Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

THIS time for sure!

No, seriously, you guys.

Today’s socialists insist their model society would look like Sweden or Denmark; not the USSR or Nazi Germany or Venezuela. They merely want fairness and equality, free healthcare and schooling, an end to “hoarded” wealth, and so forth. And they don’t always advocate for or even know the textbook definition of socialism, as professors Benjamin Powell and Robert Lawson learned by attending socialist conferences (see their new book Socialism Sucks: Two Economists Drink Their Way Through the Unfree World). In many cases young people think socialism simply means a happy world where people are taken care of.

Never mind the Scandinavian countries in question insist they are not socialist, never mind the atrocities of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, and never mind the overwhelming case made by Ludwig von Mises and others against central economic planning. Without private owners, without capital at risk, without prices, and especially without profit and loss signals, economies quickly become corrupted and serve only the political class. Nicolás Maduro feasts while poor Venezuelans eat dogs, but of course this isn’t “real” socialism.

History and theory don’t matter to socialists because they imagine society can be engineered. The old arguments and historical examples simply don’t apply: even human nature is malleable, and whenever our stubborn tendencies don’t comport with socialism’s grand plans a “social construct” is to blame.

These most recent spasms of support for the deadly ideology of socialism remind us that progressives aren’t kidding. They may not fully understand what socialism means, but they fully intend to bring it about. Single-payer health care, “free” education, wealth redistribution schemes, highly progressive income taxes, wealth taxes, gun bans, and radical curbs on fossil fuels are all on the immediate agenda. They will do this quickly if possible, incrementally if they have to (see, again, the 20th century). They will do it with or without popular support, using legislatures, courts and judges, supranational agencies,university indoctrination, friendly media, or whatever political, economic, or social tools it takes (including de-platforming and hate speech laws). This is not paranoia; all of this is openly discussed. And say what you will about progressivism, it does have a central if false ethos: egalitarianism.

Conservatives, by contrast, are not serious. They have no animating spirit. They don’t much talk about liberty or property or markets or opportunity. They don’t mean what they say about the Constitution, they won’t do a thing to limit government, they won’t touch entitlements or defense spending, they won’t abolish the Department of Education or a single federal agency, they won’t touch abortion laws, and they sure won’t give up their own socialist impulses. Trumpism, though not conservative and thoroughly non-intellectual, drove a final stake through the barely beating heart of Right intellectualism, from the Weekly Standard to National Review. Conservatism today is incoherent, both ideologically and tactically incapable of countering the rising tide of socialism.

Rumsfeld’s quip—you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time—begins to sound mighty chilling when you consider the figurative army we currently have to fight the Democrat-Marxists with.

(Via Vox)

Share

Gonna need another wall

Portland shows us the way to liberal Utopia.

It was a big year in Portland where the murder rate rose 18.6%. That was the perfect time for Portland’s progressive politburo to spend over $1 million on unarmed cops armed only with pepper spray.

There was a little bit of excitement when it was learned that their 200 hours of training would include “Taser Orientation” suggesting that they might be allowed to carry tasers. But Mayor Wheeler’s office explained that the weaponless cops weren’t being trained to use tasers, but “how to avoid being tased”.

Portland property crimes rose 15% in 2017. Its property crime rates easily outpace Boston and Denver, and put it on a par with dangerous cities like Atlanta.  Its homeless blight has put Portland on the same path as San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles. Portland’s Downtown Clean and Safe had picked up less than 9,897 used needles in 2015. This year it’s 39,000. Garbage and biohazards have also increased.

But Mayor Wheeler emphasized Portland was working on a more “inclusive” and diverse” police force, even as he admitted that the city was caught in a crime wave where, “assaults, homicides, sex offenses, etc. – have increased and are rising at a higher rate than last year; property crimes have also increased and are rising at a higher rate than last year.”

“Chief Outlaw leads a bureau with fewer officers today than a decade ago, despite a 10 percent increase in Portland’s population,” Wheeler whined.

Mayor Wheeler had picked Danielle Outlaw as the first African-American police chief. Outlaw was meant to be the face of Portland’s new inclusive and diverse force. She inherited the thankless job of trying to control homeless crime, without offending homeless advocates, and reining in political street violence without offending Antifa. And soon white hipsters were outraged at Chief Outlaw’s contemptuous dismissal of Antifa as schoolyard brats who, “come with the intention to fight. And then you get mad because I kicked your butt. And then you go back and you wail off and whine and complain.”

Portland’s white radicals soon began accusing the city’s first African-American police chief of being a white supremacist while campaigning to get her fired.

“The fact that I, as a very obvious African American female police chief, have been accused by those within that group or those who support that group, as being a supporter and protector of those who are believed to be white supremacists—if that’s even the case—is ridiculous. Right?” she asked.

Ridiculous is the only way that anything works in Portland.

For certain values of “working,” I guess. I just about busted a gut laughing at this…right up until I got to the end.

It’s no wonder that Portland’s formerly hot housing market is cooling off and home values are falling. As housing prices increase, not everyone wants to pay record prices to live next to a needle exchange.

The escape from Portland has begun.

OH HELL NO. You Portland Progtards can just stay right the hell where you’re at, every last one of you. You fouled your own fucking nest, now live in the shithole you created for yourselves and leave the rest of us alone. Ain’t no market for you out here. Trust me, you wouldn’t like living amongst us bigoted racist homophobic Islamophobic H8TRRR gun-nuts out here in lily-white Jesusland anyway.

Share

Disconnected

To quote Johnny Rotten: not a trace. No reality.

Never in modern times has there been such a disconnect between the opposition party and the realities of national life. The very talk of removing Trump, without evidence of an impeachable offense, is a stick in the eye to history and most Americans.

To be clear, the disconnect is not the product of policy differences, though they exist too. This is instead a mass outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome that, for those infected, can be cured only by undoing the results of the 2016 election.

And if by some lightning strike they succeed, then what? Impeach President Mike Pence, too?

How does any of this help the country address its infrastructure needs, reform entitlement programs or ensure better schools and more opportunities? And what message does it send to our allies and adversaries about America’s resolve?

The questions answer themselves. The relentless fixation on impeachment is a destructive decision that sacrifices national progress and security on the altar of partisan madness.

Well, to be fair, the Democrat-Marxists care not a whit for either of those things.

Paralysis by politics, of course, is a bipartisan disease, and Trump is not immune. His decision to force a partial government shutdown over border wall funding followed warnings that he was on the verge of betraying a key promise to his supporters.

But that doesn’t make both sides equally wrong.

No, it certainly doesn’t. On that last point, this sort of thing just annoys the living hell out of me:

THE L.A. TIMES IS PRETTY COOL WITH ANTI-SEMITISM, APPARENTLY: Can you admire Louis Farrakhan and still advance the cause of women? Maybe so. Life is full of contradictions.

As Drew McCoy tweets, “Replace ‘anti-Semite’ with ‘anti-Muslim’ and see if this piece gets published.”

Yet another reminder that the alt-right and the mainstream left are the mirror images of each other.

That’s Ed Driscoll making with the false equivalence in bold above; I’ve seen him do it several times, and he’s by no means the only one guilty of it.

