Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Defense and offense

He’s right, and you know it.

The monuments under attack are, of course, only symptomatic in the larger scheme of things. The Left’s whole effort is aimed at detaching the young from the history of these United States, especially its founding principles, its seminal struggles, and the words and characters of those who articulated them.

The “Antifa” and “Black Bloc” thugs attacking peaceable patriotic gatherings have the same end in view. There’s no way to separate a people from its history if they’re allowed to talk about it, or any element of it…especially the Founders’ emphasis on freedom of expression.

They who believe it’s sufficient to be prepared to defend themselves are sadly mistaken. No one has ever won a war by doing nothing but playing defense. The Right must seize the initiative – go on the attack.

The notion horrifies many decent persons. Yet it is so. Two questions then arise:

  • What will finally make us rise to the occasion, if anything?
  • When and where will it arrive?

It is not enough to stay abreast of the news and deplore the trends in progress. It is not enough to speak out against them. It is not enough to attend a rally or two in defense of freedom of expression or the preservation of historic monuments. It is not even enough to attend such rallies armed and ready for the eruption of violence. Those are all defensive measures: necessary but sadly insufficient.

The one and only remedy is to go on the offensive.

The first, absolutely indispensable step is infiltrating the opposition. We must learn the individual identities of those who gather to suppress us, and we must pursue them individually, just as they strive to pursue us. If they have gatherings, some of ours must be present. If they don’t, we must tap their communications and monitor them ceaselessly. The information we can gather that way is beyond price.

Once we know who they are, it’s a short step from there to learning where they will be. That gives us what we’ll need for what must follow: charges, against both the individuals and the groups, of conspiring to violate others’ civil rights. That’s a federal criminal charge that can’t be dismissed. According to our family lawyer, a police commander who tells his subordinates to disregard such complaints is himself guilty of misfeasance – for instructing his men to commit nonfeasance — so make sure all such complaints are properly witnessed.

Even if those charged ultimately escape prison sentences, they’ll suffer from the experience of having to defend themselves against the charges. As the saying goes, “the process is the punishment.” It might be enough to deter them all by itself.

If the so-called forces of order prove unwilling to do their sworn duty, then it will be time to discuss more direct measures. But we’re more likely to reach that point if we continue to be passive before the assaults upon us.

Sound harsh? Scary? After all, you wouldn’t like to be spied upon or hounded into court to defend yourself against the weight of the criminal law. But what they’ve been doing to us is far worse…and as I wrote above, it’s getting them what they want, so we can’t expect it to stop.

Sue them, dox them, boycott their businesses, hound their employers until they lose their livelihoods. Mock them, verbally abuse them, harass them ceaselessly and without mercy. And yes, beat the living hell out of them when it proves necessary. Turn their tactics back on them; get in their faces, punch back twice as hard. Let them get a taste of being on the receiving end of a little Gramsci and Alinski themselves.

I consider Francis a good friend, although we haven’t met face to face yet. I know him to be a reasonable, humble man, a decent, God-fearing man. But I also know him to be a man of commitment, honor, and courage. He isn’t one to advocate this lightly. But neither is he one to shrink from it. He’s right, their despicable tactics have worked well for them so far. If we’re to have any hope of throwing off their tyrannical yoke, that can’t go on being the case. They need to begin to feel some pain from it—real pain, enough to make them think very carefully before attempting it again.

In fact, a good friend and neighbor of mine was just on the receiving end of it himself, to wit:

A disturbing photo posted by Robby Hale, the singer of a Charlotte punk band that has sparked controversy in the past with its misogynistic and homophobic lyrics and other antics, was making the rounds on Sunday. It shows the singer holding a burning cross.

In the wake of the Charlottesville tragedy involving white supremacists and the death of a counter-protester, Hale’s actions have caused a palpable ripple through the local music scene.

The three other members of Scowl Brow — Rick Contes, Joshua Taddeo and Daniel Biggins — reached out this morning and said, “Language like that is disgusting and unacceptable and does not represent the entire band.” (UPDATE: The three members have since announced their departures from the band.)

Josh Higgins of Refresh Records wrote in an email this morning that Scowl Brow has been dropped from the label. “The message that this image conveys is one that I find truly disgusting and do not condone nor wish associated with myself, Refresh, or any of our other artists,” Higgins said. “We support equal rights for all, full stop.

“As of Friday, we have terminated our relationship with Scowl Brow and have begun the process of removing merchandise and music from our website and digital platforms,” Higgins added.

For full disclosure and transparency, even Creative Loafing was aware of Scowl Brow’s deplorable lyrics as recently as 2014, when the paper ran a review that failed to take a direct critical stance on it:

“[Hale’s] also not afraid to give a frank perspective,” the CL critic wrote, “even if it’s far from politically correct. ‘Tell me what the hell is going wrong in this town, every day there’s more pussy hipsters around/You never know who’s straight or who’s off suckin’ some dudes,’ Hale sings on ‘Mediocre My Ass.'” The critic went on to characterize the lyrics as “honest.”

CL was tipped off to Hale’s photo at 11:30 a.m. Sunday by Brett Green of Charlotte’s Mineral Girls, and we immediately contacted Hale by Facebook Messenger. He has yet to return our message. We will be updating this story as it develops.

I’ve known Robbie for several years now, and have shared a stage with him once or twice. He’s a regular old hard-working blue-collar guy, an aspiring musician who has had his career hopes derailed by the blight of political correctness. Never yet have I heard him utter a word that was even remotely racist or hateful in any way.

Robbie is pretty much apolitical, and he’s certainly no Bible-thumping right-winger. In fact, he’s disinterested in politics and pretty contemptuous of religion in general and Christianity in particular. My views on that differ, and we’ve had some long discussions about all that at my house which were enjoyable for both of us.

Rob is a very talented guy, and Scowlbrow’s shows are famous for being pretty rowdy and raucous. Some of his lyrics are provocative, sure—direct and in your face. Which, if I remember correctly, was once considered a virtue in rock and roll. Obviously, that only applies if you’re getting in faces approved by the Progressivists who dominate the music biz.

There’s more to the story, of course. There always is.

UPDATE: Hale contacted CL Sunday afternoon and said the photo in question has been taken out of context.

“That was a piece of a burning pallet I picked up out of a bon fire, and the racist (Facebook) comment was not of my own,” Hale said. “This Nazi stuff wasn’t happening when that picture was taken.”

When asked what message he was trying to get across in the photo, Hale commented that he was just “drunk and being an asshole. I wasn’t being a racist. I’m not a fucking racist. Some of my fucking best friends are black.”

Happily, Robbie informs me that he has now availed himself of the services of a good lawyer. In light of that, I jokingly asked him yesterday what the incoming new management of Creative Loafing was planning in the way of changes to the paper, which is your typical Leftist muckraking weekly alterna-rag. He laughed about that, but I swear, I hope he sues them right out of existence. The last couple of days I’ve been half expecting a crowd of SJW idiots to show up here at the complex to protest, maybe even a Black Lives Matter/antiFA goon squad, but nothing so far. The trusty ol’ Mossberg pump remains loaded just in case, awaiting further developments.

So, in sum: thanks to the local Progressivist thought police and the meddlesome douchebag who tipped them off (possibly as part of an old personal grudge, who knows) to a years-old photo that amounted to nothing more than some silly PBR-fueled goofing around and meant nothing whatever to anybody at the time, Robbie has had his whole life upended. Scowlbrow is hugely popular around these parts and just returned from two weeks of touring, their first time out on the road. Now his label has dropped him, they’ve yanked their CDs and merch from the shelves, and there’s a rupture between him and his bandmates that is probably irreparable.

This is how they do it, people. This is how they operate. Think of all the normal, ordinary people out there who have had their lives shattered by these loathsome crawly things for the crime of Wrongthink: Masterpiece Cakeshop. Memories Pizza. Hell, even a guy as rich and powerful as Brendan Eich wasn’t immune to the malignant pressure from the Fascist Left.

In the end, though, they’re nothing more than bullies. And everybody knows the best way to deal with a bully, which assuredly does NOT involve either running away or turning the other cheek. As Francis knows: they won’t stop. They will NEVER stop. They are going to have to BE stopped.

I repeat: sue them, dox them, scorn them, hound them. Punch back twice as hard. Either that, or kiss your country goodbye for good. No war was ever won by staying on the defensive.


Embrace the hate!

This one starts off with a GREAT quote from the esteemed and estimable Dr Helen Smith:

Liberals do not believe in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which are American ideals, or at least they used to be. If you love freedom, then you will be hated by the modern liberal who believes that government should regulate individual freedom. If you love freedom and believe that the state does not own you, then leftist hate should be a goal, not a fear.

You said a mouthful there, Doc. Hawkins goes on to make an essential point: they ain’t exactly helping those they claim to love, either.

Meanwhile, how do liberals “help” minority Americans? How’s Compton looking these days? How about Chicago? Flint, Michigan? Liberal “help” means living in poverty in terrible neighborhoods, but always having someone else to blame for your failed life. It means feeling angry, victimized and hated by people who’ve never thought twice about you while liberals promise to help you by tearing down statues of Confederate generals. That doesn’t put money in your pocket, but it makes cosmopolitan liberals feel better about themselves.

This is usually how liberal “help” turns out for people.

Transsexual men, you don’t have a mental illness! Mutilate yourself through surgery and libs will claim that the guys who don’t want to date you and the women who don’t want to share a bathroom with you are bigots! Lord knows you wouldn’t want to suggest mentally ill people get psychological treatment instead of life-altering surgery.

Liberals “help” the poor by raising the minimum wage, but shrug their shoulders when it inevitably causes large numbers of poor Americans to lose their jobs. Conservatives who quite correctly predicted that would happen are called heartless.

It’s just charades, dumbshows, and misrepresentation all the way down with these people. in fact, there are two rules of thumb to bear in mind when analyzing their statements and proposals, both of which are invariably true: 1) for everything they say, the opposite is going to be the truth, and 2) whenever they complain bitterly about something our side is supposedly doing, a la the Trump/Russia nontroversy, it’s actually going to be something they’re doing themselves.


Creeping Orwell

“Creepy” doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Ontario announced earlier this month that it will become the fourth Canadian government to fund a behavioral modification application that rewards users for making “good choices” in regards to health, finance, and the environment. The Carrot Rewards smartphone app, which will receive $1.5 million from the Ontario government, credits users’ accounts with points toward the reward program of their choice in exchange for reaching step goals, taking quizzes and surveys, and engaging in government-approved messages.

