaning, conservative Christian, agricultural, aristocratic Sparta, while the North was a commercial, industrial, protectionist, Transcendentalist, social gospel, democratic Athens. But they held far more in common than separated them — beginning with the fact that, as Lincoln observed, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God.”

One need only compare the Confederate Constitution to the United States Constitution to see that the former bears a striking resemblance to the latter. And far from being a national socialist charter, the Confederate Constitution puts even more restraints on federal power and limits the president to one six-year term.

Thereby proving that the South wasn’t wrong about everything.

The great seal of the Confederacy bears the image of George Washington, many of whose relatives served with the Confederacy, including Lieutenant James B. Washington, a West Point classmate of Custer’s (the two had a famous picture taken together — Washington was a prisoner of war — a few weeks before Lea’s wedding).

North and South venerated the Founders. They shared the same language, the same religion, and, in large part, the same general stock. Most of all, they shared what Jeff Sessions was recently rebuked for calling an “Anglo-American heritage” of liberty under law, stretching from the mists of medieval England — even before Magna Carta — to our own Bill of Rights.

Today, however, our divisions are so deep and fundamental that Americans cannot even agree on what marriage is or what a man or a woman is (which is pretty darn fundamental).

The lunatic self-righteousness of the Left (and yes, I’m afraid one must point fingers here), where disagreement is bigotry to be prohibited by law or even condemned and prosecuted as treason, is a consuming, destructive fire that will not be easily quenched, and cannot be reached by cool waters of rational argument.

Crocker gamely—and yes, gallantly—offers a few suggestions for forestalling the coming conflagration. I wish I could say I still held out much hope for such a solution. But with every passing day yielding its outrageous insult to all decency from the Bughouse Left, each surpassing the last in vileness and provocation, that hope fades, to be replaced with the dismal realization that real tragedy is all but inevitable now.

Share

How far WON’T they go?

Walsh answers VDH’s question, as mentioned here earlier.

My colleague Victor Davis Hanson raised the question in these pages the other day: “Just how far will the Left go?” in its attempt to overthrow the government of Donald J. Trump? With his customary precision, Hanson laid out the catalog of enormities committed by the Left in its pursuit of Trump and of conservatives in general, among them the fatuous investigation led by Mr. Straight Arrow himself, the demonization of Trump-as-Hitler, their frustration over losing the 2016 election (which they thought would cement their hostile takeover of the American Republic) and their inability to mask their true anti-American natures any longer.

So let me provide an answer: As far as they can, for as long as it takes.

If a political movement is willing effectively to abolish the country’s borders (but keep bleeding its productive class in order to fund its welfare/patronage system), what does that tell you about its ultimate aspirations? The American Left (a subsidiary of the International Left) has as its goal the “fundamental transformation” of the United States from a free-market capitalist, at least nominally Christian country of mostly European descent into something resembling the old Soviet Union, a place where “from each according to his ability” gleefully embraces the buggering of the taxpaying class in order to give “to each according to his needs.”

And so it goes. Each day brings a new outrage, a development enthusiastically promulgated by a brain-dead media that thinks a headline must contain the words “sparks outrage” or “comes under fire,” to be newsworthy. The foxes of anger and resentment have been set among the hens of political cohesion, and every day the squawking grows louder—as it will until that day comes when there are no more hens left to lay the eggs.

The key to understanding the Left is that it cannot stop. Once it has set itself on a path to power, it must have all the power. Once it has created a social program, it must run that program into the ground. Once it has identified an enemy, that enemy must be destroyed, no matter what the cost to itself. Like a shark, the Left must always keep moving—forward! And the end result is always the same.

How far will they go? All the way. “By any means necessary” is their slogan for a reason. They mean it.

The question we really ought to be asking is directed at ourselves: how far are WE willing to go to stop them? It’s Malone’s question all over again: “What are you prepared to do?” “Everything within the law.” “And THEN what are you prepared to do?”

Share

Proud Boys’ Proud Girl

First off, the background, from the PB manifesto/mission statement:

The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

Though these are our central tenets, all that is required to become a Proud Boy is that a man declare he is “a Western chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world.” We do not discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation/preference. We are not an “ism”, “ist”, or “phobic” that fits the Left’s narrative. We truly believe that the West Is The Best and welcome those who believe in the same tenets as us. We have an international reach, with members spanning the globe.

Seems laudable and reasonable enough to me, but then I’m not a Degenerate Left scumbag who blames Western Civ for all the problems Leftist cant and their encouragement of Third World dysfunction have created worldwide. Apparently, though, a Washington state sheriff’s department feels differently about things:

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office initially placed Deputy Erin Willey on leave pending an internal investigation after a local newspaper, The Columbian, shared a photograph of Willey wearing “a hooded sweatshirt with a logo showing a switchblade, lipstick and an abbreviation for Proud Boys’ Girls” with the sheriff’s office. Willey was hired in May of 2017 and was let go on July 17 following the Columbian’s report.

The sheriff’s department did not specify the reasoning behind Willey’s firing, but according to the Columbian, it was because of the photo…

Let this fully-converged sheriff’s department look to the Left for support if they like; let them grovel and genuflect at the altar of Political Correctness til their beggar’s knees are raw and bloody. We’ll just see what it gets them.

Share

“A nation of immigrants”?

Nope.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here…substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Remember, Brandeis was a Progressive leading light back then. In light of the above statement, the raving madmen of our present-day Loonie Left wouldn’t for a moment consider him an acceptable SC nominee now. But then, if Trump nominated Che Guevara to the Court the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest would doubtless denounce even him as a “right-wing extremist,” too.

That’s progress, see.

Share

Categories

Archives

"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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


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

All original content © Mike Hendrix