By yielding to the Left’s denunciation of the former alt-right as being composed exclusively of “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists,” the milquetoasts nominally on our side have shot themselves—and us—in the foot yet again. The term “alt-right” itself has been forever poisoned by a misguided eagerness on the part of Doormat Rightists to score points with the Left by proving their docility and reasonableness to them. It’s exactly the sort of thing that made a fool of Juanny Maverick a thousand and one times, that killed the Tea Party movement a-borning. It’s futile. It’s stupid. And it ain’t even close to the truth.

Sorry, cucks, but one of these things is NOT like the other. The alt-right, whatever and whoever it might represent now, is in no way a “mirror image” of the Left. The Left is seditious, treacherous, underhanded, and violent. They hate America That Was in its every particular: its values, its traditions, its strength, its prosperity, its influence. They hate the white males who founded it, built it, and made it work. They want it destroyed forever—ALL of it—and replaced with a collectivist tyranny firmly in control of every single aspect of our lives. ALL of our lives, every one of us.

The alt-right is, or was, NONE of those things. Not ONE. Period. Fucking. DOT. To pretend otherwise is a mug’s game, a fool’s errand, and suicidal. How can it possibly be that so many of us still can’t understand that the Left can never be defeated by continuing to play their game, by their rules?

The funny thing is, the desire to disassociate and distinguish themselves from the half-assed Loser Right is the very reason the alt-rightists started calling themselves that in the first place. Now they’re trying again with Derb’s newly-minted Dissident Right, which I actually like better anyway. We’ll soon see how long it takes the cucks and schmucks to fuck that up for us too, I guess.

Share

Completing the fundamental transformation

By finalizing the transition of the Senate into House v2.0.

This week the Atlantic ran an article by Eric Orts, arguing for a major change in how seats to the U.S. Senate are apportioned. Like many others, he believes that small states have too much power in our legislative upper body. This idea floats around a lot, especially when Republicans control the Senate. Instead, he would give every state one senator to start with, then apportion the rest based on population. California, for example, would have 12, while Rhode Island would have 1.

Let’s set aside the broad arguments about this issue, such as the fact that limiting the power of the larger, more powerful states was a feature, not a bug of the U.S. Constitution, and that in all likelihood the plan Orts lays out violates that document. 

“Violates” it? “In all likelihood”? My God, man, it directly contradicts it.

I’d like to investigate just one of the claims Orts makes. In the essay, he contends that the Senate’s two per state apportionment is a “vehicle entrenching white supremacy.” His argument is that because most small states are predominantly white, white voters are being overrepresented. He views this not only as an example of white supremacy, but one that works to ensure the permanence of white supremacy. But is that true?

It not only isn’t true, it’s preposterous. However, underpinning that facile tommyrot is a deeper, more pernicious assumption, one we’ve too long been struggling under: that no non-white or female can possibly be properly represented by someone not of their own race, ethnicity, or gender—that any such representation must necessarily be not only inadequate in and of itself but morally wrong, and a violation of their rights.

Of course, that’s hardly the only problem with Orts’ foolish, disingenuous proposal. By carefully-considered design, the Senate was created not to provide representation for the people, but for the states. You folks know this already, natch, I’ve railed about this plenty here. If you had to pick a single Amendment as the one that wrought the most damage on the Republic as founded—never mind for the nonce the damage done by the gutting or just outright disregarding of most of the first ten—the 17th would probably have to be it. That one misbegotten amendment upended pretty much every concept behind our original federal system all by itself.

Unfortunately, the assumption underlying Orts’ argument is an ugly one. His claim only works if it is true that, either consciously or unconsciously, white voters favor politicians and programs that are better for white people and that this preference for white supremacy is an essential element in how they vote. If this were true, however, wouldn’t we see white voters overwhelmingly flock to the political party that best supported these supposedly white supremacist policies?

I dunno; as whites slowly continue to be pushed into minority status, helped along by Uniparty-sanctioned open borders, we could well see that very thing happen before the nightmarish onset of whatever Great Schism awaits us. And the moment whites, especially white males, do start voting with their own interests foremost in mind, the lamentations and OUTRAGE!™ from the Left will reach welkin-ringing proportions.

Sadly, Orts’ claim appears to be nothing more than a flimsy attempt to point at something he disagrees with and yell racist. 

Well, could be, I guess. Really, though, I can’t help but wonder at this point if Orts’ noxious proposal isn’t part of a larger, sneakier plan to move on past the destruction of America That Was and start getting things set up the way the Left always wanted them to be. Maybe it’s unreasonable to assume he’s malevolent when just plain stupid might fit the bill. Then again, it ain’t paranoia if they really ARE out to get you.

Share

An Army of one Snowflakes?

Incredibly, appallingly, this seems to be neither spoof nor satire:

SnowflakeArmy.jpeg


That’s a Brit army recruiting poster and, as I said, it would seem to be on the level:

LONDON — “Snowflakes,” “phone zombies,” “binge gamers” and “me me me millennials” are the focus of the British army’s latest recruitment campaign.

Posters and billboards reminiscent of the famous World War I “Your Country Needs You” ads have been given a 21st-century twist, sending the message: “The army spots potential. Even if others don’t.”

Oh, there’s potential all right, and plenty of it. For disaster.

The U.K. has struggled to maintain its target of 82,000 troops in recent years due to a declining number of recruits.

The new ads appear to attempt to engage millennials by connecting the stereotype of the screen-addicted generation with desirable skills. “Phone zombies” are wanted for their focus and “binge gamers” for their drive.

And the Snowflakes for their “compassion,” surely THE critical attribute for any true warrior to have.

Hey, thank goodness nothing like that could ever happen here, right? On the bright side, though, I’m sure the New Model Snowflake Army won’t have a problem with parade-marching in womens’ high heels. Or cute little sheath-dresses, probably.

Share

The new rules

The most sidesplitting photo I’ve seen all week.

TrannyWassle.jpg


But…but…but…why is a DUDE rasslin’ a CHICK, you ask? Easy-peasy: because he believes he ain’t a dude, and whatever he wishes reality to be, that’s what it must be, that’s why. Ace says:

The transgender is actually biologically female, but “transitioning” to male via male hormone injections. Which, you may have heard from professional sports scandals, are considered an illegal and unfair advantage in sports.

The problem is that Texas is making this female wrestle as a female. The rule should be changed to reflect the idea females are special category in sports, and that anyone who was born male or who is taking male steroids for whatever reason must compete as a male. Whether xe identifies as male or not.

Nope, no way. Sorry, but these are the New Rules, and if we must be forced to live by ’em, then so must they. The situation is not without its layers and layers of toothsome irony:

For the second year in a row, a transgender wrestler has won the Texas girls’ Class 6A 110-pound division.

Mack Beggs, an 18-year-old senior from Euless Trinity High School near Dallas, entered the tournament in Cypress outside of Houston with an undefeated record. He beat Chelsea Sanchez — whom he beat for the title in 2017– in the final match Saturday.

Back to Ace for the ironic bit:

Chelsea Sanchez would thus be a two-time female wrestling champ if she had not been forced to compete with someone who is using male hormones. Something she would be banned from the sport if she were found using.

Tough noogies. I do kinda feel sorry for the female wrestler, sure. Doesn’t matter. Liberals are making a better world. All of them, better worlds—whether we like it or not; whether their reckless, lunatic tinkering makes sense or not; even whether they’re actually better worlds or not. Ours not to reason why, people; ours but to take what we’re given, shut the fuck up, and live with it.