The app, funded by the Canadian federal government and developed by Toronto-based company CARROT Insights in 2015, is sponsored by a number of companies offering reward points for their services as an incentive to “learn” how to improve wellness and budget finances. According to CARROT Insights, “All offers are designed by sources you can trust like the BC Ministry of Health, Newfoundland and Labrador Government, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Canadian Diabetes Association, and YMCA.”  Users can choose to receive rewards for companies including SCENE, Aeroplan, Petro-Canada, or More Rewards, a loyalty program that partners with other businesses.

Carrot Rewards is free to download, and users receive 200 points just by downloading the app and answering a few questions (the answers don’t have to be correct). Sending an invitation code to friends will also gain users points, as the government is happy to track the daily activity of as many citizens as possible — which, by the way, the app can do even when it is not “active.” In order to use the app, users are giving Carrot Insights and the federal government permission to “access and collect information from your mobile device, including but not limited to, geo-location data, accelerometer/gyroscope data, your mobile device’s camera, microphone, contacts, calendar and Bluetooth connectivity in order to operate additional functionalities of the Services.”

Now watch the sheep line up, pat each other on the back over how forward-thinking they are, and sniff down their noses at anyone who seems the least bit hesitant about opening themselves up to such comprehensive government snooping, surveillance, and manipulation. Thank goodness such a thing could never, ever happen here.

Yeah, I know, that last line wasn’t funny at all.

(Via Hoyt)


We’re from the government, and we’re here to help

Having them in charge of our health care is going to work out just fine though, I’m sure.

Who would make a can without a vent unless it was done under duress?

That sound of frustration in this guy’s voice was strangely familiar, the grumble that comes when something that used to work but doesn’t work anymore, for some odd reason we can’t identify.

I’m pretty alert to such problems these days. Soap doesn’t work. Toilets don’t flush. Clothes washers don’t clean. Light bulbs don’t illuminate. Refrigerators break too soon. Paint discolors. Lawnmowers have to be hacked. It’s all caused by idiotic government regulations that are wrecking our lives one consumer product at a time, all in ways we hardly notice.

It’s like the barbarian invasions that wrecked Rome, taking away the gains we’ve made in bettering our lives. It’s the bureaucrats’ way of reminding market producers and consumers who is in charge.

How many other things in our daily lives have been distorted, deformed and destroyed by government regulations?

Ask yourself this: If they can wreck such a normal and traditional item like this, and do it largely under the radar screen, what else have they mandatorily malfunctioned? How many other things in our daily lives have been distorted, deformed and destroyed by government regulations?

Oh, most of them, really. We ARE after all talking about the same fumblefingered numbskulls who mandated that we all start running ethanol in our vehicles and lawn care equipment, a fuel that A) destroys engines, B) costs more to produce, C) creates more pollution, and D) is less fuel-efficient than regular gasoline.

If FederalGovCo were to set out to bake you a nice apple pie, it would require 200 paper-pushers to oversee the job; it would take ten years for the FDA to approve the recipe; it would end up costing about 700 dollars; and it would be so disgusting as to be inedible. If your grandma—who had baked a million of the things, all of which were perfectly delicious—tried to come into the kitchen to help out, she would be jailed for not having the proper license. If you complained about the taste, your honesty would get you a serious denunciation for “hate speech” for hurting the feelings of the eighteen transgender lunatics involved in the process as mandated by law, despite the fact that not one of them had ever baked so much as a Swanson’s chicken pot pie in their entire lives.

Then a blue-ribbon panel would be appointed to get to the bottom of the whole disaster, and Congressional Republicans would spend the next fourteen years holding hearings about it. In the end, we’ll all agree that it’s Trump’s fault—working together with the Russians, no doubt—and just say to hell with it and go to McDonald’s instead.

Government is supposed to be for building roads, securing the borders, and providing for national defense…and it can barely even get those things right. What it now is is a jobs program for morons too incompetent for useful work, and/or those drawn to it because of their megalomaniacal penchant for bossing others around. The more things we allow it to get its grubby fingers into, the more things it will wreck, and the unhappier we will all be.

And, well, here we all are.

(Via Glenn)


Yet another self-beclowning

Are they all fucking retarded? Each and every single one?

Never mind, don’t answer that.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), a leader of the “resistance,” hasn’t been doing too well lately. She told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that, if the Republican healthcare bill is passed, “700 billion” people will lose health access. Keep in mind that our planet has about 7.3 billion people living on it. We knew the GOP proposal was ambitious, but not quite that ambitious! Maybe there should be an ongoing senility test for congresspeople?

Or for the people who keep right on re-electing people so moronic they’re barely even intellectually fit to clean my hotel room, or work a fast-food drive-thru.

But lest you think Waters is in any way unique or exceptional among Leftist droolcases, there’s also this sterling bit of nutjobbery:

It was a terrifying morning, as unarmed Republican members and staff endured nearly 10 minutes of gunfire from a politically motivated shooter during a scheduled practice for Thursday’s Congressional Baseball Game. What should have been a routine meeting to prepare for a charity event turned members of Congress into defenseless, sitting ducks.

While D.C. and the rest of the country reeled from news of the attack and awaited information about the victims, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe stepped up to the mic and turned the conversation to gun control.

McAuliffe: “This is not what today is about, but there are too many guns on the street. We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence. I have long talked about this, background checks, shutting down gun show loopholes, that’s not for today’s discussion … ”

Though he initially said he wouldn’t talk politics, he doubled down on the partisan rhetoric when asked by a reporter why he was talking about it if he said he wasn’t going to talk about it. His answer? “I talk about it every day.”

McAuliffe then used an exaggerated statistic to prop up his straw man argument: “We lose 93 million Americans a day to gun violence.” In fact, he repeated the stat three times before a reporter had to correct him.

If 93 million Americans died every day, the whole U.S . population — 321 million — would be gone by Sunday.

Are they really this stupid, or just malicious fucking liars out to score political points and deny us our liberty by any means they can contrive? It’s a tough question all right, but in the end, how much does it really matter?


Deep State’s gonna Deep State

It’s real, and its tyrannical overreach is SPECTACULAR.

A new analysis of documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden details a highly classified technique that allows the National Security Agency to “deliberately divert” US internet traffic, normally safeguarded by constitutional protections, overseas in order to conduct unrestrained data collection on Americans.

According to the new analysis, the NSA has clandestine means of “diverting portions of the river of internet traffic that travels on global communications cables,” which allows it to bypass protections put into place by Congress to prevent domestic surveillance on Americans.

The new findings, published Thursday, follows a 2014 paper by researchers Axel Arnbak and Sharon Goldberg, published on sister-site CBS News, which theorized that the NSA, whose job it is to produce intelligence from overseas targets, was using a “traffic shaping” technique to route US internet data overseas so that it could be incidentally collected under the authority of a largely unknown executive order.

US citizens are afforded constitutional protections against surveillance or searches of their personal data. Any time the government wants to access an American’s data, they must follow the rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court, a Washington DC-based court that authorizes the government’s surveillance programs.

That’s a laugh. The FISA “Court” is a pretext and a subterfuge, and almost never turns down a request from the murky mishmash of politicized police-state intelligence and law tyranny-enforcement agencies to get permission to spy on whoever they wish. And if you think this particular technique is all they have going on without the people’s knowledge or consent, you probably also believe the Constitution is still in effect, or even matters at all as anything other than a document of purely historical interest.

DAMN those Democrat Socialists for inflicting such a thing on us, anyway!

The so-called Executive Order 12333, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, went on to become the bulk of the NSA’s authority, expanding the agency’s collection capabilities to both foreign and domestic targets. The order is far more permissive than the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as enacted by Congress, as it falls solely under the watch of the executive branch and is not reviewed by the courts.

Um. Uhhh. Oh. Never mind. You’d think Saint Ronnie would have known about mission creep, and its inevitability in any bureaucracy. Then again, maybe he did. He’d have to have been the sort of “amiable dunce” the libtards always claimed he was not to.

Personal security? Right to privacy? Might as well face it, people: you got none. Along with their rest of your supposedly Constitutionally-guaranteed “rights,” they’re as dead as the dodo, as useless as teats on a boar-hog, and as empty and meaningless as a politician’s promise. Meanwhile, the Deep State witch hunt/coup attempt grinds ever on:

The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

Normally I’m damned skeptical of sexual discrimination claims, but this one seems damned credible—and if you read on for the detailed account, you’ll see that the whole thing has that all-too-familiar odor to it of a rogue, out-of-control federal bureaucracy claiming sneaky vengeance for any disruption or exposure of its clandestine agenda.

It’s one hell of a Deep State swamp President Trump has set himself the task of draining. We can only hope he—and we—are up to it.

Update! More evidence, as if any were needed, via Insty:

A producer for CNN admitted in a newly released undercover spy video that President Trump is “probably right” in accusing his opponents of engaging in a witch hunt as it relates to collusion with Russia.

The video, published online Monday night by conservative sting activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas website, shows John Bonifield, a CNN producer who covers medical issues, saying, “I just feel like they really don’t have it [proof of collusion] but they want to keep digging.”

He continued, “And so I think the president is probably right to say, ‘Look, you are witch hunting me.'”

Bonifield also says in the video that that federal investigation into whether Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with the Russian government “could be bullshit” and that it’s “mostly bullshit right now.”

It certainly is. Thank God for people like O’Keefe, Snowden, and Assange. Their motives may or may not be suspect at times, but they’ve done us all a service by exposing this wriggling, slimy mass of dung beetles feeding on the mouldering corpse of the old Republic nonetheless.


Sick of it yet?

I can’t make up my mind who should be more ashamed: them for doing it, or us for putting up with them doing it. I’m pretty sure I DO know who’s more likely to change their, umm, approach, though.

A total of 30 Republican members of Congress have either been attacked or revealed that they were the victim of a death threat since the beginning of May.

May 8: Wendi Wright, 35, was arrested after stalking Rep. David Kustoff (Tenn.) and trying to run him off the road. After pulling over, Wright “began to scream and strike the windows on Kustoff’s car and even reached inside the vehicle.”

May 9: Virginia Rep. Tom Garrett needed heavy security at a town hall after receiving a series of death threats in May that police “deemed to be credible and real.”

“This is how we’re going to kill your wife,” one message said. Others detailed how they would kill his children, and even his dog.

May 12: A town hall participant accosted North Dakota Rep. Kevin Cramer, shoving fake dollar bills into his suit jacket. A Kramer supporter grabbed the same man by the neck. Both men were ejected by law enforcement, but neither were charged.

May 12: A Tucson, Ariz. school district employee was arrested by the FBI for sending several death threats to Arizona Rep. Martha McSally. The man threatened to shoot McSally and told her to “be careful” because her days “were numbered.”