So everybody repeat the New Rules after me: gender is fluid, malleable, a matter not of biology but of simple preference. There is no meaningful difference between males and females—physically, mentally, or in any other respect. Traditional gender roles based on common sense and objective reality: BAD. Capricious destruction of them: GOOD, no matter the real damage done to both society and individuals trapped within it. These are but a few of the Rules, and there will be more. Learn ’em, live ’em, love ’em. Or else.

Share

Lennonism

At first glance I thought it was a typo. It’s nothing of the sort.

I have a friend who is a retired public school teacher. She is very likable and in some areas an independent thinker. One day in conversation she brought up the terrible poverty and near-anarchy that prevails just on the other side of America’s southern border. It quickly became clear that she believed America was at fault, that America’s prosperity was somehow the cause of Mexico’s problems. When I asked her what the solution might be, she replied without hesitation that we should get rid of that border, and not stop there but get rid of all borders. Then, she said, people everywhere could live in peace.

If I could capture for you precisely how she said this, you would hear as I did John Lennon’s “Imagine”forming her thoughts:

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace…

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man.

The simplest explanation of what happened to the modern progressive Baby Boomers is that they found for themselves a new national anthem, one they like much better than that old and out-dated one that asked them to be brave if they expected to be free.

In conversations with my progressive friends, I find they see America as the problem. They place their hopes in the world beyond America’s borders. When Kerry said America needed France’s approval to conduct foreign policy, his assertion made perfect sense to Lennonists. When Bill Maher said if half the country wants Trump as president then the United Nations needs to intervene, he spoke for American Lennonists everywhere.

You have to admit that American Lennonism has a certain logic. If America is the problem, then getting rid of America’s borders is an important and even an essential step toward a better world. But if America is not the problem, if America deserves to live, if there are still many Americans who want America to live, then not so much. And if getting rid of America turned out to be a mistake, it would be a mistake impossible to undo.

Oh, I think it’s safe to say those of us who didn’t know that already are now beginning to realize it. Personally, I like to imagine a world with no John Lennon, and his destructive Leftard influence on our world completely undone.

Share

The personal EVERYTHING is political

My, but she really IS the gift that keeps on giving, isn’t she?

On Christmas Day, Representative-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) repeated the old liberal canard that because Jesus was a refugee, attempts to secure the U.S. border and limit illegal immigration are anti-Christmas. While Jesus was a refugee, Christmas has nothing to do with immigration policy. Furthermore, the very baby-killing event Jesus was fleeing has a tragic echo in abortion clinics today.

“Joy to the World! Merry Christmas everyone – here’s to a holiday filled with happiness, family, and love for all people (Including refugee babies in mangers + their parents.),” socialist darling Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

Contrary to another beloved Christianity-hating-liberal shibboleth, Joseph and Mary weren’t homeless, either. But hey, even the birth of Christ isn’t exempt from being used by Progtard scum as a tool to score dishonest political points, I guess. As Warner Todd Huston so pithily puts it: “It all amounts to fake news that is over 2,000 years old.

Share

Reality bites bitten

Wahddya, some kinda science denier or something?

In yet another blatant attack on science, a newly-approved education guideline in the United Kingdom says that all genders can menstruate, not just girls.

The new guidelines from the Neighbourhoods, Inclusion, Communities, and Equalities Committee of the Brighton & Hove City Council advocate a “period positive approach” when talking about menstruation to students, an approach that basically teaches children the exact opposite of what actually happens, according to LifeSiteNews.

The guidelines state that students as young as age eight and nine will be taught “age and development appropriate period education within a planned programme of relationships and sex education.” It also calls for “single gender sessions” when “appropriate and with careful management” while suggesting that inclusive language when referring to “girls and women and others who have periods.”

As noted by LifeSiteNews, the cities of Brighton and Hove have been pushing an extreme transgender agenda for some time now. Back in October, the school released a “Trans Inclusion Schools Toolkit” that compared not calling someone by their preferred pronoun to harassment while calling for “safeguarding procedures” for parents who refuse to endorse their child’s gender identity.

“In 2016, the Brighton & Hove City Council angered parents by sending them a letter telling them to ‘please support your child to choose the gender they most identify with,'” reports the outlet. “The letter went to parents with kids as young as four.”

The new guidelines echo the words spoken by Angela Ponce, the first trans Miss Universe contestant from Spain, who recently said that a woman does not have to have a vagina.

Well, that’s Once Great Britain for ya; thank goodness such an absurd, moronic thing could never happen here…uhh, that is…I mean, well, uhhh…

Oh.

While the Trump administration here in the United States has been fighting the transgender movement by disallowing them from the military and by recognizing gender by a person’s genitalia at birth, teachers still face harsh censoring if they so much as use the wrong pronoun when addressing a trans student.

Just this month, a teacher in Virginia lost his job because he refused to call a transgender student by their preferred pronoun.

Give him a tampon and tell him to stick it wherever he likes. Poor ol’ Alice Cooper must be feeling mighty embattled right about now.




How long before the Badthink Police catch up with this despicable hate-criminal, I wonder?

Share

The price of her soul

Moochelle unmasked, back in 2008.

Barack Obama, I argued, evinces a preternatural sangfroid, for he is in America but not of it, a Third World anthropologist profiling Americans. But his wife’s anger at America will out, for it is a profound rage amplified by guilt.

Mrs Obama averred that she could not recall the contents of the thesis she composed in 1985, but that cannot be quite true, for it is a poignant cry from the heart. It explains her controversial outburst during the campaign to the effect that she felt proud of her country for the first time in her adult life in 2008, after “feeling so alone” in her “frustration” and “disappointment” at America.

Princeton both humiliated her and corrupted her, Michelle Vaughn Robinson complains in an undergraduate prose that is all the more touching for its clumsiness. By condescending to the young black woman from a Chicago working-class family, the liberal university made Michelle feel like an outsider. Worse, by giving her a ticket to financial success, Princeton caused her to feel that she was selling out to the institutions she most despised.

The thesis is poorly written—barely literate, in truth—incoherent, and, as Spengler says, brimming over with anger and self-loathing. The ugly chip on her shoulder against Whitey burdens every awkward paragraph—a crippling resentment she’s just smart enough to be aware of but not smart enough to overcome, and actually prefers to indulge anyway. This is one seriously conflicted, screwed-up female here.

Black students who reject white society, she concluded, understand the desperation of the black lower class, and therefore feel hopeless, whereas assimilated blacks ignore this desperation and therefore are more cheerful. It is hard not to admire the young black woman whose indignation over the predicament of the black lower class bursts out of the bland style of academic sociology, and who throws the condescension of her white liberal professors back in their faces. But that is not what afflicted the future Michelle Obama.

To the young Michelle’s sense of hopelessness about the prospects for the black lower class, Princeton added something even worse, namely guilt over “striving for many of the same goals as my White classmates – acceptance to a prestigious graduate or professional school or a high paying position in a successful corporation”. Despite her black separatist sympathies, Michelle Vaughn Robinson succumbed to the temptations of which she wrote in her thesis and got a law degree from Harvard, earning around $400,000 a year in salary and corporate director fees by 2005.

Her “hopelessness”, “frustration” and “disappointment” remain, exacerbated by guilt over her own success. That is not speculation, but a precis of her own account. One might speculate that the guilt became all the more poignant to the extent her success was unearned. Michelle Obama’s employer, The University of Chicago Hospitals, paid her $121,910, a reasonable sum for the skill level evident in her thesis, but raised this to $316,952 shortly after her husband was elected US senator.

And this straight-up bribe of a salary was compensation for a job so vital, so meaningful and important to the function of the hospital, that when she and her husband moved to the White House they didn’t even bother to replace her. Nice “work” if you can get it.

These internal conflicts help explain Michelle Obama’s erratic behavior. Despite her own financial success, Michelle Obama continues to preach austerity and self-sacrifice to others. Speaking before a working-class audience in Ohio on February 29, she urged her listeners to eschew corporate law or hedge-fund management, which was odd, because most of them did not have a high-school diploma, let alone a university degree:

We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do. Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond…many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management [quoted by Byron York in The National Review Online].

But she did not leave corporate America. She did leave the corporate law firm that hired her out of Harvard Law School, but there is no reason to believe that idealism drove that decision. The major law firms make partners out of a fifth of their new hires, who slave for years for the opportunity. Michelle Obama was not partner material for a top firm. She took more than a year to pass the Illinois Bar Examination, a substandard result, and – as her thesis makes clear – lacked the command of written English required for legal success. Her skills were better suited to the hospital position she eventually filled. Not only did she sell out, but she sold out for mediocre results.

Understandable. She’s a damned mediocrity herself, as is her deplorable husband. The Presidency is probably hers for the taking in 2020; all she has to do is decide she wants it, then reach out her hand to seize it. Then we’ll have eight years of her complaining miserably about how awful being Prez-Mo-Dent is, and a best-selling book about her term in office.

Share

Farewell to Texas

The beginning of the end.

The prospect of a purple and eventually blue Texas thrills progressives who see the Lone Star State as the key to their drive for post-Trump domination. Before draining their champagne glasses and filling their bongs, the coastal crowd should sober up enough to consider what happens if the Texas miracle comes to an end.

Many Republicans, meantime, have come to consider Texas their sovereign territory, a deeply conservative place where even Democrats were generally pro-business and growth was the prevailing religion. This last election ended what remained of that hallucination. In virtually every big metro—the increasingly dominant geography of Texas—the Democrats grabbed control.

In the election for Senate, the uniquely unattractive Ted Cruz lost the 25 largest counties to his challenger, media darling Beto O’Rourke, by a combined 700,000 votes. Only the hard-right remnants of small-town Texas allowed Cruz to claw out a narrow victory. Due in part to slate voting, large counties also turned control over to Democrats, as in Harris County, the home of Houston, which is now led by 27-year-old -progressive Lina Hidalgo, a 27-year-old part-time student with almost no work experience.

Several factors seem to be driving this change, including a growing population shift to large metropolitan areas, a diversifying economy and, most of all, rising migration both from abroad and from the rest of the country. This changing electorate—younger, more ethnically diverse, better educated—has shifted the state’s politics away from a Republican Party operating under the shadow of Donald Trump and his fellow travelers.

Ironically, the arrival of these newcomers is changing the policy environment that created the conditions for this migration.

The rest of America should care if Texas abandons its model. Without it, we will increasingly resemble European countries—like France—where all power and wealth is concentrated in the largest, densest and most established cities, while everyone else is on the outside looking in.

Well, yeah. That’s the plan. It’s exactly what they want, it’s the whole idea—and not just for Texas, either.

And the country will have lost its premier safety valve for young people and families priced out of the coasts.

Tough shit for them; since they’ll be the ones who caused it by insisting on the exact same policies that ruined the places they migrated from, well, let’s just say my sympathy is VERY damned limited. Let ’em enjoy the fruits of their stupidity, and to hell with ’em.

The new Texans might not like Ted Cruz (who does?) but one wonders if they would welcome a policy regime like that in California, where the middle and working classes are confronted with an ever more feudalized reality.

Of course they would, and will. When have they not? In fact, as the rest of the article makes clear, they’re doing it already.

America can endure, and even thrive, with a New York or a California to service the rich and employ their servants. But it also needs a place for upward mobility and the chance to buy a house. If Texas stops providing that, we may be running out of dynamic states where the less than affluent can achieve their aspirations. America needs a Texas that is still Texas, not a big, flat, dry place trying and failing to impersonate San Francisco.

Sorry, but with the incoming plague of liberal locusts swarming in to eat out Texas’s substance and demand a rerun of the same wetbrained Progressivist folly that turned San Francisco into a literal shithole, that’s exactly what we’re going to have.

“America needs a Texas that is still Texas”? Maybe so. But much more than that, America needs an America that’s still America. Unfortunately, that just ain’t on the menu.

Share

Down the rabbit hole we go!

Sure, why the hell not.

Liberal political website Vox is getting accused of jumping the shark after publishing an appeal to “fix the Constitution ASAP” so that 29-year-old incoming Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can run for president – claiming “there’s no time like the present to start working to abolish arbitrary qualifications.”

Wednesday’s lengthy piece, “It’s ridiculous that it’s unconstitutional for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for president,” declared that everyone from immigrants to recent college grads should be eligible.

Vox co-founder and senior correspondent Matthew Yglesias wrote that “phenomenon” Ocasio-Cortez “is the biggest star in the Democratic Party,” and therefore it is “completely ridiculous” that the Constitution makes anyone under the age of 35 ineligible to run for president of the United States.

And hey, who else knows “completely ridiculous” like Yglesias? He understands it from the inside—he really gets it, viscerally, in his very bones. The Constitution and the reasoning behind it—ehhh, not so much. But here comes the remarkable part:

“There’s nothing wrong with old people per se, but essentially everyone has lost a step or two both mentally and physically by their mid-70s,” Yglesias wrote. “The really awful thing about being old is that you just keep getting older over time.”

Well, DAMN. He’s actually right about something, after all these years. I did NOT see that coming. Nor this:

Even Ocasio-Cortez pushed back on the premise: “How about…no,” she wrote. “Sometimes political media is too fixated on personalities instead of policies. The whole country JUST went through an exhausting midterm election. We need a break.”

Holy crap! Yglesias and Occasional-Cortex, BOTH right about something? On the same damned day? What the heck is next, raining frogs? Rivers running backwards? Dogs and cats, living together? Falling up?

You just keep getting older over time. Like, wow, dude. Liberal profundity, at its most shallow. Sheesh.

Share

A REALLY inconvenient truth

Hoft nicely takes down noted huckster, liar, and con artist Albert “Chicken (not so) Little” AlGore.

TEN YEARS AGO TODAY.

On December 13, 2008, junk scientist Al Gore predicted the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely ice free in five years.

Gore made the prediction to a German audience on December 13, 2008. Al warned them that “the entire North ‘polarized’ cap will disappear in 5 years.”

This wasn’t the only time Al Gore made his ice-free prediction. Gore had been predicting dire scenario since 2007. That means that the North Pole should have melted completely five years ago today.

He’s a one-trick pony who’s never once been right about anything—at all, ever. More from the Blaze on this fat fraud’s inept ongoing swindle:

1. Sea Levels Are Rising At An Alarming Rate
In his movie Gore predicted that sea levels could rise six meters (20 feet) with the melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

Now, we know that the South Pole is gaining more ice than it’s losing. Also a great amount of the losing is due to underground heat. As for Greenland, its melting cycle doesn’t seem to have changed much. In fact, it seems to be quite regular. And sea level has been increasing… at a steady level since we started recording them.