May 21: Florida Rep. Ted Yoho described his office getting vandalized by protesters. One female constituent left a voicemail on an office answering machine, promising, “Next time I see you, I’m going to beat your f**king ass.”

June 14: Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), and Reps. Steve Scalise (La.), Kevin Brady (Texas), Jack Bergman (Mich.), Mike Bishop (Mich.), Mike Conaway (Texas), Roger Williams (Texas), John Moolenaar (Mich.), Gary Palmer (Ala.), Chuck Fleischmann (Tenn.), Ron DeSantis (Fla.), Barry Loudermilk (Ga.), Mark Walker (N.C.), Steve Pearce (N.M.), Brad Wenstrup (Ohio), Rodney Davis (Ill.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Trent Kelly (Miss.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), and Joe Barton (Texas) were attacked by a gunman during a baseball practice in Alexandria, Va.

Scalise, the House majority whip, was shot in the hip, and remains in the hospital. Four others were injured, including a staffer for Williams and two Capitol Police officers assigned to Scalise.

The same day, New York Rep. Claudia Tenney received an email reading, “One down, 216 to go.”

The list goes on from there—and this is just since May. Remember, too, that these are just the Congressmen who have been attacked by violent liberal-fascist goons. Throw in the who-even-knows-how-many ordinary folks out there who have been assaulted by these despicable creeps, and all of a sudden it begins to look as if Civil War v2.0 has already gotten under way—with only one side doing all the fighting.

So far.

Remember, too, that all of this—every last bit of it—is down to Democrat Socialists refusing to accept the results of the last election, their ongoing attempt to overthrow a legitimately-elected President, and the bloodthirsty rhetoric they’ve been so free and easy with in support of their coup attempt.

One way or another, by hook or by crook, they mean to rule us. They don’t give even the most infinitesimal damn about the good of the nation or the people in it. They care only about power: exercising it, maintaining it, expanding it. And even now, their hateful incitement to violence continues without the slightest pause or diminution.

They will not stop. They will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Well, so be it. Let them reap the whirlwind for all me. When their vicious filth finally does splash back on them at last, my sympathy and concern over the injury and horror inflicted on the individuals involved won’t be detectable with an electron microscope.


Lee knew

Fred gets back on track. He doesn’t really mention Trump at all here, which surely helps.

“The consolidation of the states into one vast empire, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of ruin which has overwhelmed all that preceded it.” Robert E. Lee

The man was perceptive. Amalgamation of the states under a central government has led to exactly the effects foreseen by General Lee. 

Democracy works better the smaller the group practicing it. In a town, people can actually understand the questions of the day. They know what matters to them. Do we build a new school, or expand the existing one? Do we want our children to recite the pledge of allegiance, or don’t we? Reenact the Battle of Antietam? Sing Christmas carols in the town square? We can decide these things. Leave us alone.

States similarly knew what their people wanted and, within the limits of human frailty, governed accordingly.

Then came the vast empire, the phenomenal increase in the power and reach of the federal government, which really means the Northeast Corridor. The Supreme Court expanded and expanded and expanded the authority of Washington, New York’s store-front operation. The federals now decided what could be taught in the schools, what religious practices could be permitted, what standards employers could use in hiring, who they had to hire. The media coalesced into a small number of corporations, controlled from New York but with national reach. More recently we have added surveillance of everything by Washington’s intelligence agencies.

Tyranny at home, said General Lee. Just so. This could happen only with the consolidation of the states into one vast empire.

Which is why the Constitution says what it does, and why the failure is not in it, but in us: we neglected to uphold it, and its noble promise thereby slipped from our grasp. This bit explains the Founders’ reasoning well enough:

Tyranny comes easily when those seeking it need only corrupt a single Congress, appoint a single Supreme Court, or control the departments of one executive branch. In a confederation of largely self-governing states, those hungry to domineer would have to suborn fifty congresses. It could not be done. State governments are accessible to the governed. They can be ejected. They are much more likely to be sympathetic to the desires of their constituents since they are of the same culture.

Well, we can’t say we weren’t warned.


Root causes

Still wondering how our once-mighty economy got turned into a staggering, anemic, dysfunctional parody of its former robust self?

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Teens in Gardendale are in for a rude awakening this summer when it comes to cutting grass. According to the city’s ordinance, you must have a business license.

Teenagers have been threatened by officials and other lawn services to show their city issued license before cutting a person’s lawn for extra summer cash.

Cutting grass is often one of the first jobs many have in the summer. But a business license in Gardendale costs $110. And for a job, just for a couple of months, that can be a bit extreme.

“I have never heard of a child cutting grass had to have a business license,” said Elton Campbell.
Campbell’s granddaughter cuts grass around the neighborhood.

“She charges one lady $20, and another lady $30, and another girl $40 besides what we pay her,” said Campbell.

For her, this was the perfect summer gig!

“Just helping out and raising money for admissions and trips,” said Alainna Parris.

But now, it’s becoming a hassle.

Which is kind of the whole point. But lest anyone thinks it’s all the fault of greedy, grasping government, think again:

“One of the men that cuts several yards made a remark to one of our neighbors, ‘that if he saw her cutting grass again that he was going to call Gardendale because she didn’t have a business license,” said Campbell.

And there you have it. Government will always be ready, willing, and eager to step through the doors opened for it by medddlesome fools like this putz.

“He’s coming after a kid when a kid is at least trying to do work. There’s kids at home on iPads and electronics and not wanting to go outside,” said Parris.

And that presents a larger conundrum: how do we foster anything resembling a good work ethic and a sense of responsibility in our youths when they’re faced with horseshit like this? Assuming, of course, that we want to inculcate those values in the first place. Clearly, that can no longer be taken as a given.

Mayor Stan Hogeland said when operating a business for pay within the city limits, you must have a business license. He said sending someone after a child making extra money over the summer, is not a priority. But he is committed to find a way to make this less of an issue for teens.

“I would love to have something on our books that gave a more favorable response to that student out there cutting grass. And see if there’s maybe a temporary license during the summer months that targets teenagers,” said Mayor Hogeland.

Seems reasonable enough. But is a kid out mowing lawns in and around his neighborhood for a few bucks really “operating a business” in any truly meaningful sense? If a kid helps an elderly neighbor rake some leaves or paint his house or mend a fence, say, and the neighbor throws him twenty bucks for his trouble, is that “operating a business for pay” too? If not, why not?

I look back on my own childhood experience mowing lawns, and I can’t help but wonder: how in the world did we all ever manage to survive our own childhoods without the Nanny State watching over us and making sure we were all in full compliance with its edicts, anyway? And what about safety? Lawnmowers are dangerous devices; shouldn’t these kids be wearing helmets, gloves, goggles, full suits of medieval armor—shouldn’t ALL of us be?

And finally: is it too much to ask for the busybodies to finally admit that they’ve badly overstepped their bounds, and to willingly relinquish some of the outrageous power and control they’ve asserted over us—without our having to string a bunch of them up from lampposts first, that is?

Does the word “tyranny” have any meaning at all anymore?


“Mean and shriveled”

The Left, in a nutshell.

These aren’t oil-patch newsletters or cookery magazines that find themselves sideswiped after carelessly dabbling in an issue that’s of no particular relevance to them and decide to cut their losses before it leads to advertiser boycotts and falling stock prices. Both magazines pride themselves in being dedicated to the craft of writing and were addressing the central question of what it is a writer is free to write about. To me the only answer to that is: Everything. To Messrs Kay and Niedzviecki’s bosses the answer is something far more mean and shriveled.

As the bestselling novelist Lionel Shriver put it when I interviewed her on this subject a couple of months back:

I have so little time for the concept of cultural appropriation, meaning that, as it applies to my occupation, you don’t have the right to assume that you know what it’s like to be someone other than yourself. Which is what fiction writers do.

Exactly so. As I said to Lionel:

Rudyard Kipling can write Indian and English characters, and Salman Rushdie can write Indian and English characters, and may the best man win.

But even to have to point that out is a defeat: As we agreed, the minute you have to state something so butt-numbingly obvious as that Shakespeare wasn’t a Prince of Denmark or a Moor of Venice, you’ve lost. We’ve all lost. We’re in a mad world, where it seems entirely normal for literary magazines to rule on what fictional characters a novelist is permitted to conceive.

As it happens, there’s one almighty cultural appropriation going on right now. Indeed, it’s a heist. The United Kingdom has become the acid-attack capital of the world. Female genital mutilation is practiced in “medical” clinics from Michigan to Melbourne. The taharrush has spread to Cologne and other Central European cities. Ritual beheading has come to French Catholic churches and upstate New York. And if you protest, “Look, I totally deplore all this cultural appropriation. I think it’s outrageous that Britain and America and Australia and Europe are culturally appropriating acid attacks and FGM and beheading and honor killings”, you’re told, “No, no. That’s diversity. It’s vibrant. What’s not to enjoy? It’s a beautiful mélange – just like this new Homeland Security proposal to ban laptops from cabin baggage on translatlantic flights, because a western cultural artifact is being appropriated and weaponized in the cause of eastern jihadism. What a rich cultural co-mingling…”

Jonathan Kay thinks I’m a bit boorish and vulgar when I go on about such things. So I was hoping someone would maybe write a novel or make a film about it.

But that novel can never be written – because, under Writers’ Union of Canada logic, only a Muslim could write it. Because in a vibrant diverse world, the one place that can’t be diverse and vibrant is a work of art.

There’s no internal consistency, no logic, no philosophical principle here. Only – as two Canadian editors learned last week – the brute power of a totalitarian left ever more inimical to the only diversity that matters: diversity of thought, diversity of expression.

Thereby demonstrating once again, as if any further examples were needed: they aren’t liberal, in any traditionally accepted sense of the term. They long ago hijacked that word for their own nefarious purposes; no part of its original meaning or dignity applies to them in any conceivable way, which is why they stole it. They’re fucking fascists. Cut and dried, plain and simple, full stop, end of story.

The best part, though, is how this so perfectly highlights the question posed by the cognitive dissonance weighing down Progressivism like an anchor: where, exactly, does “diversity” end, and “cultural appropriation” begin? The handful among them capable of rational thought, possessed of the tiniest shred of integrity, should answer: “Right down the middle of those precious urban ethnic restaurants I’m so fond of—and from which I of right ought to be banned.” Just for starters.

None of us should be holding our breath waiting for them to think it through.


Republicrat VICTORY!

Obamacare repealed and replaced! By….Obamacare.

Let’s get to some of the details of this bill. And this is in as simple language and explanation as I can make it. It’s a side-by-side comparison of what was in Obamacare and what’s changing, what’s being kept, and what’s being removed. Now, under Obamacare, the individual mandate requires people who can afford it to go out and buy health insurance. This House Republican bill repeals that. Kind of.