But if the rising sea level is so catastrophic, why has Gore bought a beachfront mansion?

2. CO2 Is The Control Knob For Temperature
Like most climate cultists, Al Gore firmly believes that carbon dioxide – what you are exhaling – is what controls temperature. And climate models have constantly reflected that reality.

Unfortunately, “it’s the sun, stupid” to paraphrase Bill Clinton. Indeed satellite data show no increase in temperature for nearly 19 years despite a constant increase in CO2. The Sun, on the other hand, might have a much larger role in the Earth’s climate. So much that some scientists are talking about a significant cooling because the Sun is “quieter.”

That’s two of only eight, a small sampling of a much larger aggregation of error, but t’will suffice to take the air out of this gasbag. Time and past time for the propagandizing putz to dry up and blow away, or at least go and find useful work after a professional-politician lifetime of enriching himself on the taxpayer teat.

Share

Lost and floundering

Without a single original idea left to them.

We’ve seen this movie before. In fact, we’ve seen all ten of them in some form.

The top-ten, box-office blockbusters of 2018 consist entirely of remakes, sequels, and films based on old comic book characters. Black Panther, Avengers: Infinity War, Incredibles 2, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, Deadpool 2, Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch, Mission Impossible—Fallout, Antman and the Wasp, Solo: A Star Wars Story, and Venom constitute the top ten box office hits of 2018.

Waitwaitwaitwait just a damn minute; they remade that godawful Jim Carry Grinch remake? REALLY?

For God’s sake, WHY?!?

Jeez. A remake of a remake, the first one itself no better than a schoolyard taunt—a piffling, tawdry desecration of a bona-fide classic, with less true art involved than one finds in your average shoehorn. FAR less. Then, having artistically if maybe not commercially (who knows, who cares) shit the bed with that first travesty, the takeaway lesson for them was…hey, let’s do it AGAIN! The mind boggles.

But what the hell. Not giving a drizzling blood-streaked shit about comic book franchise films and endless Too Fast Too Furious spinoffs, it’s been a very long time indeed since Hollywood made anything I’d even momentarily consider bothering to see. Then again, I ain’t their target audience anymore, so I’m sure they figure to hell with me. To which I can only say: right back atcha, Slick.

I DO like the idea of creative geniuses like Elia Kazan, Billy Wilder, Hitchcock, John Huston, Howard Hawks, and even more contemporary colossi of the industry like Spielberg, Coppola, Scorcese, and others being horrified and disgusted at the complete dearth of creativity and originality in today’s Hollywood. As in so many other areas of American life these days, the spectacle of midgets clambering up onto the shoulders of giants and crowing like the scrawny, impotent little roosters they are can be sort of amusing in some small way. Certainly more so than the movies they’re incompetently aping, anyway.

Share

Will no one rid me of this troublesome douchebag?

Please, somebody, make it stop!

Former President Barack Obama said he was “extraordinarily proud of the Paris accords” before, rather ironically, taking credit for booming U.S. oil and gas production.

“I was extraordinarily proud of the Paris accords because — you know, I know we’re in oil country and we need American energy, and by the way, American energy production,” Obama said at an event hosted by Rice University’s Baker Institute on Tuesday night.

“You wouldn’t always know it but it went up every year I was president,” Obama said of U.S. oil and gas production. “That whole, suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas — that was me, people.”

Words fail me. Other than to observe that, without a doubt, this twerp is swinging the biggest, brassiest pair in all of human history.

Share

“Seriously problematic”?

Rudolph? Seriously? Is there nothing the PC/Left killjoys won’t happily ruin for sane people?

First they came for “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, and I did nothing because I was too busy watching her put some records on while I pour.

Then they came for “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”. Following my appearance with Tucker on Thursday, mein host spoke to Dave Rubin about the usual tosspots taking umbrage over “Rudolph” because it’s “seriously problematic”. As Dave said, it’s easier to destroy than to create. But the quivering pearl-clutching cries of “Seriously problematic!” suggest even destruction requires a creativity of which our moribund age is increasingly incapable.

My general line on “Rudolph” comes from a Life magazine editorial in 1950: “They discriminated against Rudolph for not being just like every other reindeer in the herd. They drew the color line against his nose.” But the editors also correctly noted why the little fellow was so effective in rising above the deeply ingrained erubescophobia. “The run-of-the-sled reindeer began shouting his praises, not because they really loved Rudolph, but because Rudolph was suddenly a Big Shot.”

No doubt the red-nosed reindeer, heading the A-list on the sleigh list, knows Prancer and Comet don’t really love him, but why should he care? He’s learned a quintessentially American lesson: don’t get deep and crisp, get even.

Steyn links to the backstory, and yep, sure enough they’re talking about one of my absolute favorite Christmas perennials from my childhood:

HuffPost, a liberal news site, was lampooned after saying Christmas classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” was “seriously problematic” over claims that it features sexism and bullying.

“Viewers are noticing the tale may not be so jolly after all,” the outlet’s video said. “And they’re sharing their observations online.”

“Yearly reminder that #Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a parable on racism & homophobia w/Santa as a bigoted exploitative prick,” read one comment shared by HuffPost. “Santa’s operation is an HR nightmare and in serious need of diversity and inclusion training. #Rudolph,” read another.

Oh for fuck’s fucking sake. Burn in motherfucking Hell for a thousand years, you fucking obnoxious prigs. Thankfully, though, at least some of us still retain a lick of fucking sense:

But HuffPost’s effort to highlight the perceived bigotry of the beloved movie attracted tens of thousands of negative comments, most of them mocking the video.

“Oh look! Something people like and enjoy; let’s go ruin it!” tweeted Rebeccah Heinrichs.“If you try hard enough you can find offence in almost anything,” Chloe Westley seconded.

Even President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. weighed in on the topic, tweeting “Liberalism is a disease.”

It damned sure is. A mental disease, crippling and debilitating, horrifically contagious but not fatal. Which is too bad; it means the rest have to go on putting up with mental malfunction like this from these logorrheic freaks, more and more of it each and every year.

If you enjoy the Rudolph special as much as I do, might be a good idea to go ahead and buy the DVD while you still can; they probably won’t be airing it very many more years, I’d bet. It’ll just quietly slip away from us under liberal pressure, like so many other good and enjoyable things already have.

They won’t stop—not ever, they won’t. Not, at least, until each and every one of us is as hopelessly miserable as they are. Maybe not even then.

Share

The greatest orator since Cicero!

No class, no integrity, no decency, no clue.

Barack Obama trashed President Trump on Monday night while speaking about ways to mobilize Americans to bring about social change at an Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago.

Arrogant Obama accused President Trump of ignoring the climate change hoax because he’s a racist with mommy issues.

“The reason we don’t” invest in climate change policies, Obama said, “is because we are still confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism…mommy issues.”

The audience of drones laughed after Obama trashed Trump.

Obama stuttered as he continued to talk about himself and even bragged about being called “Spock.”

“I mean, we — we are we are fraught with stuff and — and so if that’s the case then the single most important thing that we have to invest in is not all–and look I’m a huge supporter of science and technological research and social science and, you know, evidence-based learning and all that good stuff. I’m — I’m — people call me Spock for a reason, I believe in reason and logic and all these enlightenment values, but the thing that really we have to invest in is people. We got to get people to figure out how they work together — in a — you know, how do we get people to work together in a cooperative, thoughtful, constructive way.”

Can anyone make any sense at all of the world-salad this stuttering moron just barfed up?

“People call me Spock for a reason”? Gotta be the ears. Or maybe the winning, likeable personality, I’m guessing. It ain’t the logic, the intelligence, or the overall competence, that’s for damned sure and certain.

Dry up and blow away already, you flaccid, stunted prick. When we want any more shit from you, we’ll squeeze your oblated head.

Share

AntiFa at it again

Another day, another violent riot.

A planned rally by conservative groups to show support for ICE and police officers was met with hundreds of black-clad, masked Antifa thugs on Saturday near the Independence Visitor Center on 5th and 6th streets.

According to reports, about 80 conservatives showed up to the rally compared to the hundreds of Antifa thugs who showed up to counter-protest (cause trouble).

According to the police commissioner, 4 people were arrested; one person punched a police captain.


Pro tip: if you’re violently suppressing the right to free speech and peaceable assembly, YOU’RE THE FUCKING NAZI.

Share

More futile post-mort

The people have spoken, and now they must be punished.

Arizona’s Senate race was perhaps the most surprising, and disturbing, midterm result for Republicans and Trump fans. Many struggle to understand how Barry Goldwater’s home state will send a former pink tutu-wearing antiwar activist to Washington. The answer is instructive regarding what Trump Republicanism must do to build a majority.

The biggest reason Martha McSally lost is the same reason Republicans lost control of the House: RINOs. Across the nation, moderate college-educated independents who had frequently backed Republicans in prior elections switched sides. We can see this trend both in the Arizona exit polls and the results reported to date.

Support for Republicans has collapsed since 2012 among college-educated Arizonans when Mitt Romney cruised to a 54-44 win over Barack Obama, crushing him by a63-36 percent margin among college graduates. This year, while Republican Governor Doug Ducey even more easily won victory by a 56-42 margin, he barely carried college grads with only a 51-46 margin. McSally ran against a much tougher opponent in Kyrsten Sinema and ended up losing college grads by a 52-47 margin. Since college grads cast nearly one-quarter of the state’s votes, that 10-point swing added nearly 2.5 percent to Sinema’s margin. Since her lead is currently below two percent, this was the difference between victory and defeat.

Oh come now: Sinema, a “tough opponent”? The über-liberal candidate who contemptuously sneered that the state she represents was “the meth lab of democracy,” who called stay-at-home moms “leeches,” who said that Arizonans were “crazy”?

And yet.

And yet she WAS a tough opponent, as it turned out, because after a short round of the usual Democrat Socialist ballot-diddling, rigging, and fixing, she emerged victorious.

Arizonans, it would seem, ARE crazy—after sending the odious John McCain back to Mordor On The Potomac again and again and again, then sending the perhaps-more-repugnant airhead Jeff Flake off to replace him, then putting the cherry on top of the shit-sundae by allowing the Sinema-McSally contest to wind up within the margin of fraud, what else could they possibly be called?

Then again, in a sane country, there wouldn’t even be a Democrat Socialist Party to begin with—not one like the commie cavalcade of freaks, frauds, whiners, liars, and degenerates we’re afflicted with now, there wouldn’t.

Share

“Catastrophe”

And coverup.

In 2013, hundreds of CIA officers — many working nonstop for weeks — scrambled to contain a disaster of global proportions: a compromise of the agency’s internet-based covert communications system used to interact with its informants in dark corners around the world. Teams of CIA experts worked feverishly to take down and reconfigure the websites secretly used for these communications; others managed operations to quickly spirit assets to safety and oversaw other forms of triage.

“When this was going on, it was all that mattered,” said one former intelligence community official. The situation was “catastrophic,” said another former senior intelligence official.

From around 2009 to 2013, the U.S. intelligence community experienced crippling intelligence failures related to the secret internet-based communications system, a key means for remote messaging between CIA officers and their sources on the ground worldwide. The previously unreported global problem originated in Iran and spiderwebbed to other countries, and was left unrepaired — despite warnings about what was happening — until more than two dozen sources died in China in 2011 and 2012 as a result, according to 11 former intelligence and national security officials.

The disaster ensnared every corner of the national security bureaucracy — from multiple intelligence agencies, congressional intelligence committees and independent contractors to internal government watchdogs — forcing a slow-moving, complex government machine to grapple with the deadly dangers of emerging technologies.

More than just a question of a single failure, the fiasco illustrates a breakdown that was never properly addressed. The government’s inability to address the communication system’s insecurities until after sources were rolled up in China was disastrous. “We’re still dealing with the fallout,” said one former national security official. “Dozens of people around the world were killed because of this.”

Now guess on whose watch this disastrous fiasco occurred. Go on, guess.

This is simply stunning. A rollup of networks across the world — an event that began in Iran, where the Obama administration would soon enough be negotiating its much sought-after “nuclear deal framework,” and ended with numerous deaths is the kind of thing of which intelligence nightmares and national-security disasters are made. One’s first instinct is to look back and see who was CIA director during that period: Leon Panetta (Feb. 2009-June 2011); Michael Morell (acting director, July-Sept. 2011); David Petraeus (Sept. 2011-Nov. 2012); Morell again (acting, Nov. 2012-March 2013); and finally John Brennan, who served out the remainder of the Obama administration.

In other words, a lot of churn during what we now know was a tumultuous time. Oddly enough, one important national-security position experienced exactly zero churn during these years, that of Homeland Security adviser. Which chair was occupied by John Brennan, until he stepped in at the CIA.

I emphasized the incompetent asshole Brennan above, just because. But it can’t fairly be said that the buck stopped with him; it went much higher than that, of course.

The fact is, networks get rolled up all the time, especially when the controlling agency becomes complacent, or goes to the well once too often. Communication methods must always be reassessed — especially when they seem to be working — and changed. But the Obama administration’s cavalier attitude toward security basics is nonetheless shocking, and evidence of the rank amateurism with which the Obamanauts approached foreign policy and national security.

Gee, imagine my surprise. Walsh also notes that the story finally surfaced on Nov 2, and sarcastically wonders why it “got mighty little attention from the national media.” He knows quite well, and so do you.

Share

The pluperfect Democrat

You’ll never find a more stellar example.

The suspect in the vandalism of a New York synagogue was a Democratic activist and former City Hall intern who worked on anti-hate crime issues, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

He is a “queer” black man informally adopted by a Jewish couple, and The New York Times’ charity, the Neediest Cases, helped pay for him to go to college where his focus was African American studies, according to a 2017 New York Times profile.

A political event with two Democratic candidates at the Union Temple of Brooklyn was canceled Friday after attendees found graffiti saying “Die Jew Rats” and “Hitler,” which one of the candidates said highlighted the need to vote out “hate.” Police arrested 26-year old James Polite later that night based on surveillance footage.

A year ago, The New York Times profiled Polite, noting that he was an LGBT foster youth who “could defy the statistics” after becoming the “adopted child of the Quinn administration,” as Christine Quinn, then the speaker of the New York city council, put it. “And it wasn’t just me. It was the entire City Council staff.”