Because there is a caveat.

It is repealed. However, there are penalties in the House bill, the Republican bill, if you don’t have insurance. Well, they’re not penalties. The penalties that are in Obamacare would disappear. The change is that if you go uninsured for more than 63 days, you will have to pay a 30% surcharge on your premium when you get insurance. This is said to be an incentive designed to encourage people to maintain insurance coverage. So while they’re repealing the individual mandate and repealing the penalties, they are replacing that with a proviso that you can’t go longer than two months without coverage.

Well, you can. But if you do, you’re going to have a 30% surcharge added to your premium when you do get a policy. Now, some are going to think this is a distinction without a difference.

And that’s because it is. But at the risk of being tedious, I’ll refer you all back to what I’ve said so many times: once you let government into healthcare, you will never, ever get it out. Its grasp will only expand; its malign influence, the damage it does, will only broaden, deepen, and worsen. It will NOT be reversed or undone. Not until the next revolution, it won’t. If any.

Government health care has been the Progressivist brass ring since FDR’s reign, at least. There’s a reason for that. The opportunities it affords the Left for control over every jot and tittle of individual lives, the access to endless buckets of money, the chance it gives them to appear Concerned and Compassionate, are simply bigger than any other program imaginable might ever bring them.

And as of 2009, they’ve seized that brass ring. They’ve been struggling for it relentlessly for a century or so. And now they have it. It will not be taken back from them without violent revolution, and perhaps not even then. Everything else is just talky-talk-talk, and nothing more.

Let the sideshow wing of the Uniparty celebrate all it likes. Let Trump spin it how he will. The defeat happened way back in 1965, if not before; all we’re seeing now is the unfolding of the endgame. Name for me one country that ever yielded to the impulse to render their health care decisions to a powerful central government, and thought better of it later, and restored anything resembling a free and open market. You can’t do it, because it never did happen. Not yet, it didn’t. And it won’t happen here.

Government health care is our eternal reality now. Everything else is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.


Take off already!

Yet another idea whose time has long since come, but will never really arrive.

To our geographic north lies a European-style welfare state that spends about 35 percent of its federal budget annually on elderly programs, children’s services, and health care, and to the south one encounters a Latin American kleptocrat paradise where the only white Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be found are tourists spending their filthy lucre at beach resorts staffed by the downtrodden brown people of the Estados Unidos Mexicanos. What exactly is keeping American lefties from thumbing a ride to Toronto or Tijuana and asking the nice socialists across the border for political asylum?

Progressives have patience only with those who share their opinions, and in their haughtiness, they believe themselves justified in employing the heckler’s veto and in thrusting their ideas on everyone around them. Yet despite having cultural control through the universities, the entertainment industry, and the mainstream media for more than half a century, they have been unable to convert enough Americans to give them a lasting majority in the Electoral College.

The White House was occupied by America’s first social justice warrior president from 2009 to 2017; his bureaucratic acolytes continue in stealth to do  the yeoman’s work of stifling traditional American values, but the left is still unable to silence the opposition. Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, and others command the attention of millions of Americans on a daily basis, and the Tea Party, Convention of States, and State of Jefferson movements are examples of the grassroots of American patriots who refuse to be subjugated by the collectivist mandarins in the District of Columbia and the various state capitals.

With so much resistance against big government simmering from sea to shining sea, it seems high time for the statists among us start asking themselves if they should pack their Birkenstocks and head off to any number of socialists utopias, from San Salvador to Stockholm, where they can have all the government-run equality they can stomach.

I’ve been saying it myself for years, but the answer is fairly obvious: as long as they know there’s even one person living free of their influence and outside their control, they can never be satisfied. Even the suspicion that there’s a single one of us happily evading their clutches would prevent them from ever having a restful night’s sleep, and would torment them until they managed to rectify the situation to their despotic satisfaction.

All they’ve ever had to do was leave us one place—one solitary, relatively small patch of ground on the entire fucking Earth—where we can live free. And they can’t even do that. That ought to tell even the most obtuse among us all that anybody will ever need to know about who and what they really are.


Gee, I hope they don’t get upset when I call them cucks

When the going gets tough, the cucks roll over.

Young America’s Foundation (YAF) has pulled out of Ann Coulter’s Thursday event at UC Berkeley, blaming the college for allowing left-wing extremists to terrorize conservatives on campus.

“When Young America’s Foundation confirmed Ann Coulter would speak at UC-Berkeley as part of YAF’s nationwide campus lecture program on April 27, we assumed UC Berkeley would take all steps necessary to ensure the safety of students attending the educational event,” the group declared in a blog post on Tuesday. “In the meantime we discovered that the University of California Police Department at Berkeley has an official ‘stand-down’ policy for any situation that develops on campus as long as the situation doesn’t involve the imminent loss of life, allowing the leftist thugs who have terrorized Berkeley’s campus to do so without consequence.”

“As of 4:00 p.m. today, Young America’s Foundation will not be moving forward with an event at Berkeley on April 27 due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators,” they continued. “Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.”

And you guys should likewise be ashamed for folding like a cheap, piss-soaked accordion rather than fighting back, and thereby letting them win.

YAF added that they are still pushing forward with their lawsuit against the college, and that the group “looks forward to the day when First Amendment freedoms are enjoyed by conservative students.”

Lawsuits ain’t gonna do it, bub. I mean, more power to ya and all; I hope you win, for all the good that might do anybody. But when your only hope is an appeal to the judiciary, and said judiciary is wholly converged—infested top to bottom with anti-Constitutional Progressivist termites who are openly hostile to your First Amendment freedoms—well, can you reasonably hope for a good result?

Worse, when the cops are sitting back and refusing to maintain civic order and uphold your most basic human rights against the violent Progressivist onslaught…well, let’s just say their weak-kneed, puissant optimism would seem to be, shall we say, misplaced.

“Ms. Coulter may still choose to speak in some form on campus, but Young America’s Foundation will not jeopardize the safety of its staff or students,” they concluded. “For information on Ms. Coulter’s plans, please contact her directly.”

Gee, nice cop-out there, boys. If the restoration of Constitutional liberty is reliant on this sort of wet-pantied cowardice, then the restoration of Constitutional liberty is something we won’t be seeing for a long, long time. On a positive note, though, this IS Berkeley we’re talking about here. And Berkeley—along with most of the rest of California—was lost a long time ago, and is no longer worth bothering about. Let them go their way. We’ll go ours.

The civil war I’ve been mulling over here for a good while now has started; it began in Berkeley, of all places. There may still be some small chance of avoiding the shooting part of it, but probably not. Either way, there was never the remotest chance of a victory for FreeFor in Berkeley, of course. It’s merely the place where the battle’s contours are taking shape, and its inevitability made undeniable. We cannot peacefully coexist with Leftist vermin implacably committed to denying us our God-granted liberty. They are not going to leave us alone without getting their noses severely bloodied first, and until the consequences of their fascist arrogance are unmistakably spelled out.

Once again: they will not stop. They will have to BE stopped.

It never should have come to this, though, and we will all come to rue it in the end. But the hard, insuperable fact is that we no longer share any common ideological ground with the Left, any at all. There is no reasoning with them, no meaningful dialogue possible, no chance of true or equitable compromise.

In fairness, I understand YAF’s motivation here, and I know they think the wording of their capitulation will maybe matter someday, to somebody. I also understand their unwillingness to confront the violent, authoritarian Left without some assurance of police protection. It’s Berkeley, for God’s sake; they’re surrounded, without hope of reinforcement anytime soon. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a beating; nobody wants to get killed over what seems a mere political disagreement, especially in a place where the cause was so long ago lost.

But at this point, they—and we—are going to have to provide our OWN protection, under whatever terms and ROEs WE deem necessary and appropriate. They punch us, we punch them—harder. This is much more than an ordinary political disagreement. This is a fundamental, bare-knuckled dispute between two ideologies that cannot coexist within the borders of a single nation, and can only be settled by conquest and unquestionable victory for one side or the other.

I say again: if you wish to “compromise” with them, then which of your most basic and precious liberties are you willing to give up? And do you really believe that, once you’ve surrendered one or two, that will be the end of it, and their demands will end? CAN you have any faith in such a risible notion, having seen how greedy they are, how unslakable their thirst for absolute power over you is?

If so, may I have some of what you’re smoking?

The time for us to docilely soak up their repeated assaults and pat ourselves on the back for “taking the high road”—expecting approbation from the Powers That Be that will never come, while our honest blood clogs the gutters—is over. Vox spells it out:

This is yet another reason why the Alt-Right is replacing the conservative movement. Conservatives are social cowards who are manifestly unwilling to fight for their sacred principles against internal enemies. Sure, they’ll bravely fight external enemies to the death so long as they have the State’s blessing, but they cave every time they don’t have its approval.

That, in the end, is the fatal weakness of the conservative movement; the need of its members for the approval of authority. As long as the Left can wield the trappings of authority, conservatives will fall in line.

It seems they can’t even conceive of such a notion, or wish to hide from it, but it’s spelled out right in the Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution they claim to revere: enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC.

We are now all on a path none of the sensible and historically literate among us really wants to walk. I hate it. But so be it.

Update! Two from Ace’s HQ, spelling out exactly who the Leftymedia wants you to blame. Guess who it is; go on, guess. I dare ya.

And here’s a typically twisted, depraved take from the NYT:

In Ann Coulter’s Speech Battle, Signs That Conservatives Are Emboldened

“Emboldened.” To have the lunatic audacity to expect that the fucking US Constitution applies to them too, the bastards.

Yep, we’re off to a typically NYT start here.

Ms. Coulter, the acid-penned conservative writer, canceled a planned appearance on Thursday after the political organizations that invited her rescinded their support over fears of violence. “It’s a sad day for free speech,” she said.

But across the country, conservatives like her are eagerly throwing themselves into volatile situations like the one in Berkeley, emboldened by a backlash over what many Americans see as excessive political correctness, a president who has gleefully taken up their fight, and liberals they accuse of trying to censor any idea they disagree with.

I know, right? I mean, how DARE any conservative speakers have the temerity to think they might be permitted to give a speech on a college campus expressing ideas liberal censors disagree with?

Oh, and damn that damned Trump, for gleefully taking up this fight on behalf of “emboldened” conservatives.

President Trump’s victory was, to many of his supporters, a defiant uprising against what they saw as a cultural and political elite that told them their values were wrong and their beliefs bigoted.


And Mr. Trump, who has routinely used racially charged controversies and social movements like Black Lives Matter to his political benefit, has leapt to their defense, ready to fan the flames.

Catch that? Why, both sides are equally to blame here, and Trump most of all, for wantonly “fanning the flames” purely for his own “political benefit.” If those provocative, dangerous, belligerent “conservatives” would just shut up and go back to being their usual docile, humble selves and accept the “fact” of their racist, misogynist, homophobic bigotry—why, none of this would be happening!

And actually, they’re right about that, when you get down to it. But you’re getting the gist, right? The uprising against stifling political correctness—against all the direct insults; the contempt for the culture that shelters and provides for them; the adolescent resentment of those without whose forbearance their self-indulgent hatred could not exist for more than five minutes; the childish rebellion against reality—is to be blamed not on those whose irrationality provoked the uprising, but on those who are merely responding rationally to that witless provocation.

Hey, they told us Trump was horrible, and after witnessing the folly of their attempted destruction of the very way of life that they rely on for their continued existence, we voted him in anyway. So now, we must pay. I mean, how DARE we?

All that aside, get ready for a bona fide rarity here: I am about to compliment Bernie Sanders. Sincerely, with no sarcasm or smart-assery at all.

No, really. Not joking; I mean it. The blind pig has found his truffle, and trust me when I tell you that I am just as gobsmacked as you are. Better sit down for this, folks.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described democratic socialist, this week scolded anyone who would shut out Ms. Coulter. “What are you afraid of — her ideas?” he asked.

Uhhh, yes, that is EXACTLY what they’re afraid of. But bless your heart for saying it.

“Unfortunately, Berkeley and other universities have played into a narrative that the right would love to advance,” said Robert B. Reich, a former Labor secretary under President Bill Clinton who is now a professor of public policy at Berkeley. “The narrative assumes a cultural plot against the free expression of right-wing views in which academe, mainstream media — every facet of the establishment — is organized against them.”

Mr. Reich, noting the parallels to Mr. Trump’s message, added, “That’s a narrative Trump used to get into the White House.”

Because that narrative is the simple, obvious truth—as has been proved over and over, and was once again in Berkeley.

Can someone tell me, please, the last time a speech by some stupid commie dickhead—ANY commie dickhead, anywhere—was shut down on account of a wholly credible threat of violence by us Reich Wingnuttzzz Nazi Deathbeasts? Anywhere at all, on any pretext whatsoever? Can anybody tell me the last time a speech by some stupid commie dickhead was even protested at all by a Reich Wingnuttzzz Nazi Deathbeasts, even something as simple as just walking around on the sidewalk outside, carrying a sign or something?

There may have been one or two, I guess. But I can’t remember any offhand.

The university breathed a sigh of relief on Wednesday, but it criticized Ms. Coulter, who has a knack for provocation and a history of inviting disruption wherever she speaks, for being wanton and reckless given that it had offered to accommodate her at a later date after canceling her originally scheduled speech. The Berkeley chancellor, Nicholas B. Dirks, said in a note to the campus, “This is a university, not a battlefield.”

Well, not until your violent campus SJWs—utterly devoid of any “knack for provocation,” and with no history at all of “inviting disruption,” natch—decide to shut down and de facto ban a speaker whose ideas they don’t agree with, apparently—thereby making it a battlefield, at least metaphorically. But when they do it, all bets are off, all declamations supporting “freedom of speech” are flushed, all tolerance renounced, all minds closed…and battle is eagerly joined, no matter how you may choose to refer to the ground on which it is fought.

The REAL problem here is, now you twerps just might get some fight back, at long last.

Once again, all they had to do was leave us alone; they didn’t have to attend Coulter’s speech if they didn’t want to. But the very idea that she might be allowed to speak at all was intolerable to them, and via credible threats of violence, they shut free speech down, and directly trampled not just Coulter’s Constitutionally-protected rights, but, indirectly, everyone’s.

And that says all about them that anybody should ever need to know. They are fascists; they are not just un- but anti-American; they are a direct threat to absolutely everything this country is supposed to be about. They are precisely what the Founders feared most, and warned us most explicitly about, in every word and writing.

May the dimestore dictators wake up before it’s too late to avoid the cataclysm they’re forcing on us. Failing that, may they have joy of their choice—in Hell, alongside all the other vanquished would-be tramplers upon human liberty.

Sad denouement update! Leave it to Steyn to get to the bloody heart of it:

The left is increasingly confident in its ideological enforcement mob. Yet, as we saw a week or two back at Berkeley, when you incentivize thuggery, it’s careless to assume you’ll always have a monopoly of it. That too is a free-speech lesson – because, as I always say, in a society without freedom of speech, without vigorous public debate, all you can do to express yourself is punch the other guy’s lights out.

So here we are seven years on from the show not going on in Ottawa, and free speech is despised even more. I should note one other small change: in the old days, columns such as the one below used to attract emails from US readers pointing out that “We’re not like you Canuck pussies/Euro-wimps/[Insert Despised Foreign Jurisdiction Here]. Americans won’t put up with this nonsense.” But it’s 2017 and, from Middlebury to Berkeley, Americans are putting up with it. The organs of the state – from taxpayer-funded schools to law enforcement – are colluding with the thugs against the only diversity that matters: diversity of opinion. A First Amendment that doesn’t extend even to public universities is in pretty poor shape. What matters is public support for the broader culture of free speech and in the US, as in Canada and Europe and Australia, the left’s hostility to freedom of expression is ever more brazen.

He then goes on to repost a 2010 column which is depressingly even more germane now. The meat of the whole thing:

Remember Allan Rock? Oh, come on, he was all the rage for 20 minutes back in the nineties. Was it only a decade ago that he was briefly a rising star among Liberal cabinet ministers and that week’s prime-minister-in-waiting? Having drunk from the poisoned chalice M. Chrétien reserved for his many putative successors, Mr. Rock landed with his bottom in the butter and, for not entirely obvious reasons, is now president of the University of Ottawa. After M. Houle’s Houligans had gone to work, president Rock felt obliged to defend his institution. “We have a long history of hosting contentious and controversial speakers on our campus.”

That’s good to know. By “long history,” you mean 50, 70 years ago? Because the speakers hosted in recent seasons seem to be the usual parade of dreary publicly funded identity-group ward-heelers living high off the hog of diversity. Anyone else has a tougher time wiggling through. The howling gang of rent-a-leftists that greeted Miss Coulter at Ottawa is the natural product of this shrivelled, desiccated environment. I don’t suppose M. Houle gave his email much thought, other than that it would impress the many colleagues to whom he copied it: what a man! Speaking truth to power blond! But most of the diversity-peddling faculty are old enough to have some residual acquaintanceship with the inheritance they affect to revile. Whatever bollocks they spout in class, they have no wish to live anywhere other than an advanced Western society: for one thing, it’s the only place you can make a living selling fatuous pap about diversity; in that and many other ways, multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon. In some deep unacknowledged sense, they understand they’re engaged in a pantomime.

But their students are another matter. If you’re born circa 1990, you have been raised entirely in a François Houle world: this is all you know; it’s the air that you breathe. It’s like the difference between the first generation of rock ‘n’ rollers and those nineties gangsta rappers. Elvis sang, “If you’re looking for trouble, you’ve come to the right place / If you’re looking for trouble, look right in my face.” But when you did, as the novelist Tony Parsons noted, you couldn’t help noticing he was wearing a little too much mascara. Whereas when you looked into Snoop Dogg’s or the Notorious B.I.G.’s face, you really were looking for trouble. Asinine ham-fisted clods like Houle are play revolutionaries; I’m not so sure about his young charges. When he threatened criminal charges against Miss Coulter, it was a cheap rhetorical sneer. To his students, it was a call to arms. One was struck in news reports of the riot at the complete worthlessness of the “disciplines” the protesters are “studying”: “Sameena Topan, 26, a conflict studies and human rights major.” Twenty-six, huh?

As for Ottawa’s coppers, they certainly demonstrated that famously Canadian “restraint.” Faced with a law-abiding group engaging in legal activity and a bunch of thugs trying to prevent it, the police declined to maintain order. As George Jonas wrote, “Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.”

There seems to be rather a lot of this in the True North restrained and civil. I’m not just referring to obvious surrenders such as Caledonia, but to the bizarre episode of TVO’s The Agenda broadcast from the Munk Centre last week. No Ann Coulter around, only the finance minister of Ontario. But a Coulteresque mob rushed the stage, and the host Steve Paikin had to insert himself between protesters and the minister. “Regardless of what you thought of yesterday’s budget,” wrote Paikin, “I don’t believe guests who agree to appear on The Agenda ought to get beaten up.”

Oh, c’mon, you pussy. Where’s your commitment to social justice? As in Ottawa, law enforcement declined to enforce the law, the OPP remaining in the wings as thugs rushed the stage. “The police, I’m told, were urged not to intervene,” Paikin explained, “lest pictures of demonstrators being hauled off by the cops show up all over YouTube.”

True. You might haul off a Muslim or a lesbian and find yourself in “human rights” hell. Better just to linger nonchalantly by the side until it’s all over: O Canada, we stand around for thee. Her Majesty’s Constabulary seem to be sending the message that violence pays-—at least for approved identity groups. That doesn’t seem a prudent strategy.

Well, it depends on what your desired end-state is. If your goal is the humiliation of the West and the destruction of its culture—and you feel assured enough by prior meekness in its defense, previous pliant acceptance of your raw aggression, that such meek acceptance will continue—well, what’s not to like? You get to go on winning without resistance; you get victory without real battle, conquest sans combat. You get to march off the field without even getting your clothes dirty or your hair mussed.

But if your goal is the ongoing well-being of the very culture without which you cannot exist, but which your demented ideology demands you revile and undermine…well, yeah, imprudent is probably putting it mildly. But that realization would require an acknowledgement the Left is not capable of, and a logic that is far, far beyond them. It would require humility; it would require an admission of dependency and inferiority that, while perfectly proper and accurate, they can never, ever be reconciled to. Nobody ought to expect it for a moment. As my mom always said: wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which one gets full quickest.

Plain and simple update! That’s about the size of it:

This is who we are up against. They don’t want to debate. They want to destroy. They have created a straw man and that straw man needs to be punished for the fictional crimes he has committed until society suffers so much decay, the freaks appear normal.

There is a culture war going on, and it’s apoplectic idiots with nothing to say vs. perfectly sane people who want everyone to have their say. Our world includes them. They can go have a talk about how Nazis are lurking around every corner and Trump is Hitler. We won’t “shut it down,” as Yvette Felarca brags. Their world doesn’t include us. They don’t tolerate Nazis, and by Nazis they mean anyone who doesn’t take their radical views seriously. If you think there are two genders (as doctors do), if you don’t support gay marriage (over a third of Americans oppose it), if you think illegal aliens are illegal (as the law does), if you think women are different from men (as reality does), you are a Nazi and you need to be punched in the face. This kind of harassment works for a while. Sane people aren’t looking for trouble. We have jobs and we want peace and quiet after a hard day’s work. However, when you burn down a gay immigrant’s talk because you think he’s a homophobic xenophobe, we start to question your cause. When professors need a neck brace after trying to escape a talk that was already shut down, we begin to wonder what you’re thinking. When pedophiles start telling us what to do, we begin to question their morals. When feminists embrace Sharia, we begin to consider the possibility that none of these people have any idea what they’re doing. Then, when breathtakingly gorgeous intellectuals get maced for daring to question the anarchist narrative, we begin to get angry. This is where we are. We’re angry. And you’re not going to like us when we’re angry.

Leftist propaganda is done because we know the truth, and the truth is they’ve all been lying. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized that democracy was much less efficient than aristocratic society, but when the people finally do get off their asses and fight, nothing can stop them. This is where we’re at. The momentum has finally hit its stride and nothing can stop it now.

Yeah, feels that way to me too. After reading this entire post, something smacked me upside the head: they’re absolutely obsessed with us, but we really don’t give much of a shit about them. Very few of us are at all interested in wasting any precious time pondering what they think; let them huddle in their decaying urban rat-traps and mutter about us all they like, we don’t care. They can live however they like; we have no interest in stopping them, or shielding them from the consequences of whatever mad lifestyle they may dream up.

And in the end, that’s what drives them mad, I think: we don’t care. They don’t matter in the least to us. Their opinions are their own, and we aren’t humbled by their view of our benighted failure to share them. At long, long last, try to provoke Daddy all they like, Daddy is no longer paying attention; Daddy is bored, and Daddy has better things to do. The ensuing hissy-fit probably shouldn’t surprise any of us, really.

We wanted a President who didn’t despise America, who didn’t blame America, who would put our national interests first instead of last, when they were considered at all. Who would be unabashed and unembarrassed by his patriotic affection for his country. We elected that President fair and square, against all odds. Beyond that, well, know what? Honestly?

We. Don’t. Care. Sorry, snowflakes, but there it is.


The Question

One of our oldest and dearest blog-buddies asks a silly question:

GRANDSTANDING: Transportation Committee Dem Wants Hearing on United Airlines Incident.

Must every problem or pain find its solution or palliative in Washington?

Well, of course it must. We are a post-Constitutional Progressivist nation, and the lamentable condition of always looking to an all-powerful central government for solutions to our woes—real, contrived, or insignificant—is the ultimate intention and desired end-state of Progressivism. It always was.

I know I said Stephen’s question was silly, but in truth it’s anything but. It’s penetrating and insightful; it’s the only question that really matters, when you get right down to it. We should have been asking it all along, and we’d be a damned sight better off if we had been. It’s the question that inspired the founding of this nation, and ought to be always in the forefront of our thoughts.


(Un)Civil (not quite) War

Or not yet, anyway.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

Well, in fairness (of a sort), if anybody knows treason, it would be these guys.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

Ain’t it. Ain’t it just. As Daniel says, this country was founded on the assumption that certain core principles—limited government; the paramount importance of individual liberty to pursue one’s own ambitions without interference; the idea of rights granted not by government but by God, existing outside government and properly beyond its reach, unalienable and sacrosanct; the right, in sum, to be left alone—were shared among all of us.

That is no longer the case; the assumption no longer holds. The Left has not only abandoned those principles; it abhors them, is hostile to them. It has to be; its lust for absolute power cannot otherwise be sated. The thought of even one of us being out of their clutches, free of their malign influence and authority, is anathema to them.

And also as Daniel says, the question really is what comes next. There is liberty, or there is…not. The two positions are irreconcilable; as I’ve said before here, if you really believe compromise with them is possible, then which of your Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms are you willing to surrender to them? Tyranny cannot coexist with freedom; it’s one or the other.

So either we find some way to persuade them of the dire, hideous consequences of their decision to disregard our right to self-determination, of the folly of trying to further enslave us, or we accept our servitude and surrender to them once and for all. Bottom line? This:

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

Bingo. We must all hope that they wake up eventually, before it’s too late to avoid a cataclysm that I expect will be far, far worse than the last one. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves about exactly what they are, either. Ultimately, we’re going to find out what our liberty is truly worth to us. Its value, as always, is not calculated in the coin of the realm, or in gold; it’s calculated in blood.

We’re poised on the brink; it’s not too late to step back, I believe. But it’s them who will have to do the stepping; we’ve stepped back ourselves so far that our backs are now against the wall, and there’s no place left for us to go but right directly at them. It’s a horrible prospect for sure. But what they have in mind for us is far worse.


They lie

Who they are. What they do.

Early arguments for smoking bans at least paid lip service to the idea that restrictions were necessary to protect unwilling bystanders’ health. But as bans have grown ever more intrusive even as the case for expanding them has withered, that justification has been revealed as a polite fiction by which nonsmokers shunted smokers to the fringes of society. It was never just about saving lives.

Of course it wasn’t. It was about what it’s always about with the Nanny Statists: power, and control.

There were good reasons from the beginning to doubt that smoking bans could really deliver the promised results, but anti-smoking advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception.

Of course they did. Lies and propaganda, in the service of…power. And control.

Today’s tobacco control movement is guided by ideology as much as it is by science, prone to hyping politically convenient studies regardless of their merit and ostracizing detractors.

Of course it is. When has it ever not been, with smoking and many other issues, going back to the original Progressivist project (besides eugenics): Prohibition? The key word in the above sentence: control. THAT is their ideology. Always has been. Always will be.

This has important implications for journalism. As health journalists take on topics such as outdoor smoking bans, discrimination against smokers in employment or adoption, and the ever-evolving regulation of e-cigarettes, they should consider that however well-intentioned the aims of the tobacco control movement are, its willingness to sacrifice the means of good science to the end of restricting behavior calls for skeptical scrutiny.

It calls for a good bit more than just that, up to and including stomping their meddlesome, busybody asses flat should they refuse to mind their own business and leave ostensibly free people alone.

While science can inform, though not fully determine, the boundaries of where people are allowed to smoke, the debunking of the previous decade’s heart miracles should provide some grounds for humility.

Humility? From Progressivist would-be dictators? That’ll be the day.

It may be neither feasible nor desirable to set back the clock and permit smoking everywhere, but laws in a liberal society can accommodate the rights and preferences of smokers and business owners far better than they do now.

So relax those outdoor bans. Let people vape. Allow there to be at least some venues in which consenting adults can gather to light up indoors. Respect for self-ownership demands it. After years of closing doors on smokers, it is time to open a few back up.

You said a mouthful there, bub. I have to admit, though, that this is a far more reasonable article than I would have ever expected to see in Slate. Hats off to ’em for it.


The Deep State, exposed and explained

The DC Swamp denizens are plotting, planning, and scheming to nullify the election, one way or another.

Drain it, Donald.

So now let’s get to the corpus of what we’re talking about. The term “Deep State” refers to the complex of bureaucrats, technocrats, and plutocrats that likes things just the way they are and wants to keep them like that—elections be damned.

Some might say that “Deep State” is just a synonym for the “Establishment,” and yet “Deep State” refers to a larger grouping, not just to the stereotypical elite “chattering class.”  We can also observe that a Deep State can be found in just about every country in the world, but our focus here, of course, is on the United States.

And here in America, the Deep State has its own political consciousness, and it aims to survive any change of government with its collective will—and self-interest—fully intact.

Normally, the Deep State is hidden, albeit, at the same time, hiding in plain sight. That is, while nobody has “Deep State” on his or her business card, the reality of the Deep State is overwhelming: It’s not just the hulking office buildings of the Federal Triangle in downtown DC, it’s also the taxpayer-funded mini-metropolises that have sprouted up in Bethesda, Maryland, Crystal City, Virginia, and a dozen other hubs in and around the I-495 Beltway. (Hence the familiar phrase, “Beltway Bandits”; Virgil can attest that federal contractors have assumed a kind of ironic affection for that phrase—at least in their private conversations.)

And the proof that this New Class is doing well can be found in the Census data, which show that four of the five richest counties in the US are in the DC metro area.

And it’s this luxe life, which has reached its apex under Barack Obama, that finds itself threatened by the drain-the-swamp pledge of Trump.

They ought to feel threatened by what will happen to them if they somehow do thwart the clearly-expressed will of the people and steal the election. Advice to these shadowy malefactors: it involves torches, pitchforks, gibbets, and your personal heads on pikes. Accept the one and go find an honest way to make a living, or prepare for the other, your choice.

So there it is: the Deep State, in all its power, and its fury. It stretches across the whole of the federal government—indeed, the entirety of the country. And it includes not only bureaucrats, but also a galaxy of contractors, profiteers, and others in the nominal private sector. And it includes not only Democrats, but also Republicans. And oh yes, the MSM and the chattering class.

In other words, a great power struggle is under way: the Deep State vs. Trump.

Oh, it’s bigger than that. It’s the Deep State vs the people, against the Constitution, against liberty. It always has been, and unless and until it is dismantled, it always will.

Update! Nobody should be expecting the Deep State to just dry up and blow away:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Energy Department said on Tuesday it will not comply with a request from President-elect Donald Trump’s Energy Department transition team for the names of people who have worked on climate change and the professional society memberships of lab workers.

The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect’s energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place.

Eric Worral says:

In my opinion this outrageous response is the very epitome of a government department which is out of control. Refusing to provide information to the new administration about what staff do with their work time, to me suggests the US Department of Energy believes they are a law unto themselves – they think they are above politicians and political cycles, and intend to continue wasting money on climate programmes, regardless of what the new Trump administration wants.

I say defund the lot of them.

Or, as Bill puts it:

The key part of that last paragraph has implications so horrible for progtard junk science cultists that it’s no wonder the author skates right over them: “the staffers who remain in place.”

Say it with me: You’re fired!

Yes indeed. Five minutes after the inauguration wouldn’t be too soon.


The Trumpo-Hillarian Chasm

The break starts at gun control.

Obama of course blamed guns for the shooting deaths in Chicago. Can he really believe this? It is like the obese blaming spoons.

It is verboten to notice that crime with guns is heavily concentrated in particular groups. I grew up in rural Virginia where all the boys and Becky had guns, chiefly shotguns for hunting deer and rifles for killing varmints. Nobody shot anybody, either deliberately or otherwise. Murder wasn’t in the culture. We couldn’t understand why our guns should be taken away because criminals in the cities wanted to kill each other.

I once spent a week with the US Army in the slums of Port au Prince in Haiti, where guns were illegal. Nobody was shot. Instead brains were laid open and arms severed by machete. It was in the culture.

But of course gun control is only tangentially about gun control. The controllers detest gun owners viscerally as they imagine them, aging white Southern yahoos or Western cowboys with potbellies and third-grade educations who are probably werewolves, Republicans or even conservatives. Deplorables. Note that they never criticize the killers, the Islamoterrorists, the blacks in the cities massacring each other with abandon, or the Hispanic narcos engaged in auto-extermination. The controllers simply dislike white conservatives or, more profoundly, those who are emotionally independent and not of the mentality of the hive. Guns are innocent bystanders.

If a woman tells me that she favors gun control, I can with confidence predict that she favors unchecked immigration, sanctuary cities, affirmative action, banning the Confederate flag, suppressing Christianity, homosexual marriage, abortion, feminism, and the dumbing down–she will call it something else–of schools to avoid wounding the self-esteem of the usual suspects.

The question of guns demarcates a sharp dividing line between (those) who read the New York Times and those for whom it is the house organ of a class of people they detest. This is the Trumpo-Hillarian Chasm.

In Washington and New York, the Virulently Good who live in high-rises with security desks will react with horror at the thought of buying a rifle for self-defense. “How could the…?” “Why would anyone…?” “What is wrong with these…?” Their outlook rests on the belief that nothing really bad can happen. Which means that if it does, they will be toast. And that, in a morbid way, will be amusing.

It sure will. But the truly amusing thing is that the “really bad” that may happen is going to be mostly due to the proven-failure ideology most of them espouse, and the damage it’s done to the country the rest of us have to live in. And thus have the Left’s chickens come ever home to roost.


Exciting news: new word for the same old liberal-fascism coined


In an epistocracy, political power is to some degree apportioned according to knowledge. An epistocracy might retain the major institutions we see in republican democracy, such as parties, mass elections, constitutional review, and the like. But in an epistocracy, not everyone has equal basic political power. An epistocracy might grant some people additional voting power, or might restrict the right to vote only to those that could pass a very basic test of political knowledge.

Any such system will be subject to abuse, and will suffer from significant government failures. But that’s true of democracy too. The interesting question is whether epistocracy, warts and all, would perform better than democracy, warts and all.

All across the West, we’re seeing the rise of angry, resentful, nationalist, xenophobic and racist movements, movements made up mostly of low-information voters. Perhaps it’s time to put aside the childish and magical theory that democracy is intrinsically just, and start asking the serious question of whether there are better alternatives. The stakes are high.

Of course, this is just the same old rule-by-experts crap that Progressivists have been pimping for the last century or so, all prettied up in a nice new dress to disguise its ugly elitist and tyrannical nature—and it is as un- and anti-American as ideas come, being directly opposed to the slave class having any say at all in how they’re governed. It’s funny how every now and then they feel it necessary to come up with a new name for themselves though, innit? Why, it’s almost as if their tired, creaky old ideology just keeps failing every time it’s tried, and so they have to skulk around behind a fig leaf of “New ideas! No, really, you guys!” to prevent the rest of us from abandoning it at last or something.


“SJW Harasses Lyft Driver Over His Hula Doll, Gets Left on Side of Road”

The title alone just gives you a sort of frisson of delight, don’t it?

The problem with social justice warriors isn’t just that they’re easily offended. It’s that they’re so easily offended over such ridiculous things.

If it’s not the name of the athletic center of a school, it’s the mascot’s facial expressions, or the content of a painting. It’s not the big stuff, stuff that might actually make sense. Instead, they pick fights over the silliest crap they can imagine.

That’s because they already won, and won big, on the serious stuff. The rest is just details, a mopping-up operation.

First, the “continent” of Hawaii? A tiny chain of islands in the middle of the Pacific is a continent? Just…wow. Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about the brainpower of the Left?

However, Nielsen isn’t done. She continues to demand that a common tourist trinket be removed because she finds it offensive because the driver wasn’t Hawaiian, or something.

Another passenger, a woman, tells Nielsen her demand is pathetic. Frankly, it was. Absolutely.

Eventually, the driver pulled over, ended the ride with Lyft, and demanded Nielsen gets out of his car. Initially, Nielsen refused, even telling the driver to call 911.

Oh, what hilarity would have ensued had he done that. Did Nielsen actually believe the officer would make the driver remove the doll? Then again, she’s a social justice warrior. Intelligence isn’t likely to be one of her strong suits.

Nielsen has since claimed the driver was fired from Lyft. If Lyft saw what the poor guy had to go through, they not only shouldn’t have fired him, they should have purchased him a new car for leaving her on the side of the road.

And he probably was fired. See? They won again. Not so “pathetic” after all, is it? More like dangerous, to anybody who still cares about liberty. Like I said in the last post: hiding in a closet, too scared to speak your mind. And not without reason, either.


“There’s no freedom here. If there is, she’s an orphan.”

Bonus points for guessing what movie that quote is from.

The US Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration released a new proposal Friday to require heavy-duty vehicles like trucks and buses to include speed-limiting devices. If approved, all newly manufactured trucks, buses, and passenger vehicles weighing more than 26,000 pounds would be required to come equipped with devices limiting their speeds to 60–68 mph. That would cover big rigs, dump trucks, refuse haulers, many buses, and other large work trucks.

The new rule is being touted by the feds as an important step toward fighting the rise in traffic fatalities across the country, as well as a key ingredient in lowering CO2 emissions. “In addition to saving lives, the projected fuel and emissions savings make this proposal a win for safety, energy conservation, and our environment,” DOT secretary Anthony Foxx said in a statement.

Safety advocates note that research shows speed to be a crucial factor in nearly a quarter of all truck crashes. Since 1992 all trucks in the US have been manufactured with the speed-limiting equipment, but the trucking industry has resisted calls to “flip the switch” to activate this technology. “Speed limiters are an available solution to large trucks flagrantly exceeding highway speed limits and needlessly putting the public at grave risk,” said Henry Jasny, senior vice president and general counsel for the Advocates For Highway and Auto Safety.

Perhaps surprisingly, the trucking industry is in support of the new mandate. “We know the cliché ‘speed kills’ is true when it comes to driving,” Sean McNally, spokesman for the American Trucking Associations (ATA), told “Speed is a factor in a third of all vehicle crashes and 23 percent of all truck crashes, so slowing our vehicles down can have tremendous safety benefits.”

Hey, just think what wonderful things banning them entirely would do. I surely hope nobody thinks for one minute they’ll be stopping with trucks. Because you can be certain they won’t:

The ATA has urged safety regulators to limit the speed of all vehicles, including passenger cars, to 65 mph. But safety groups want the speed capped at 60 mph.

Emphasis mine, and all too obvious to anybody who knows a thing about how fascist governments work, and what they’re really all about. Hey, if it’s that great an idea, why not 50? Or 40? Or 30? You know the drill: IF EVEN ONE LIFE IS SAVED…

While we’re at it, let’s go the Full Fascist and make the minimum wage a thousand dollars an hour, too. And does anybody think that any government this meddlesome and intrusive is going to allow the Second Amendment to continue to exist for much longer? If so, you got some more thinking to do.

(Via Misanthropic Humanitarian)

Big picture update! ZMan sees where we’re headed with stuff like this:

All of this is familiar ground if you read blogs like this one. We no longer have poor people in the way in which we think of poverty. There is another angle to this that does not get much attention. The robot revolution is not just going to give us even more plenty with less human labor. The robot revolution will also strip away many of the positional goods. Robot cars, assuming it happens, turns the car into a public utility. Most likely robot cars will require banning human drivers so there will be no reason to own a swank ride to impress the neighbors.

It does not stop there. Putting the slack-jawed yokels out of work by automating the widget plant still leaves Cletus and Junior at the bottom of the social order. Instead of working, they will be provided a stipend so they can sit around all day playing games and taking drugs. When the plant managers and accountants are sent home with the stipend because robots took their jobs, something else happens. Suddenly, the old rules of status fall apart. Vast parts of the professional classes can be eliminated with automation, according (to) the futurists.

If you’re unconcerned about unreasonable speed limits on trucks being enforced by federally-mandated automated machinery, hey, don’t worry. Sooner or later they’ll get around to something you DO care about.


The Great Unraveling

Unity? Whatever for?

The coming apart is in no way exclusive to America or its political parties. All across the West, the liberal order is being challenged by an ugly truth: The world doesn’t share our affinity for a lawful and rational society. Ironically, it is the commoners who understand this more than the elites. As Peggy Noonan recently wrote in her perch at The Wall Street Journal, “I don’t have it fully right in my mind but something big is happening here with this division between the leaders and the led. It is very much a feature of our age.”

Haidt is worried about the divide, but doesn’t regard it as irreparable. Our differences in opinion don’t necessarily mean we must live in ideological separation. As a psychologist, Haidt understands how hidebound our moral dispositions are. “We are so good at finding reasons for whatever we want to believe or whatever our side believes. This is why you can’t argue someone out of their moral or political positions,” he says.

We may not change each other’s minds, but, Haidt maintains, we can still come together over common purpose and practice. Quoting authoritarianism expert Karen Stenner, he prescribes a cure for our diverging culture: “Ultimately, nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions, and processes.”

If we can get past our differing views and rally around a shared set of values, the frayed threads of our society can be sewn up and we can become one again.

No, we can’t. Why not? Because one half of the country thinks itself qualified—in fact, sees it as a moral imperative, their most solemn duty and obligation—to run the other half’s lives for them, down to the minutest detail. The other half doesn’t like this, and doesn’t want it; it sees itself as endowed with certain sacred, inviolable rights which are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. To me, that not only looks like a chasm that can never be bridged, it’s a chasm that we should not even want to bridge—because bridging it will always mean surrendering to the busybodies, the scolds, the bluenoses, the fascists.

There is no compromising with authoritarian Leftism. Either there is liberty, or there is not. The authoritarian Left prefers “not.” They’ve demonstrated it again and again and again, here and elsewhere. Anyone who prefers liberty knows by now what compromising with them gets you sooner or later: the gulags, the work camps, the killing fields. Destroyed, decaying cities; failed and stagnant economies; strife, violence, lawlessness, and poverty. It’s neither hysterical nor paranoid to note that; it’s a historical fact that has been confirmed numerous times, all over the globe. To compromise with them is to ignore that history in hopes that THIS TIME will be different. And that’s never been anything but a fool’s hope.


We have a winner!

In the all-time irony sweepstakes. In fact, we can probably now retire the prize and end the voting for good.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among its other functions, decides “hostile work environment” harassment claims brought against federal agencies. In doing so, it applies the same legal rules that courts apply to private employers, and that the EEOC follows in deciding whether to sue private employers. The EEOC has already ruled that coworkers’ wearing Confederate flag T-shirts can be punishable harassment (a decision that I think is incorrect); and, unsurprisingly, this is extending to other political speech as well. Here’s an excerpt from Shelton D. [pseudonym] v. Brennan, 2016 WL 3361228, decided by the EEOC two months ago:

On January 8, 2014, Complainant filed a formal complaint in which he alleged that the Agency subjected him to discrimination on the basis of race (African American) and in reprisal for prior EEO activity when, starting in the fall of 2013, a coworker (C1) repeatedly wore a cap to work with an insignia of the Gadsden Flag, which depicts a coiled rattlesnake and the phrase “Don’t Tread on Me.”

Complainant stated that he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.” Complainant also alleged that he complained about the cap to management; however, although management assured him C1 would be told not to wear the cap, C1 continued to come to work wearing the offensive cap. Additionally, Complainant alleged that on September 2, 2013, a coworker took a picture of him on the work room floor without his consent. In a decision dated January 29, 2014, the Agency dismissed Complainant’s complaint on the basis it failed to state a claim…

Complainant maintains that the Gadsden Flag is a “historical indicator of white resentment against blacks stemming largely from the Tea Party.” He notes that the Vice President of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters cited the Gadsden Flag as the equivalent of the Confederate Battle Flag when he successfully had it removed from a New Haven, Connecticut fire department flagpole.

After a thorough review of the record, it is clear that the Gadsden Flag originated in the Revolutionary War in a non-racial context. Moreover, it is clear that the flag and its slogan have been used to express various non-racial sentiments, such as when it is used in the modern Tea Party political movement, guns rights activism, patriotic displays, and by the military.

However, whatever the historic origins and meaning of the symbol, it also has since been sometimes interpreted to convey racially-tinged messages in some contexts.

And they’re off and running from there; that ludicrous “context” provides them with all the pretext they need to…ummm…tread all over the free speech rights protected in our former Constitution, now one hundred percent defunct and meaningless, and glom themselves yet more power and control over the rest of us.

Get that? “Don’t tread on me,” once one of the most powerful phrases in the lexicon of liberty, and as American as just about anything you can think of, is now or soon will be forbidden by the federal government. Which tells you absolutely everything you’ll ever need to know about said government, and what its true nature is: in short, it is precisely and literally the very thing the Founders warned future generations of, and feared and despised most. I especially liked this part:

“There is a place for political discussion in our country, but it shouldn’t be the workplace. Accordingly, you may want to consider adopting policies that prohibit political discussions and expression in your workplace, consistent with the applicable state and federal requirements.” So writes one employment lawyer, in the Virginia Employment Law Letter. Other employment law experts have likewise urged employers to broadly restrict speech, including speech about presidential politics (that happened with regard to talk about theClinton/Lewinsky matter).

Actually, you fascist shitweasel, there IS “a place for political discussion in our country,” and it is EVERYFUCKINGWHERE AND ANYFUCKINGWHERE—notwithstanding any and all objections from any oversensitive, whining, mollycoddled little professional-victim pussy who might get his knickers in a twist over that simple truth. The proper response to such delicate flowers is to tell them to go piss up a rope; if they persist, a swift punch in the mouth should suffice to remind them of what “free speech” really means, as well as what the potential costs of trying to eradicate it ought to be.

But all that would hold true only in a free country of stout, free, self-respecting individuals. That is very, very far from what this misbegotten, stinking, flyblown turd of a nation now is.

I don’t want to hear one more word from anybody about the importance of “patriotism.” When it comes to the FUSA, I’m all out of it. “Patriotism” in support of a country like this is a mug’s game and a fool’s errand. There was plenty of “patriotism” in the old USSR too, and it was every bit as valid and grounded in as solid and centered a moral mooring as it is here. Which is to say, not at all, not in the slightest.

And don’t give me any of the usual weak guff about a business owner’s absolute right to run his workplace as he sees fit, either. The right doesn’t exist, and it never really did. And when it comes to freedom of political speech, it probably shouldn’t. Tell yourself all about that the next time some libtard freak all but shuts down a business in protest over some other presumed “right” that exists only between the complainant’s ears and nowhere else…and does so not only with complete impunity, but with actual active assistance from our liberal-fascist government.

It’s really remarkable: just when you think they can’t surprise you anymore with their audacity, dishonesty, and stupidity, they go and do it again. And still we just sit back, shut up, and meekly put up with it.


Signs and portents

Reasons for hope?

The last year strongly suggests that this Progressive Awakening is running out of steam. Participation in Democrat primaries was way down compared to 2008. The party was only able to muster two geezers to run for their nomination. Liberal support for Clinton is tepid, as they see her as a criminal loser. She was, after all, the person who tried to prevent them from spiting the bad whites in 2008. As far as the Left is concerned, Clinton is as a bad as those who sympathized with the South or sided with King George.

There’s also the fact that the Left has stopped mentioning George Bush. It’s not that they have forgiven him, or the Bush clan, for the 2000’s. It’s just that even the fiery passions of Progressive hate burn themselves out eventually.They inflicted homosexual marriage on the country. They allowed deranged men in sundresses to stalk little girls in public toilets. They toppled over the Confederate statues and angried up the blacks, to the point where they are killing cops. Like children throwing a tantrum, they have reached the point where they no longer remember why they are angry.

This is terrible news for Hillary Clinton, who imagines herself riding a wave of enthusiasm for old crones, into the White House. There may be some residual passion for finishing off the country, but the return to normalcy appears to be underway.

I don’t know about that last. Their passion for finishing off the country runs high, wide, and deep, and we know from absolutely everything else they do or have ever done that they just don’t quit. They might be content to bide their time for a relatively brief spell if they absolutely must, but they’ll always be back to devour more of our dwindling freedom; for the Progressivist, that’s a defining hunger that will never, ever be slaked.


A republic, if you can keep it

And we couldn’t.

Haunting this year’s presidential contest is the sense that the U.S. government no longer belongs to the people and no longer represents them. And this uneasy feeling is not misplaced. It reflects the real state of affairs.

We have lost the government we learned about in civics class, with its democratic election of representatives to do the voters’ will in framing laws, which the president vows to execute faithfully, unless the Supreme Court rules them unconstitutional. That small government of limited powers that the Founders designed, hedged with checks and balances, hasn’t operated for a century. All its parts still have their old names and appear to be carrying out their old functions. But in fact, a new kind of government has grown up inside the old structure, like those parasites hatched in another organism that grow by eating up their host from within, until the adult creature bursts out of the host’s carcass. This transformation is not an evolution but a usurpation.

What has now largely displaced the Founders’ government is what’s called the Administrative State—a transformation premeditated by its main architect, Woodrow Wilson. The thin-skinned, self-righteous college-professor president, who thought himself enlightened far beyond the citizenry, dismissed the Declaration of Independence’s inalienable rights as so much outmoded “nonsense,” and he rejected the Founders’ clunky constitutional machinery as obsolete. (See “It’s Not Your Founding Fathers’ Republic Any More,” Summer 2014.) What a modern country needed, he said, was a “living constitution” that would keep pace with the fast-changing times by continual, Darwinian adaptation, as he called it, effected by federal courts acting as a permanent constitutional convention.

Modernity, Wilson thought, demanded efficient government by independent, nonpartisan, benevolent, hyper-educated experts, applying the latest scientific, economic, and sociological knowledge to industrial capitalism’s unprecedented problems, too complex for self-governing free citizens to solve. Accordingly, he got Congress to create executive-branch administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, to do the job. During the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt proliferated such agencies, from the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Housing Administration to the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, to put the New Deal into effect. Before they could do so, though, FDR had to scare the Supreme Court into stretching the Constitution’s Commerce Clause beyond recognition, putting the federal government in charge of all economic activity, not just interstate transactions. He also had to pressure the justices to allow Congress to delegate legislative power—which is, in effect, what the lawmakers did by setting up agencies with the power to make binding rules. The Constitution, of course, vests all legislative power in Congress, empowering it to make laws, not to make legislators.

But the Administrative State’s constitutional transgressions cut deeper still. If Congress can’t delegate its legislative powers, it certainly can’t delegate judicial powers, which the Constitution gives exclusively to the judiciary. Nevertheless, after these administrative agencies make rules like a legislature, they then exercise judicial authority like a court by prosecuting violations of their edicts and inflicting real criminal penalties, such as fines and cease-and-desist orders. As they perform all these functions, they also violate the principle of the separation of powers, which lies at the heart of our constitutional theory (senselessly curbing efficiency, Wilson thought), as well as the due process of law, for they trample the citizen’s Fifth Amendment right not to lose his property unless indicted by a grand jury and tried by a jury of his peers, and they search a citizen or a company’s private papers or premises, without bothering to get judge-issued subpoenas or search warrants based on probable cause, flouting the Fourth Amendment. They can issue waivers to their rules, so that the law is not the same for all citizens and companies but is instead an instrument of arbitrary power. FDR himself ruefully remarked that he had expanded a fourth branch of government that lacked constitutional legitimacy. Not only does it reincarnate the arbitrary power of the Stuarts’ tyrannical Star Chamber, but also it doesn’t even meet the minimal conditions of liberty that Magna Carta set forth 801 years ago.

Adding insult to injury, Wilson, his allies, and their current followers call themselves “progressives,” a fatuous boast implying that they are the embodiments and chosen instruments of the spirit of an ever-improving, irresistible future. In tune with the German idealist philosophy that Wilson and his circle studied, they claim to be marching toward an as-yet-unrealized goal of human perfection. But that perfection, the German philosophers believed, would look something like Prussia’s enlightened despotism. For Americans to think that it is progress to move from the Founders’ revolutionary achievement—a nation of free citizens, endowed with natural rights, living under laws that they themselves have made, pursuing their own vision of happiness in their own way and free to develop as fully as they can whatever talent or genius lies within them—to a regime in which individuals derive such rights as they have from a government superior to them is contemptible. How is a return to subjection an advance on freedom? No lover of liberty should ever call such left-wing statism “progressive.” In historical terms, this elevation of state power over individual freedom is not even “liberal” but quite the reverse.

Depressing as it is, you don’t want to miss a single word of it. And as long as that excerpt might seem, it barely scratches the surface; Magnet covers pretty much all the bases here, and his conclusion sparks what might be the most depressing thought of all:

As the Founders often cautioned, a self-governing republic doesn’t have a governing class. Part of America’s current predicament is that it now has such a class, and the American people are very angry about it.

Umm, well…not quite. If statistics are to be believed, something less than half of them are. The rest love it, and want more of it yet. The one thing we can be certain of is that, want more of it or not, they’re going to get it.

(Via Ed)




"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


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 - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments


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