In the 2017 profile, The New York Times said Polite, who requested to join the foster care system after his mother provided “unsanitary” conditions for him, “interned with Ms. Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat, for several years, working on initiatives to combat hate crime, sexual assault and domestic violence. He also took part in her re-election campaign in 2009 and returned to help with her unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2013.”

His Facebook profile, reviewed by TheDCNF, shows that on Nov. 1, a day before the synagogue vandalism, he posted “A dream with eyes wide open. civil war is here. Nobody gotta die. Mexico, latin America, carribean vs. Jew nigger pigs. One person touch me this whole shit a smoking.”

The Facebook profile’s pictures and biographical information reveal that it is the same man in The New York Times’ profile. Its URL includes James Polite, but he changed his online name to Abraham Aali.

SO: LGBTQRXTUVRYLXXXXBLRGH. Mentally unbalanced. Racial minority. Barely literate. An over-entitled ingrate eager to bite the hand that fed him. Filled with rage and hate. Possible convert to Islam. Prone to violence. A government employee. Completely deranged. Unshakably convinced of his own righteousness and innate superiority. A moron. Yep, he checks all the Democrat-Socialist boxes sure enough. They ought to run him for President in 2020, seems to me. I mean, who else they got, Creepy Joe Biden?

Share

“Can’t you see that this is something that is not really up for debate?”

This guy says he’s a “progressive,” but I have to say I have my doubts.

Recently, I arrived at a moment of introspection about a curious aspect of my own behavior. When I disagree with a conservative friend or colleague on some political issue, I have no fear of speaking my mind. I talk, they listen, they respond, I talk some more, and at the end of it we get along just as we always have. But I’ve discovered that when a progressive friend says something with which I disagree or that I know to be incorrect, I’m hesitant to point it out. This hesitancy is a consequence of the different treatment one tends to receive from those on the Right and Left when expressing a difference of opinion. I am not, as it turns out, the only one who has noticed this.

“That’s a stupid fucking question,” answered a Socialist Alliance activist when I asked sincerely where they were getting what sounded like inflated poverty statistics. “If you don’t believe in gay marriage or gun control, unfriend me,” demand multiple Facebook statuses from those I know. “That’s gross and racist!” spluttered a red-faced Ben Affleck when the atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris criticized Islamic doctrines on Bill Maher’s Real Time. Nobody blinks an eye when Harris criticizes Christianity, least of all Affleck, who starred in Kevin Smith’s irreverent religious satire Dogma. But Christians are not held to be a sacrosanct and protected minority on the political Left.

So how and why have these activists become so intolerant and horrible to deal with? Part of this hostility can be explained by a wilful ignorance and incuriosity about ideas with which they disagree. Every so often, a progressive friend will peruse my bookshelf in a thought-police sort of fashion. What happens next is fairly predictable. Once they realize that Malinowski’s Melanesian epic The Sexual Life of Savages doesn’t include any erotic pictures, they will turn their attention to the Ayn Rand collection. “Why do you have these?” they ask with an air of indignation, holding up a copy of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. “Have you ever read her?” I will ask. “No,” they reliably respond.

Hm. Doesn’t believe in gay marriage or gun control. Reads Ayn Rand. Would seem to have at least some sympathy for the Christians relentlessly persecuted by the Left. Looking back over the piece again, I realize that he never actually says he’s a liberal or “progressive” at all, contrary to my opening assertion; it’s just an impression I somehow came up with on my own, and I would seem to have been in error. Oh well. If I inadvertently slandered the guy unjustly, I hereby offer my humble apologies. No one who isn’t one would want to be called a Progressivist, that’s for sure.

Be all that as it may, he makes a whole slew of most excellent points throughout—such as this one:

According to these academics and others like them, not only should people be punished for not conforming to the new politically correct consensus, but conservative opinions opposing punishment for non-conformity should also be punished. A 2012 study, conducted by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers and published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, found that progressive faculty openly admit to discriminating against the conservative minority when it comes to job promotions and grant applications.

Given the current environment, conservatives would be advised to simply abandon academia if they know what’s good for them. On the other hand, it is a problem when a student goes through university where each and every course is taught by a left-leaning professor. For conservative students, the toxic and hostile university environment needn’t cripple their intellectual development. These students arrive at university with conservative ideas and will naturally seek out and read conservative authors in their own time to balance out the latest application of progressive doctrine to which they are subjected in class. The most ambitious will be familiar with both Rand and Marx, Keynes and Hayek, Galbraith and Friedman, Krugman and Sowell, Picketty and Peterson. But we ought to worry about the progressive student who arrives with progressive ideas, and is then showered in class with more of the same and reinforces them in their own time. Such students live in a much smaller cultural universe than the cosmopolitan intellectual world through which the conservative will be made to travel. This isn’t to deny that bigoted reactionaries on the opposite side of the spectrum also inhabit a tiny intellectual space. But that does not excuse the closing of the mind at a university.

Nothing can; intellectual curiosity and flexibility are the very heart and soul of a properly-functioning institution of higher learning. Unfortunately, that isn’t what our universities now are, and that isn’t by accident, either.

This article, of which you will want to read the all, is a deep and thoughtful one and covers a lot of ground. For me the big takeaway is probably this, most especially the part I put in boldface:

In his remarkable book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, Haidt recalls a telling experiment. He and his colleagues Brian Nosek and Jesse Graham sought to discover how well conservative and what Haidt terms ‘liberal’ (ie: progressive) students understood one another by having them answer moral questions as they thought their political opponents would answer them. “The results were clear and consistent,” remarks Haidt. “In all analyses, conservatives were more accurate than liberals.” Asked to think the way a liberal thinks, conservatives answered moral questions just as the liberal would answer them, but liberal students were unable to do the reverse. Rather, they seemed to put moral ideas into the mouths of conservatives that they don’t hold. To put it bluntly, Haidt and his colleagues found that progressives don’t understand conservatives the way conservatives understand progressives. This he calls the ‘conservative advantage,’ and it goes a long way in explaining the different ways each side deals with opinions unlike their own. People get angry at what they don’t understand, and an all-progressive education ensures that they don’t understand.

Indeed they don’t; they don’t understand much of anything, nor do they wish to, nor can they even conceive of any necessity for it. Neither do they consider such blockheaded, smug arrogance any kind of failing or flaw—something not to be proud of, but corrected. There’s no longer any reasoning, discussion, or honest debate to be had with them; the intellectual wall is complete, and cannot be breached or scaled.

They must be crushed. It’s almost certainly going to be bloody. And that’s all on them.

(Via Insty)

Share

Real deal

Careful what you wish for, libtards.

If lived experience is indeed the be-all-end-all that the identarian left considers it to be, there is one area where my lived experience without a doubt shit all over the lived experience of the woke folk. Unlike all those among them who have been born and/or raised in the West and have zero or almost zero experience of living under anything other than a liberal democratic government (which is 99 per cent of them at least), I have lived the first 15 years of my life under the Soviet block-style communism, or “real socialism” as the Party used to call it. I’m not going to pretend that the 1970s and the 80s in Poland were as bloody and traumatic as the Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China or Pol Pot’s Cambodia (as P J O’Rourke who visited Warsaw at that time noted, the communism for most part doesn’t kill you any more, it just bores you to death) but I do know a difference or twenty-two between a totalitarian or authoritarian society and a Western democracy.

So to all the women dressing up in costumes from “Handmaid’s Tale” who think they’re on the brink of living in a misogynist theocracy,

To all those calling themselves “The Resistance”, as if they were the French Maquis or the Polish Home Army shooting collaborators and derailing trains after their country has been brutally occupied by a totalitarian foreign power,

To those who think that America is currently in a grip of fascism and are calling on the military to stage a coup to remove the President (that’s you Rosie O’Donnell, Sarah Silverman, Congressman Steve Cohen and others),

To the celebrities and commentators, from Michael Moore to former security officials like John Brennan, who think the United States is on the brink of dictatorship,

To all those who have compared Trump to Hitler,

(And a special mention of those who really should know better – professional historians of the German and the Russian totalitarianism, like Timothy “Bloodlands” Snyder and Charles “Ordinary Men” Browning, who have been only too happy to – without quite comparing Trump to Hitler – talk about illiberal democracy, authoritarian leadership, and draw parallels between the 1930s Europe and the 2010s America),

you really have no idea, and I mean it with the greatest possible respect. Actually, I don’t. Most of you are supposedly mature, rational adults but you seem to have at best the most superficial knowledge of history and a complete lack of self-awareness, any sense of perspective, and an ability to contextualise. Having spent your lives relatively free of hardship, deprivation and persecution on any remotely comparable scale to people in other, less fortunate corners of the world, you probably get some frisson from believing yourself to be big actors at a critical time in history, the last line of separating civilisation from the descent into new dark ages. You’re free to engage in whatever ideological cosplay you want, but don’t expect others to take you seriously.

You can pick up any of the thousands of books written about life under a dictatorship and read all about it, or you can watch a doco or listen to a podcast, but clearly you couldn’t be bothered to do so thus far in your life, so I’m going to give you potted version of how a real tyranny (it does not particularly matter whether communist or fascist as they are quite similar in practice, which is of course another thing you don’t want to hear, but that’s tough – they certainly have far more in common with each other than with a free society) works and what the world in which I was growing up looked like.

And then he does, chapter and verse. Not that the idiots will listen to him anymore than they have the thousands of other escapees from communist tyranny who have tried to educate them over the years.

Now tell me how your life today in the United States or Australia or Great Britain is at all similar to life under the state oppression. Please. Anything that even remotely compares to what I have described.

If anything, all the recent attempts to police speech and dictate the correct ways of thinking, whether on the initiative of the state or by private businesses and non-government groups, are inspired by the left, i.e. pretty much the same section of the politically-aware society which is complaining about the descending fascism. This is why I get so agitated about issues like freedom of speech; it’s not just theoretical to me – it reminds me too much of my childhood. When my family escaped to the West it was precisely to leave these things behind not to discover them under a different guise amidst the supposed liberal democracy.

So, dear Resistance, excuse me while my lived experience under the actual dictatorship leaves me cold when listening to and looking at your hysterics and public exhibitions of ignorance and ideological blindness. Your generally white, coddled, middle class progressive privilege it’s showing, and it’s not a pretty sight.

No, it is not. Tantrums by spoiled, obnoxious little brats almost never are.

(Via VP)

Share

Reality bites

And bites hard.

All things must end, even crazy things, and for the Left that day has now arrived. With the sensible electorate nearing the end of its rope during the last elections, Trump’s win  was born of desperation—something the dwindling ranks of the #NeverTrumpumpkins to this day cannot understand. Michael Anton’s famous “The Flight 93 Election” essay resonated both on an intellectual and visceral level; the vast majority of normal Americans may never have read it, but in their hearts, they knew he was right: “Charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.”

And now the Left knows it, too; hence their inchoate rage. For leftists are not so much reacting to the gleeful rejection of their crackpot policies as they are to their own realization that their policies were, in fact, lunacy. Men are not women. Inaction is not action. History does not unfold in an “arc” that bends toward their definition of justice. Up is not down. Black is not white. Cultural traditions are not arbitrary impositions from authority, but the residue of millennia of experience. In short, definitions matter—names matter—and truth follows.

Which is to say: just because some might call a man a “woman,” or a woman a “man,” doesn’t make it so. This infuriates those for whom the power of the transgressive fantasy is more potent and palatable than reality. But when the gap between what the Left believes to be true and what actually is true become unbridgeable—even by their febrile minds and hyperactive imaginations, and fueled by their satanic rage against the natural order of things—then they cannot help but tumble into the pit.

What’s happening right now is the counterrevolution—not of conservatives, or Republicans, or Trump, but of nature, which always reasserts itself, sometimes in very unpleasant but nonetheless instructive ways. The Greeks called the defiance of the gods and the natural order hubris,which inevitably sent folks like Icarus plunging to their doom. That screeching you hear is not the Left venting its anger at the heavens; it’s the sound of the sheer terror that now possesses them as they plummet to their doom—realizing, too late, that all along they have been dead wrong.

Oh, I dunno about all that, Mike; methinks you’re giving them way too much credit. Just because, as I always say, their argument isn’t with us but with reality, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they aren’t crazy enough to stubbornly persist in thinking they can win it anyway.

Share

Different worlds

The real world versus…that other thing.

Their racism, sexism, and other -isms and -phobias are all so stupid that you can’t help but point at their prejudices and laugh, which really sets Shoveling Bull on the warpath because to her and her elite pals, it’s all so very, very serious.

They actually believe this bigoted garbage. And they hate us because we don’t. And they really hate us when we laugh at them.

But how are we supposed to react? Are we supposed to take them seriously? Nah. We look at people for who they are. Some guy used to call our criteria for evaluating others “the content of their character,” but our alleged betters now dismiss that crazy talk as the ravings of some Christian kook mansplaining away his privilege. We live in the real world, where this nuttiness doesn’t fly, as opposed to an elite that lives in the institutional nuthouses of academia, the media, and the Democrat Party where this nonsense is their secular religion. With them, it’s a constant struggle of the unoppressed oppressed bickering over the spoils of victimhood.

Think about your life as a Normal. You’re always interacting with people of all races, ethnicities, orientations, and creeds. And statistically, you deal with people more Indian than Elizabeth Warren every day, which isn’t hard since statistically pretty much everyone is more Indian than Elizabeth Warren. Hell, my wife – a Cuban immigrant – did one of those DNA tests and she’s more Indian than Elizabeth Warren. Really.

We’re too busy to care about immutable characteristics, and even if we weren’t we wouldn’t do it because we think caring about that stuff is stupid. Our elite, on the other hand, appears to have nothing better to do than obsess about who fits in what category. Why? Well, our elite’s track record over recent decades is pretty much an unbroken series of failures and fiascos. Since they can’t actually do anything, they really have little else to distinguish themselves with besides their membership (or fake membership) in some oppressed group.

It used to be “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” Now, it’s “Those who can, do; those who can’t teach oppression studies down at the university and dress up like handmaids to protest due process.”

Yet, these are the people who think they should be ruling over us. They think we’re the mindless idiots, and they can’t even see past someone’s skin tone. Pathetic.

Actually, for the more cunning of them it’s not so much that they think we’re mindless idiots as it is that they need us to be mindless idiots, and are frightened half to death that we might not be. And that, in turn, is why they hate us: they have this nice little ideological pigeonhole all prepared for us to be shoved into, and damned if we don’t keep spoiling The Plan by refusing to fit into it.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix