Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Live by the sword

Women hoist on their own petard.

A biological man who identifies as a female won a women’s world championship cycling event in California, sparking debate over how transgender athletes should be judged in sporting events.

Rachel McKinnon, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, took home the gold medal in the women’s 35-39 age bracket at the 2018 UCI Masters Track Cycling World Championships in Los Angeles.

“First transgender woman world champion…ever,” McKinnon posted on social media soon after the race.

While some applaud McKinnon’s success, not everyone is happy. Some argue it’s unfair for a man to be allowed to compete in a women’s sporting event because male bodies are fundamentally different than female bodies.

No. No, they are NOT. We are EQUAL, in every single way. Anything a man can do, a woman can do just as well. Period. Them’s the rules now, and if we Normals have to live by them, so does everyone else.

Third-place winner Wagner was one of the many people who voiced their outrage on Twitter.

“I was the 3rd place rider. It’s definitely NOT fair,” she said in response to a tweet by controversial commentator Katie Hopkins.

If he says he’s a woman, then he’s a woman. If he says he’s black, he is. If he says he’s a Cherokee, ditto. Deal.

Meanwhile, others came to McKinnon’s defense, calling the win a major accomplishment for transgender athletes.

The race’s second-place winner applauded McKinnon, and urged athletes who don’t think it’s fair to compete against the opposite sex to either deal with it, or not compete at all.

“I totally disagree. No one is a transgender to steal anyone’s medal. We had an honest race under UCI rules. If you compete you accept the rules, otherwise, don’t compete. I can only imagine what she had to go through in her life to be where she is now, how hard it is to fit in,” Carolien Van Herrikhuy tweeted.

See? Miss Also-Ran here truly gets it. It’s no longer about athletic excellence, skill, or honest and fair competition with a clear winner atop a hierarchy of other competitors who didn’t quite make the grade. It’s not about cream rising to the top, about the just reward of hard work and sacrifice on a reasonably level playing field, about losing with grace and dignity and a determination to do better next time around. It’s now about FEELINGS—about indulging a mentally ill person’s delusional fantasy in the name of political correctness. Now go home with your little participation trophy and shut up, H8TR.

McKinnon believes he had no biological advantage over his female competitors. He said he had to suppress his testosterone levels to “unhealthily low” levels to compete.

Umm…you’re not ALREADY doing that? And what on earth, pray tell, does “healthy” have to do with ANY of this?

“This is what the double-bind for trans women athletes looks like: when we win, it’s because we’re transgender and it’s unfair; when we lose, no one notices (and it’s because we’re just not that good anyway). Even when it’s the SAME racer. That’s what transphobia looks like,” the professor said.

“Transphobia.” I’m not sure how it is that these sad, sick people have so thoroughly convinced themselves that the rest of us are obssessed with them to the point that we’re actually “phobic” about them, but I would like to sincerely assure this guy that it is NOT the case. Trust me, the only time most of us think about you at all is when you’re trying to render plain and simple language meaningless, bend biology to suit your own narrow agenda, and force the rest of us to pretend that you’re something you’re not.

Those things, yeah, we might get a little annoyed about, although I’d still bet that most of us are just wishing you’d dry up and blow away already. But even then, we’re not annoyed because of what you are (or think you are); we’re annoyed because of what you’re doing: ramming your pathology down our throats, and demanding we redefine dysfunction as “normal.” Because reasons.

Share

Worse? Worse than WHAT?!?

He’s right. Incomprehensible though it may seem, he’s right.

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation was more than attempted character assassination, it was the liberals’ warning shot. Intended to be lethal, it also signaled the next one will be worse. No group is more dependent on the Supreme Court’s power than America’s left and they will stop at nothing to prevent losing further ground there.

The left’s anti-Kavanaugh strategy was clear. An accretion of accusations, rolled out to roil the press, was meant to sink a nomination they could not outright defeat. Timed to coincide with the calendar’s closing and punctuated by increasing demands, it was meant to bleed the nomination to death, not down it with a single blow.

That liberals’ orchestrated effort took both Congress and Court to new lows was not their concern. Their one and only goal was in not seeing the Supreme Court move any more to the right. Yet, the left’s effort also served notice: If they have their way, the process will only get worse.

That such an effort would be expended on this pick may seem surprising. After all, Kavanaugh was replacing Kennedy, another Republican nominee who often voted with conservatives. Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Court would not so much quantitatively change its 5-4 conservative majority, as it would qualitatively change it.

Looking ahead, the left’s reasoning becomes clearer, though. The Court’s next two oldest justices are liberals Ginsburg and Breyer. At 85 and 80 respectively, they are 15 and 10 years older than the next oldest justice, the conservative Thomas.

Liberals could easily see the Court move quantitatively to the right quite a bit — potentially going to a 7-2 conservative majority — before having an obvious chance to swing it back to the left.

Looking backward, liberals’ fear is understandable. America’s left have a long history of dependence on the Supreme Court. The Court has been the primary means of advancing their political agenda for decades. Unsurprisingly, they have a sentimental attachment to the Court.

The Court’s lack of dependence on a political majority has been crucial to liberals, America’s smallest ideology. Lacking the thick edge of the political wedge, America’s left have sought the thin one of the Court to advance issues for which they could never have constructed a public majority.

Of course, nobody ever went far wrong expecting more and worse from the Left. But they seem to have found another tack to take now that the Court is slipping from their grasp:

In 2016, Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet urged liberal judges and justices to abandon “defensive-crouch liberalism” and remake legal precedent in their image. Two years later, he told Vox it’s time to “abolish” the Supreme Court by reversing the idea of judicial review — giving the Supreme Court a say on whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Do you think we’d be better off if we abolished the Supreme Court in its current manifestation?” Vox’s Sean Illing asked. Tushnet responded, “Yeah, I do. I’m a big fan of the dialogic approach.”

Tushnet also argued that judicial review would prevent the American people from debating constitutional issues on their own. “Judicial review may actually impair the public’s ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means…In a way, the Supreme Court simply takes on this conversation for itself, and leaves the citizenry as bystanders.”

Discussing the rejection of judicial review, Tushnet insisted, “I’ve felt this way for my entire career, regardless of the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.”

The Harvard law professor even suggested that Supreme Court justices should be subject to 18-year term limits. “I think there is some enthusiasm among Democrats about alternative constitutional designs, but they can’t do anything about it now. But if they win in 2018 or 2020 or beyond, who knows?”

I do like that sneaky little “alternative constitutional designs” subterfuge, don’t you? Weasel-wording rarely gets more slippery than that construction, and my hat’s off to this oleaginous tyranny-pimp for it. Most scrumptiously delicious part of the whole grease-pie, though? This:

Despite Tushnet’s insistence that he has always “felt this way,” in 2016 he argued something entirely different. In an article published in May 2016, the Harvard Law professor argued that liberals should abandon “defensive-crouch constitutionalism.”

Among other things, the professor argued that liberals should embrace the idea that “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won.” He boldly compared the conservative “losers” to the defeated Axis powers from World War II.

“My own judgment is that taking a hard line (‘You lost, live with it’) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all,” he argued. “Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)”

To quote Treacher yet again: they’ll say anything they think will get them through the next five minutes. Absolutely anything at all. And they’ll directlt contradict themselves eighteen times before lunch each and every day, and never bat an eye over it.

Ahem. You lost. Live with it, fuckface—every last sobbing, squalling one of you. Or go lie down in the tub and open a vein, for all I give a shit.

Share

“The peaceful transfer of power is no longer a given”

A new, deplorable paradigm.

As troubling as the new paradigm is, it is just another convenient political gambit for the irresponsible left. The prominence of the new paradigm should alarm every freedom-loving American. If unchecked, in time, it will force a breaking point. It also speaks to a palpable division that goes beyond anything we’ve seen since at least the Civil War. Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides. America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.

The fact that we still have a chance to save the country from the collectivist ash heap is miraculous, given that almost every force in society is aligned against its salvation:

  • We toil under the baleful eye of the leftist corporate media, which ignores our successes; amplifies every perceived failing; and paints conservatism as intolerant and incompetent, stuffy, and stultifying.
  • A small but loud resistance movement inside conservatism is endlessly paraded before the country, obsessing over what is “crass” and “gauche.” It is animated by a reeking desperation for approval of everyone outside the right and is utterly useless against a left that never puts form over substance.
  • The population is widely dependent upon the largess the government has been dispensing for generations.
  • The left seems near the end of its long march through society’s consciousness-forming institutions, dominating the media and almost wholly controlling academia, the arts, the sciences, and entertainment and making serious inroads into religion.
  • The strings that connect and control the digital age are in the hands of the left, hands that gleefully strangle voices on the right.
  • Even as “the right” controls the federal government, recent events have shown that rogue leftist elements within government are active and treasonous.
  • The left is utterly ruthless, while the right still pretends propriety and decorum are indispensable hallmarks of civilization rather than civilization-threatening indulgences. 
    Problems such as the national debt and unfunded entitlements were once considered paramount. One can be forgiven for pining for such simple times.

As important as many of Trump’s agenda items are, this year’s election is the most important in more than two centuries because the left has fully embraced the new paradigm of illegitimacy. Leftists have never been more clearly defined, and the present moment affords us the best chance we have ever had to turn decisively away from their road to ruin. For the first time in a generation, the president and his allies have the country moving in the right direction, defined not by statistics, but by the fact that what he has already accomplished offers conservatism a real chance to be shown to work. All of the propaganda and histrionics of the left will fall on deaf ears if the people are confident about the direction of the country. The left still represents a cacophonous minority; most Americans are still animated by a desire to secure their place in a world where they can feel proud of themselves and their country.

Given that Hillary!™ did in fact win the popular vote in 2016, along with the apalling success of the Left’s Long March Through The Institutions—most especially the government schools, which have been beavering away at brainwashing hordes of new young socialists for many decades now—I’m not sure how confident we can be about that final assertion.

George Orwell Daycare Center update! Did I just mention government-school indoctrination, and its paramount importance to the Progressivist plan? Why, I believe I did. A little history on that:

Translated into practical terms and updated from its early-20th-century Italian cultural setting, (Antonio) Gramsci’s thesis is understood by the modern Left to mean:

Socialist revolution will never happen in a nation if its culture continually reaffirms and enshrines middle-class capitalist values. Thus, in order to pave the way for the arrival of a communist state, radicals must first insinuate themselves into and/or influence the media and educational system, and from these positions of influence change public attitudes about the status quo. To achieve political hegemony, you must first achieve cultural hegemony.

This was a significant change from Marx’s and Lenin’s original ideas about communist revolution, which basically involved simply seizing power, public opinion be damned, and afterward propagandizing the masses to accept the new order. Gramsci realized that Marx had it reversed, and that the propaganda and indoctrination must happen first, in order to make the populace open to the idea of revolution; otherwise, rendered complacent by middle-class values and comforts, the populace would never consent to the upheaval of a revolution.

The media and public schools were correctly identified by Gramsci as the most influential cultural institutions, and it was therefore those that the left realized must be targeted.

It is this sophisticated Gramscian plan, and not the more brutish Marxist idea of simply seizing power by force, which has guided leftist thought in America since WWII. And it is why the media and education have, over time, been slowly turned into engines of leftist propaganda. Gramscianism matured into “critical pedagogy” which is the real-world application of his educational theories, and countless left-leaning young adults have for decades been nudged toward careers in education and the media. Some time ago, we crossed a threshold in which the Gramscian infiltrators no longer had to ply their trade surreptitiously, but became the majority in the media and in education, and after that point the process accelerated rapidly as they took over both fields and turned them into ideological weapons.

That’s quoted from a much longer, broader, and deeper post at The Smallest Minority, of which you should read the all. Several of our regular commenters here at this hogwallow have waxed eloquent about the urgent need to regain control of the government schools, with an eye towards remaking them sans the malign Left influence currently saturating them. They aren’t wrong about that. Until such time as we figure out a way to achieve that Sisyphean task, whatever victories we manage to win will be small, and temporary.

Share

Oh, (big) brother!

Going, going, gone.

I remember when driving licenses did not have photos and most certainly not fingerprints. A driving license was issued on proof of birth date alone.

Prior to the appearance of automobiles IDs did not exist in democratic nations. You were who you said you were.

The intrusive questions that accost us every day, even when doing something simple as reporting a telephone or Internet connection being out or inquiring about a credit card charge, were impermissible. I remember when you could telephone a utility company, for example, have the telephone answered no later than the third ring with a real person on the line who could clear up the problem in a few minutes without having to know your Social Security number and your mother’s maiden name. Today, after half an hour with robot voices asking intrusive questions you might finally get a real person somewhere in Asia who is controlled by such a tight system of rules that the person is, in effect, a robot. The person is not permitted to use any judgment or discretion and you listen to advertisements for another half hour while you wait for a supervisor who promises to have the matter looked into.

The minute you go online, you are subject to collection of information about yourself. You don’t even know it is being collected.

According to reports, soon our stoves, refrigerators, and microwave ovens will be reporting on us. The new cars already do.

When privacy disappears, there are no private persons. So what do people become? They become Big Brother’s subjects.

We are at that point now.

And when that last generation is gone, the succeeding ones won’t feel the weight of their chains, nor hear the clanking they make. They won’t miss the freedom they never knew; in truth, the idea will seem strange and outlandish to them. This is known as “progress.”

(Via Ol’ Remus)

Share

Don’t Let’s be evil!”

Bust ’em up.

WASHINGTON — Days after the Trump administration instituted a controversial travel ban in January 2017, Google employees discussed ways they might be able to tweak the company’s search-related functions to show users how to contribute to pro-immigration organizations and contact lawmakers and government agencies, according to internal company emails.

The email traffic, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, shows that employees proposed ways to “leverage” search functions and take steps to counter what they considered to be “islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms ‘Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘Iran,’ etc.” and “prejudiced, algorithmically biased search results from search terms ‘Mexico,’ ‘Hispanic,’ ‘Latino,’ etc.”

The email chain, while sprinkled with cautionary notes about engaging in political activity, suggests employees considered ways to harness the company’s vast influence on the internet in response to the travel ban.

Daniel explains:

Not surprising.

Google has already rigged search results for certain Islamic searches without being at all subtle about it. But the explosive thing here is that it was a response to a specific government policy.

He also mentions that “Google says that these plots never went beyond proposals,” and you can believe as much or as little of that as you want to. Personally, I haven’t used their search engine in a good while now, and haven’t missed it.

Share

Of COURSE they did

Everybody’s talking about this one, but really, can anybody possibly be surprised?

A video recorded by Google shortly after the 2016 presidential election reveals an atmosphere of panic and dismay amongst the tech giant’s leadership, coupled with a determination to thwart both the Trump agenda and the broader populist movement emerging around the globe.

The video is a full recording of Google’s first all-hands meeting following the 2016 election (these weekly meetings are known inside the company as “TGIF” or “Thank God It’s Friday” meetings). Sent to Breitbart News by an anonymous source, it features co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, VPs Kent Walker and Eileen Naughton, CFO Ruth Porat, and CEO Sundar Pichai. It can be watched in full above. It can and should be watched in full above in order to get the full context of the meeting and the statements made.

Disgusting? Sure. Infuriating? Yep. Alarming? Most certainly, given the reach and influence the tech monopolies have. Time to bust ’em all up. That’s what the antitrust laws are for. Ace, on a related matter, foresees a spot of bother from Conservatism Inc:

Waiting for National Review to shriek that private monopolies can do whatever they want.
Oh, here, the wait is over before it began:

That’s Kevin D. Williamson, of course, who should really Learn To Code if his only suggestion is “start your own tech-giant monopoly if you don’t like the current tech-giant monopolies who can easily squelch all start-up competitors.”

I don’t suggest reading it. It’s more of the same.

There is an implicit claim being made here — that the special laws regarding monopolies are illegitimate and should be repealed or silently repealed and just ignored until they are dead-letter.

Ultra-Corporatists like Williamson, French, and Goldberg should be made to explain their feelings on this and defend them. The whole idea of the wisdom of markets determining the proper winner of market competition assumes market competition in the first place — do these Ultra-Corporatists dispute this? Do they think that monopolies contain the seeds of their own destruction?

Even if that is the case — what do we do in a nonfunctional monopolized market for the 10-40 years while we wait for the monopoly to implode due to its own internal contradictions?

Why, we sit back and accept helplessness and defeat, consoling ourselves with our high-mindedness, our politesse, our snooty just-plain-betterness as a Truly Principled Elite, noble guardians of a sacred pile of nothing. Y’know, just like they always have.

Share

The Killjoy Left

Can these juiceless, nagging bags of misery not leave anything alone?

Guess not.

The joyous celebration of releasing balloons into the air has long bothered environmentalists, who say the pieces that fall back to earth can be deadly to seabirds and turtles that eat them. So as companies vow to banish plastic straws, there are signs balloons will be among the products to get more scrutiny, even though they’re a very small part of environmental pollution.

Accordingly, campaigns are afoot to discourage balloon releases at weddings, some states have passed laws restricting them, Clemson University ended its pre-game tradition of releasing 10,000 balloons before games, and so far at least one town in Rhode Island has banned the sale of all balloons out of concern for marine life. The town warden suggests balloon alternatives, like “posters, piñatas and decorated paper.” But can you tie a piñata into a giraffe? 

Let me make clear at the outset that I’m on the side of the sea turtles, the soaring birds, and any other creature that might be harmed in this way, so I’m inclined to err on the side of the turtles. There’s at least some science to back this up. But that’s no guarantee that the cost-benefit ratio works out, like the way it never does with climate change. If it must be, okay; neither plastic straws nor balloons make up much of my life.

All the same, there’s something just not right about these hasty adoptions of bans on everyday things. What’s the hurry? It took 120 years for the Americantemperance movement to get the 18th Amendment, and that still turned out to be a terrible idea. In just the past few weeks, we’ve heard about the rapid spread of bans on plastic straws; on balloons; on saying, “Hey, guys” to groups that include women; on “meatless” hamburgers; on crab dinners in Baltimore. Speaking of Prohibition, expect a second try soon based on last week’s study that drinking alcohol is 100% bad for you.

My real issue is that once the left identifies a problem, its favorite solution is a ban. With more or less success, the left in recent times has banned, or would love to ban, liquor, guns, national borders, plastic bags, cigarette advertising, DDT, flirting, binary pronouns, “hate speech,” prayers at graduation, team logos, Christmas hymns, wearing fur, words like “manhole,” Nativity scenes, nuclear power plants, coal, Civil War statues, petroleum, unwanted babies, toilets that flush, incandescent light bulbs, and Roseanne Barr. As with kids who get overactive from too much sugar (at least, until that’s banned), if someone doesn’t shut off the supply of things to forbid, they’ll just get more out of control. 

For sure and certain. The only thing that really needs to be banned is them. Is this next related? I suspect the authors of the book being reviewed would disagree, but I say you bet your sweet ass it is.

Haidt and Lukianoff focus on the unintended consequences of safetyism – the idea that people are weak and should be protected, rather than exposed, to challenges. Safety culture has the best of intentions: protect kids from danger. It began with a focus on physical safety – removing sharp objects and choke hazards, requiring child seats, and not letting children walk home alone. Safety, however, has experienced substantial concept creep. It now includes emotional safety, that is, not being exposed ideas that could cause psychological distress. Taken together, the focus on physical and mental safety makes young people weaker.

“Best of intentions”? Not hardly; total control is the core of the Progressivist ideal, its primary goal, and was from the beginning. “For their own good” is the Progressivist mantra rationalizing their megalomania. The Safety Nazis are Progressivists almost to a man, and that ain’t no accident. Sure, there may some dupes among them who actually do mean well. But “safetyism” has always been the slippery slope down which we’ve slowly slid into full-on tyranny.

Humans are what author and statistician Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls ‘antifragile’. We ‘benefit from shocks; [humans] thrive and grow when exposed to volatility, randomness, disorder, and stressors and love adventure, risk, and uncertainty’. Peanuts are a case in point of needing to be exposed to danger to build resilience. From the 1990s, parents were encouraged to not feed children peanuts, and childcare centres, kindergartens and schools banned peanuts. This moratorium has backfired. The LEAP study (Learning Early About Peanut Allergy) found that not eating peanut-containing products during infancy increases allergies. The researchers recruited 640 infants with a high risk of developing peanut allergy. Half were given a peanut-containing product. The other half avoided peanuts. The study found that 17 per cent of those who did not consume peanuts developed an allergy by age 5, compared to just 3 per cent of those who did consume the peanut-containing snack. Our immune system grows stronger when exposed to a range of foods, bacteria, and even parasites.

Antifragility applies to emotional health as well. When you guard children against every possible risk – do not let them outside to play or walk home alone – they exaggerate the fear of such situations and fail to develop resilience and coping skills. Stresses are necessary to learn, adapt and grow. Without movement, our muscles and joints grow weak. Without varied life experiences, our minds do not know how to cope with day-to-day stressors. Measures designed to protect children and students are backfiring. Fragility is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think certain ideas are dangerous, or are encouraged to do so by trigger warnings and safe spaces, you will be more anxious in the long run. Intellectual safety not only makes free and open debate impossible, it setting up a generation for more anxiety and depression.

Haidt and Lukianoff use an array of data that shows a shocking increase in American youth anxiety, depression, and suicide in the last five years, but particularly for young women. By 2016, one out of every five American girls met the criteria for having experienced a major depressive episode in the previous year – an increase of almost two-thirds over five years. There has also been an increase in male suicide by one-third, and female suicide has doubled since the early 2000s, reaching the highest recorded since 1981.

The widespread inculcation of a tremulous FUD mindset produces fearful, neurotic wretches eager to seek the protection of government from a scary, danger-fraught world. It ought to be obvious to anybody that that, too, is no accident. Via WRSA, who says: “KDT did it better a decade and a half ago.” He ain’t wrong about that, either.

Share

Cheap talk

This has been bothering me for a while now.

I am nowhere near as confident as Kurt Schlichter that the right wing could trounce the left wing in battle. We can’t even unite to keep Alex Jones on Facebook. It is true that conservatives have more guns and are probably better street fighters. But conservatives also cave in large numbers even when their most sacred cows are in danger – such as the First Amendment or Christian principles. The two latter issues sit at the core of academic bias and debates on sexuality, respectively. I have the war wounds from both battles and can attest to the repeating scenario: conservatives talk and talk about what they believe and how bad the left is. Then they give up (in) droves when it comes time to fight.

They also talk a lot about how their 2A rights are an infallible guarantee that the Left can never really win in their perennial quest to establish tyranny…and just you never mind the 20 or 30 thousand restrictions on guns on the books already; the more like them surely to come, eroding our rights bit by little bit; and the simple fact that as long as those guns stay disassembled and securely locked up in a state-mandated gun safe, they’re of no use at all in defending anything, and guarantee nothing.

We may fantasize that conservatives constitute a massive invincible army against the left. None of this will help us if nobody is willing to show up for the fight. The midterm elections this fall could easily hand the Democrats a commanding lead in both the Senate and the House. We have no real reason to expect that conservatives will gather in large numbers to monitor the voting process for fraud. The fall surprises full of slander, innuendo, and social media mobbing will follow the pattern we saw in the Roy Moore election, with National Review writers like David French slamming Republican candidates and commentators like Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro playing it safe by virtue-signaling if ominous accusations, no matter how unproven or unlikely, gain traction with the general public.

Prudence calls for us to rally our troops to fight smear campaigns rigorously and to monitor the elections for voting fraud. But let’s not dream unrealistic dreams. If the Democrats win both houses of Congress, we should brace ourselves for the following probabilities:

Trump Will Be Impeached but Probably Not Removed from Office

The Obama years spoiled the left. With amazing speed, they developed an adolescent sense of entitlement, convinced themselves that their own propaganda is “fact,” and believed they would never lose control of the government, culture, schools, churches, military, intelligence, and media. While the left hates Trump with particular ferocity, any figure associated with the left’s loss of total national power would have provoked a knee-jerk temper tantrum.

Under no conceivable scenario will the left control the House without impeaching Trump. They hate him with the heat of a thousand suns and defy all appeals to fairness and logic. The trial in the House will consume the country, bog Trump in red tape, and stall the swamp-draining reforms until the presidential election in 2020. It will probably be impossible to get 67 senators to vote to remove Trump, but the impeachment in the House will be enough to throw most of Trump’s housecleaning efforts into disarray.

In an impeachment situation, many conservatives will betray us and jump on whatever charges the left manages to articulate against Trump. Too many on our side lack the willpower to resist coordinated message across major news outlets.

And even more aren’t really “on our side” at all, but are in barely-clandestine league with the enemy.

Lopez has a real bug up his ass about gays and rattles on about “conversion therapy” a fair bit, which, fine, whatevs; it’s an issue I don’t find all that compelling, frankly, but YMMV. His closing turn is way more consequential if you ask me:

Conservatives Will Complain and Roll Over and Do Nothing

I am sorry this prediction is so dire, but we have seen little in recent history to indicate any other outcome if Democrats take the House and Senate.

The point is, we have to hold both houses of Congress, which means we have to get moving immediately. As I told my Christian friends recently, “yes, God is on the throne. But we still have to get off our couches and do something.”

Well, hey, it’s always been my understanding that He only helps those who help themselves, right?

(Via Ol’ Remus)

Share

“Did Trump Really Save America From Socialism?”

For the moment, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also have a problem with this bit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Best of times, worst of times

Unbearable thoughts.

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

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

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

Hm. Must be a coincidence, right?

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

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

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

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

Back to my first link for the only rational conclusion:

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

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

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

Share

Socialism at work

Aww, ain’t she cute.

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

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

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

I felt I was making a difference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I thought not.

Share

For sale, cheep

The “conservative” con.

Now, the Right was always just the dancing partner for American Progressivism. A great way of putting it is from Robert Louis Dabney, “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.” You’ll note that he wrote that over a century ago. What tends to lead people into dissident politics is the realization that the so-called conservatives are just body men for the people they claim to oppose. Their ideas are intended to enhance, rather than reject, the morality of the Left.

The reason the modern Right seems like a barren field with tumbleweed bouncing across it is that their dancing partner is now just a shuffling zombie. The Left has not generated a serious insight about modern society in over a generation. Their last big public policy idea was ObamaCare. Otherwise, it has been a series of bizarre gestures toward increasingly narrow fringe groups. They are the dog that caught the car. The Left has a free hand to do what they please in America and they have no idea what to do.

The result of this lack of ideas is that politics is now just a combination of money grubbing and hysterical public tantrums. The hilariously over-the-top reactions in the media to Trump’s meeting with Putin is a good example. None of these people can tell us why Putin is suddenly the devil. They don’t even try. Instead, they carry on like teenagers in a slasher film. They took turns trying to outdo the previous loon’s contrived outrage. It’s as if they are trying to scream the devil into existence, so they can have a reason to scream.

Much gets written about the impact of cosmopolitan globalism on the middle class and the cultural identity of western nations. It is assumed that the people doing this to us have a purpose, but in reality they are working on inertia. They don’t move forward toward a goal, rather, they just move forward because that’s what they do. The politicians are feckless airheads and their advisers are craven ninnies. Everything is a bust-out now, not because they are crooks, but because they can’t think of another reason to get up in the morning.

Oh, I don’t know about their not being crooks; after all, nothing says it can’t be both those things at once.

Update! Naturally, I had to take a look at the short Robert Louis Dabney article Zman mentions above, and…wow. It’s goddamned eerie, that’s what it is.

This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

From 1897, but could just as easily have been written this morning. And to think, it only took us well over a hundred years to see the flim-flam for what it was. Maybe in another century or two we’ll be fired up enough to do something about it, eh?

Sheesh.

Share

Battle over

Freedom lost.

Some are treating “avowed socialist” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s primary victory over Democrat war-horse Joe Crowley as a watershed moment. Assuming she wins the general election, she’ll join 434 other socialists in the House of Representatives. That’s not a watershed political moment, it’s a watershed truth-in-advertising moment. She’ll be one of the few socialists there who admits to it.

The partisans on both sides of the barricades are a hundred years too late. The battle is over, victory to the socialists. In the US, it’s impossible to find an industry or economic activity that’s free from government ownership or regulation. Governments have their hands in agriculture, manufacturing, communications, finance, insurance, banking, transportation, technology, housing, medical care, advertising, entertainment, warfare, welfare, charity, and every other human endeavor of consequence. When children need to get a permit and pay a fee to set up a sidewalk lemonade stand, what’s left?

I wish I could find a way to argue with that. This next, too, is difficult to contradict:

Socialism doesn’t work; history is littered with its failures. That is why it’s embraced. Government derives its power from coercion and violence. It is no coincidence that the twentieth century, history’s most socialistic, has also been its most murderous, with governments inflicting an estimated 100 to 200 million deaths.

Socialism’s failure, death, and inevitable restrictions of liberty account for its odium among those who oppose it. The clearest lesson of history is the most ignored. Man versus the state is history’s overarching theme. Humanity flourishes when it’s free to do so (man wins) and deteriorates when it’s not (the state wins).

There is only one way to eradicate a weed without pesticide: pull it up by its roots. Well over 99 percent of arguments against government—inadequate border security, military interventions, out of control spending and debt, the national security state, loss of liberty, etc.—essentially try to kill the weed by pulling off its leaves and stems, but leave the roots intact. As long as there is unquestioning acceptance of the government’s self-granted right to forcefully relieve the productive of their honestly earned incomes, those issues amount to diversionary sideshows.

Since the dark year 1913, government has grown relentlessly larger, more powerful, and more corrupt. The tax take has gone one direction. Even with all that loot, the government has plunged into the abyss of debt and unfunded liabilities. The US has become an oligarchic empire spanning the globe. At least half its population rely on the state for some or all of their sustenance. Occasionally the socialists have lost battles, but those have amounted to mere tactical retreats. They’ve won the war.

The nice thing about socialism—well, maybe “nice” ain’t exactly the right word—is that the seeds of its destruction are carried within it, right from the start. But it’s always a long time a-dying, with much human misery accompanying the death throes, and it always seems to rise again from its crypt eventually. Which makes Glenn’s brilliant quip from a couple of weeks ago the more pungent: “Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway.

Like Islam, socialism is one of the greatest scourges foolhardy humanity ever inflicted on itself. That its name isn’t uttered by one and all in the same horrified and disgusted tone that its foul offspring Naziism is amounts to a crime all on its own.

Share

Blue wave, red sea

Running the numbers.

Liberals represent America’s distinct ideological minority. In 2016, despite eight years of America’s most liberal president popularizing and raising their issues and profile, exit polling still showed them only 26 percent of the electorate — well behind conservatives (35 percent) and moderates (39 percent). And comprising a quarter of America’s electorate is their high water mark — as recently as 2004, liberals comprised just 21 percent.

Positive spin would acclaim the left’s growth, but there is no escaping it remains just a quarter of the electorate, still needing roughly twice its number to reach an electoral majority. Yet with this liability comes loyalty: Liberals voted 84 percent for Clinton in 2016 — greater attachment to Democrats than either moderates or conservatives showed to either party.

The Democrats’ conundrum with a decidedly loyal minority is: How to win when America’s minority becomes your majority. The left has been the Democratic Party’s most fervent element for several years. Its growth, although still the nation’s ideological minority, has apparently raised it to at least close to majority status within the Democratic Party and its loyalty to the Democratic Party is unquestionable.

Democrats have little choice but to attempt to relabel the left as “progressive,” before the left re-brands the Democratic Party as “the left.”

Far, far too late for that, I’m afraid. Too bad, so sad. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes.

The effort is as neat as it is necessary. By using “progressive,” they implicitly acknowledge the weakness — separation (i.e., extreme) from the center — but seek to make it positive: Although separated, it is because they are ahead of where the center will be.

Of course, the progressive label’s greatest service is masking reality diametrically opposed to its rhetoric. The left’s ideology is anything but new, just as it is anything but successful.

Slice it where you like, it’s still the same old Marxist baloney. NeverTrump GOPe cucks better figure out quick just who it is they’ve allied themselves with, lest they wind up going to the bottom with the DSS Titanic themselves.

Update! Anybody up for a Red Wave?

Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, is pledging higher taxes. Al Green, a seven-term Texas Democrat, and at least 58 other House Democrats, are promising impeachment. But the stock market is up, wages are up, unemployment is down, and peace may be breaking out on the Korean Peninsula. How many people will vote for higher taxes and all the social and political stress associated with impeachment?

Some Democrats are beginning to sense this. One Washington Post columnist predicted that “there will be no Trump collapse” while others are expressing concern that Mr. Mueller’s investigation — his dawn raids and strong-arm tactics — don’t play well in Peoria. If Mr. Mueller is not able to prove collusion with Russia, the stated reason for his appointment, then Democrats, who have talked about little else for the past 18 months, will be left looking unserious or worse. They’re right to worry.

Up until recently, the conventional wisdom has been that a blue wave powered by a huge enthusiasm gap would propel Democrats to midterm glory. But the evidence doesn’t bear that out. Yes, Democrats have won some special elections and those victories are real and should warn Republicans against complacency. But left almost totally unremarked upon is that Republican primary turnout is way up from where it was at this point in the 2014 midterm cycle. This is often the result of competitive primaries, but that underscores the vibrancy of the grass roots’ struggle to reclaim control of the party.

According to Chris Wilson at WPI Intelligence, Republican primary turnout was up 43 percent or more over 2014 in states like Indiana, Ohio and West Virginia. The president’s popularity has been rising overall but especially in these critical battleground states. In West Virginia, his approval rating was over 60 percent in 2017. That sounds more like a red wave than a blue one, especially for imperiled senators like Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Claire McCaskill in Missouri.

Yes, the victories won in 2016 can be reversed, but only by voters at the polls and not by any of the irregular means that occupy the fantasies of many people who still can’t believe that their side lost.

Y’know, it still frosts my nuts a bit that the Democrat Socialists and Leftymedia were somehow able to hang the “Red” label on the Right and misappropriate “Blue” for themselves, when they’re the ones who are truly Red in tooth and claw. That’s okay though, since it’s looking more and more like being the last smart move they’ll ever make.

Share

By their fruits

So let’s recap just what it is the Democrat Socialist Party, now exposed as the mouthpiece of the insane Left, really stands for. This is what they’re proposing as their party platform for the next election; this is what they’ve come to.

  • Spying, lying, conspiracy, and manipulation to, first, fraudulently hand the election to their preferred candidate; then, when that didn’t work out for them, to overturn the results of the election and render “the consent of the governed” null and void;
  • Opening the borders to staggering numbers of violent, bestial savages and bloodthirsty, openly-avowed enemies of the Republic;
  • Higher prosperity-destroying taxes and more economy-killing regulation;
  • Less freedom, more serfdom;
  • The end of the rule of law and final confirmation of an untouchable, unrestrained, and unaccountable federal bureaucracy;
  • Not just tolerance but celebration of perversion, decadence, and mental disorder enforced by the full weight of the law;
  • Mediocre and staggeringly expensive government-run health care;
  • No restraint on federal spending—in fact, no restraint on the federal government of any kind;
  • Suppression of all dissent not only via violent mobs and peer pressure but by legislative means;
  • Forced disarmament of American citizens and legally mandated denial of any right to self-defense;
  • Refusal to accept the election to high office of anyone they disapprove of;
  • Perpetual American vulnerability and weakness via the maintenance of the status quo as regards North Korea and Obama’s Iran “deal,” among many other long-established surrender-monkey shibboleths;
  • Never-ending taxpayer support to prop up unworkable, expensive “green energy” scams;
  • Continued massive financial support for hostile beggar-nations across the globe;
  • Resumption of the federal assault against fossil-fuel energy;
  • The increasing “urbanization” of small-town America, turning the country into hellish, expensive, dangerous, and cramped liberal-mismanaged shitholes like Detroit, San Francisco, and Chicago;
  • Socialism

And there you have it: the Democrat Socialist plan for your governance, which they’re not even bothering to lie about anymore. How you like them apples, folks?

Update! Limbaugh sees the writing on the wall, and boils my above list down to one line: “The problem is that the Democrat Party is being California-ized.” That DOES pretty much cover all the bases, I’d say.

Share

A female cuck?

You don’t concede the Left’s premises. Not ever, not even once, not for any reason.

Speaking of silly women inviting snakes into the fold, let’s address a recent essay published by National Review, titled “Conservatives Are Wrong to Dismiss Feminism.” It is written by one Sarah Quinlan, a woman who, we are told is a “front-page contributor to RedState.” This is intended as a credential, when in fact, it is rather more like calling someone a former lead engineer for the Hindenburg. But one supposes it was the best the likes of Ms. Quinlan could do under the circumstances.

One of Quinlan’s unlisted associations, however, is her sometime affiliation with one of the sadder outings in NeverTrump history, the so-called Buckley Club, an infected little pimple of an organization that knew so little of its namesake that it once mistook one of Buckley’s favorite phrases—“immanentizing the eschaton”—for a conspiracy theorist slogan.

Holt goes on to dismantle Quinlan’s convoluted mess of an argument pretty thoroughly, culminating in this stinging closer:

I’m sure she’ll get around to making a mockery of her other conservative principles in time, but we needn’t waste any more exertion waiting on her to do it.

At best, Quinlan’s piece is a vapid extended emotivist wail in search of a shoulder and a pint of vanilla ice cream to dash itself against. At worst, it is a hostile ultimatum that the Right must trade Trump for Teen Vogue, and transform William F. Buckley into William F. Becky-with-the-good-hair so that it can attract the votes of women whose character validates the assumptions of every misogynist who ever lived. Either way, it deserves to be rejected in the strongest possible terms.

And so, I will do just that. Conservatism needs feminism like National Review needed Sarah Quinlan’s byline: only as a tool for suicide. NRO’s brand needs to be hospitalized and any dangerous objects need to be taken away from the editors after this. As for True Conservatism (™), after the publication of this article, it will need a rape kit, which, unlike the thousands that Quinlan complains remain untouched, we have been obliged to process.

Ouch. Better put some ice on that, sweetie.

Share

Can they be stopped?

William Gensert doesn’t think so.

In seeking and executing a warrant to search the offices and home of Michael Cohen, President Trump’s longtime personal attorney, leftists have abandoned all pretense that they are not prosecuting civil war against Americans who disagree with them. They have decided that we represent an existential threat to the America they envision would exist under their tutelage. They won’t let us mind our own business, raise our children, protect our families, be productive citizens, and be left alone. That won’t do – they have plans for us. They want this war, and they will force this fight upon us.

In the scheme of things, America is a young country. Yet its brief history is replete with people who underestimated Americans. Progressives are in the process of doing that today. It is a mistake that will cost them dearly.

To succeed in fundamentally transforming the United States of America, the left must accomplish two things:

  • Impeach President Donald Trump.
  • Disarm Americans.

The left, in a national fit of pique, refuses to accept the fact that a majority of the country rejects its “new America,” as personified by its hero and god, Barack Obama. He started the transmogrification, which leftists had planned to extend and codify during the reign of Hillary Clinton. Then Donald Trump came along, and their plan fell apart, hence the necessity for the usurpation of the nation’s constitution and the will of the people.

The signs are there that Americans are going to fight this. There is a real possibility of blood in the streets. Regular Americans are tired of the Democrat elite telling them what they must accept.

Leftists feel that they are right: America shouldn’t have a choice. In effect, people should not be allowed to vote for anyone leftists do not approve of, and they certainly do not approve of Donald Trump.

They didn’t approve of George W Bush or McCain either. But when they turned bland, middle-of-the-road milquetoast Mittens Romneycare into a RIGHT-WING EXTREMIST monster—then Paul Ryno, for that matter, pushing Granny off a cliff—the writing was on the wall for all to see. Lefty has modified Sherman’s famous quote and put it into practice: if nominated, Republicans will not be allowed to run. If elected, they will not be allowed to serve.

And since they are on the side of what is right and just, anything they do, no matter how illegal, how immoral, how outwardly and obviously unfair and biased, is justified because the arc of history bends toward justice…or some such nonsense.

There are an estimated 300 million firearms existing in America today.  And I wager that that figure is low.  I would also wager that most armed citizenry would be loath to voluntarily give up their guns – as well as being even more resistant to giving them up under duress.

So there you have it: the left wants to wage war against the most heavily armed populace ever to exist on this planet, and as weapons, leftists are going to use rhetoric and clever metaphors, mellifluously delivered, à la Barry the brilliant.  When Charlton Heston said, “They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands,” it wasn’t a threat; it was a promise.

It strains credulity that they are using every trick in the book, from opposition research in the form of the Steele dossier to Sally Yates, Bruce Ohr, Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page, and probably Barack Obama himself, conspiring to sabotage the candidacy and later the presidency of Donald Trump, and they think there will not be a fight from a well armed populace?

Remains to be seen, I guess. I have no doubt that the Founders would have been shocked, dismayed, and angered to see what we’ve quietly surrendered already. As the bumper sticker says, they would have been shooting already. I’m sure there’s any number of doughty old-school Brits who are equally appalled at how far their once-mighty nation has sunk into the mire of ignominy and degradation, without there being any visible signs of righteous uprising there. At some point it’s just too late, and there’s no longer anything left worth the effort of trying to save.

Over here, Hillary!™ was as “moderate” a candidate as the Left will ever accept, and even at that they greatly preferred Bernie the Red—and would have gotten him too, had he not been swindled out of the nomination by the dirtiest, most brazenly corrupt political machine in American history. From here on out, any and every Republican must expect to be savaged and undermined by any and all means Progressivists can contrive, with the active connivance of the Deep State apparatus itself.

The Left probably doesn’t actually want a shooting war, not really. Rather, they don’t expect to get one, and will be surprised indeed if they do. This expectation, right or wrong, means their collective psychotic break over Trump was only the beginning; the response to their next defeat is going to be worse, much worse. Gensert’s conclusion is spot on: this will NOT end well. Not unless these screwballs suddenly discover a wisdom and restraint they’ve shown no sign whatsoever to date of possessing, it won’t.

Share

California dreamin’

Actually, these nitwits aren’t ENTIRELY wrong.

The next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it. Remember the great lesson of California, the harbinger of America’s political future, and realize that today such bipartisan cooperation simply can’t get done.

In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there’s no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.

Perfectly correct so far. But being libtards, they immediately go off the rails entirely.

The way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago.

Umm. Uhh, yeah. Right. Thanks and all, but, well…NO.

Continue reading “California dreamin’”

Share

It’s the culture war, stupid

How and why we are where we are, deftly nutshelled by Sefton:

This Thursday I want to start off with an excellent piece by the always excellent Daniel Greenfield. And its an alarm that I’ve been sounding for a long time now about what to me is the battle for all the marbles – the battle for the minds and souls of our children. It’s easy to look at Camera Hogg and Knucklehad Smiff Gonzalez and identify them as mind-numbed drones propagandized by their teachers. But look at their parents; no doubt they have the exact same mindset as their spawn because they, too, were the products of a previous generation of teachers who poisoned their minds. For 50 years or longer, academia has slowly and steadily been populated by educators and administrators who have purged the curricula of truth and replaced it with anti-American, anti-Western and anti-judea Christian truths (as an aside, many were funded by, guess who? The Soviets). And as the children go out into the world they populate every walk of life and occupation, corrupted by others of their generation who spread the rot in the media and entertainment. I remember as a kid in the 60s an 70s having the feelings of self-doubt about America being as wonderful and pure as its image and reputation. Today, kids see the country as the source of all evil and hatred in the world. At least when I was their age, I had parents and grandparents who knew the truth and understood that despite our society’s flaws, we were still the greatest nation and people on the face of the earth, mostly because we had the freedom to peacefully engage with those with whom we disagreed and bring about constructive change legally, openly and honestly. No more. The voices of dissent – and let’s face it, we are now the counterculture – will not be engaged. They will be silenced.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the Long March Through The Institutions was the most brilliantly effective tactic the Goose-steppin’ Left ever came up with. Using the coin of near-absolute control of the government schools and universities, they bought themselves a stranglehold on America’s future for generations to come. None of their insidious efforts will be more than temporarily undone until the weaponization of our children has been.

“The battle for all the marbles”—you sure said a mouthful there, JJ. Well done, buddy.

Optimistic update! Counterpoint provided by Limbaugh:

I have for many, many moons now been informing everybody that the left, that the liberals, that the progressives, the Democrat Party cannot be open and honest about what it believes because if it were they would suffer tremendous defeats nationwide.

Remember, I’ve always said that. They have to mask themselves. They have to camouflage themselves as centrists or other things. Obama was a master at it. Bill and Hillary Clinton were masters at it. But something’s happening out there, and it’s gonna redound to our benefit, because the Democrats are now throwing off the masks. They are throwing off the camouflage, and in the process they are revealing themselves to be who they really are.

So there’s two things happening out there — and the Democrats are feeling their oats because they’re lying to themselves about they’ve already got the 2018 midterms won. They believe everybody hates Trump just as much as they do. So the election is as it was in 2016, it’s a foregone conclusion, it’s a fait accompli. And with this comes a feeling of their oats, a newfound confidence that they can finally be honest.

Look at how they had to hide the fact that they were for gay marriage for decades and then one day, it seemed like in one day it happened, became legal in all 50 states. That emboldened them. And they think — I’m telling you. Do not doubt me. They think they are on the cusp of getting the Second Amendment banned or repealed with the same speed and fervor that they secured gay marriage as a legal entity in all 50 states. And on that they could not be more wrong.

Rush has always steadfastly maintained that America is a center-right nation. Don’t know if I can quite buy that myself, as nice as it would surely be to think so. That said, I’ve also theorized several times ’round these parts about the Left shedding the mask, and speculated that it was done prematurely and to their ultimate detriment too.

Hope is a good thing, but only so long as there’s some basis in reality for it. Without that Hope slides headlong into Delusion, then crashes hard into the wall of Downright Pathetic. I confess to being undecided about all this still, but we’ve been seeing some very encouraging signs the last couple of years. The shrill, yawping hysteria puked forth in the wake of the Left’s slow-motion schizoid break over the Trumpening can’t possibly be doing them any good with Normal Americans.

On the other hand, I can’t say I’ve seen much more than blase indifference towards restoring the Constitution’s primacy out there, except among those few of us already ferociously dedicated to it. Most Americans seem to have accepted the existence of a federal superstate easily enough, and have expressed hostility towards the prospect of seeing their own government bennies and perks reduced in any way. The concept of Big Government as a solution rather than a problem still doesn’t seem to be up for much debate.

I think it’s safe to assert that most Americans aren’t ideologically motivated. Their grasp of and engagement with politics could both fairly be characterized as superficial—which suits them just fine, thanks. Their understanding of what the Constitution actually is, what it does and does not do, is likewise…umm, not exactly profound, shall we say. The level of American-history education among the general populace is nothing short of appalling. Civics? Don’t ask. They don’t even teach it in the schools anymore. The fact that this is no coincidence isn’t on the radar at all.

Such ignorance might not be their fault. It could certainly be argued that the pressure of earning a living in an economy crippled for years by the misguided embrace of an ideology antithetical to our Founding ideals leaves most Americans without the time or energy to properly school themselves on less immediately practical matters. Obliviousness to the fact that indifference to politics is a luxury dependent on the success and vigor of core American values and institutions can’t come as much of a surprise. For most Americans, it’s just the way things are, the way they’ve always been, a natural part of the American environment. Should it suddenly collapse and close attention become a survival trait, that WILL come as a surprise to them—a damned big one. Damned unpleasant too.

Yes, no, maybe. We’ll all find out soon enough, I suppose, one way or another. Unless we don’t.

Share

Parliamentary madhouse

The identity-politics lunatics are running the asylum.

Anyone who has ever spoken on a college campus will have felt the weariness that descends during the Q&A when audience members begin their “questions” with “As a woman…” “As a black woman…” “As a trans woman…” If Frances McDormand’s “inclusion rider” can be made to apply to something as elusive as the particular combination of talents required to bring a script to sparkling life, is it really such a stretch to imagine a House of Gays – that’s to say, a legislature predicated on appropriate representation of identity groups? After all, the left is already institutionally hostile to America’s electoral college, under which small, peripheral, recalcitrant white-privilege backwater states have a disproportionate say in the selection of a president. Instead of these obsolete, irrelevant, geographical boundaries, would it not make more sense for the Senate to reflect the balance of competing power interests in today’s America? A precise number of seats, determined by the Supreme Court, for gays, trans women, cis women, cis black women, trans Muslim women, cis illegal immigrants, etc?

Fine by me. Then we can insist on like representation for white Christian males, reserving a number of seats proportionate to OUR population percentage for us exclusively. Fair, right? Sauce for the goose and all that? If we grant the underlying premise—that gays, transgenders, blacks, women, etc cannot possibly be properly represented by anything other than one of their own—then that has to be the only reasonable conclusion, right?

Breath: not holding it. But still.

Oh, you can laugh, but it’s not so difficult to imagine a jurisdiction such as California proposing such changes to a state legislature. For example, not so long ago it was broadly accepted that the right to participate in choosing the government of your society was a privilege of allegiance to that society. Yet now Californians and many others are proposing the extension of voting rights to non-citizens – by which they mean not even lawful immigrants but persons whose very presence in the land is an act of lawbreaking that mocks the very concept of fealty. If you step back for a moment, that’s extraordinary: millions and millions of Americans who support such alien-voting proposals have abandoned, in the blink of an eye, the defining attribute of citizenship.

They’re citizens of the WORLD, dude, not anything so petty and conceptually constricting as a mere country. And certainly not any country as abominable as THIS one. FREE YOUR MIND, MAN.

For a majority of young people in particular, “free speech” is a cis het white male concept that is subordinate to identity rights. If you disagree with that proposition, you might schedule a debate on the merits of free speech at, say, King’s College, London – but the mob will break it up, throw smoke bombs, smash windows, put the security guard in hospital, and the college will take the mob’s side because you threatened their “safe space”. As I heard a decade ago in my battles with Canada’s “human rights” commissions, to officialdom it’s you freespeechers who are the problem, holding debates, talking about stuff, and thereby upping our security costs because of your needless provocation of the increasingly inarticulate varsity.

The dictatorship of the identitariat is spreading rapidly, as all bad ideas do, way beyond loony campuses. If the right to freedom of speech no longer has much purchase on society, the law of contract for the moment still prevails – so I congratulate VDare.com on extracting a five-figure sum from Hilton Hotels for screwing them over and canceling their annual Immigration Reform Conference in Arizona. Dare are opposed both to illegal immigration and the legal immigration enabled by the 1965 act. I can think of no reason why in a free society a person should not be entitled to hold such views. But, in the wake of last year’s statue-toppling frenzy, PayPal (a de facto Internet monopoly) booted out Dare, and other contractors, such as Hilton, followed suit. Some corporations do this stuff because they’re headed by social-justice ideologues who are genuine believers; others are merely jelly-spined wankers thrown into a tizzy by a couple of hostile Tweets coming over the transom. I have no idea into which category Hilton fall, but I certainly hope the “five-figure sum” was in the high five figures – and even then that isn’t really big enough to discourage this malign trend.

When identity becomes politics, free speech shrivels: governments, whether Canadian Liberals or British Tories or German Coalitions-of-all-the-no-talents, are prepared to sacrifice it, so why should twitchy, risk-averse corporate venue-renters be expected to defend it?

The really bothersome thing is something I saw mentioned someplace the other day by somebody or other: when all of these corporate shunnings, bannings, and denunciations go just one way, it becomes kinda difficult not to suspect that they’re a bit more than merely craven or “risk-averse,” fearful of the effects of bad publicity on the bottom line. As this unknown someone stated: when was the last time you remember even ONE of these little dustups resulting in a corporation announcing support for, say, the NRA? When all the chips end up on the Left side of the table every single time, it’s a safe bet the deck is stacked against the Right. The “corporate cowards” are more likely quiet fellow-travelers, if not outright Leftards themselves, Red in tooth and claw.

Which is, y’know, extremely ironic, and of right ought to lead Republicans to rethink their former reflexive support for them. Steyn goes on to lay out a hierarchy of the Identity Politics Peerage (you’ll never guess who’s currently at the top of the pecking order), which I’ll insist that you click on through to read all of.

Update! Ahh, it was Ace:

A friend noted the other day that a dating app he uses was now banning all references to guns. Another friend asked, “Have you ever seen a single corporation offer a similar Virtue Signal to the right? Has any corporation run a commercial or campaign similarly expressing solidarity with right-leaning traditionalists on any issue?”

Do any corporations attempt any kind of similar cultural courting of the right, transmitting the right’s values or at least subtly portraying them in a sympathetic light?

Unlike Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” we #WokeNormals, as Kurt Schlichter calls us, are now Woke to the fact that the corporate sector has been wholly captured by the transnational progressive left, and we — unlike the Corporate Crony “Conservatives,” won’t be doing them any further favors.

They can get their favors from the party they support in word and in deed: The Democrat Party.

And if the Democrat Party chooses to conduct a legislative heist and steal their money — to hell with them. You go to bed with a whore, you wake up with your wallet missing.

Seconded, with bells on. Let them find out just what sucking up to the Commie Left gets them.

Share

Heroes of Suffering

An old but evergreen and eternally-relevant VDare post from Sailer:

For more than forty years, the teaching business has been completely dominated by the prejudices of the Sixties People, whose Gramscian “long march through the institutions“ has left them in control of the schools.

What is striking to somebody like me, who grew up during the 1960s and 1970s, is the subsequent lack of generational rebellion. Kids these days tend toward intellectual conformism. They trust anyone over 30 who tells them what everybody else is telling them.

Why have the Sixties People proven so enduring in molding young people’s minds? My theory: The Sixties mindset—aggrieved, resentful, and unrealistic—is perfectly attuned to appeal permanently to the worst instincts of adolescents.

And yet young people do have a finer side—their hunger for heroes—that history books once tried to fulfill rather than exploit. For example, I was galvanized in 1975 when I read Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison’s tribute in his Oxford History of the American People to Orville and Wilbur Wright:

“Few things in our history are more admirable than the skill, the pluck, the quiet self-confidence, the alertness to reject fixed ideas and to work out new ones, and the absence of pose and publicity, with which these Wright brothers made the dream of ages—man’s conquest of the air—come true.”

But the Wright brothers aren’t the kind of heroes we like anymore. In our Age of Oprah, rather than Heroes of Accomplishment, we are addicted to Heroes of Suffering.

This Heroes of Suffering fetish is exacerbated in modern history textbooks by the “diversity“ imperative.

Take, for example, one US history textbook widely used in high school Advanced Placement courses and in college courses: Nation of Nations: A Narrative History of the American Republic (McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition).

It’s in many ways an impressive book. The amount of labor that went into it is enormous. And, as you notice the political mandates under which the five historian co-authors labored, you begin to feel sorry for them.

You feel even sorrier for the students, however. The need to include a huge amount of material celebrating each politically organized diversity group has bloated the textbook to 1277 oversized pages. It costs $108.78 on Amazon, and weighs in at a vertebrae-compressing 5.4 pounds.

Celebrating diversity just take a lot of space. Even with a tome this immense, diversity awareness means that there isn’t room in all 1277 pages to mention…the Wright brothers.

Not even once? REALLY? Ummm…wow. But incredibly, it actually gets worse.

How hard did the textbook authors have to work to make Midway dull?

Answer: Nation of Nations‘ section entitled “The Naval War in the Pacific,” which covers the turning point years of 1942 and 1943, gets all of two pro forma paragraphs.

In contrast, eight paragraphs are devoted to the internment of Japanese, seven to women and the war, and five to “Minorities on the Job.”

Hilariously, the naval war gets the same amount of text as the 1943 Zoot Suit riot in East LA!

Steve goes on to offer example after disheartening example of the Dismal Tide of educational malpractice, not one of which is either accident or coincidence. This one, though, just might top them all:

At one point, I went looking in this textbook’s index for the Civil War hero, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, colonel of the XXth Maine Volunteers. By repelling repeated assaults on crucial Little Round Top hill on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, Chamberlain more or less saved the Union. (He’s played by Jeff Daniels in Ron Maxwell’s movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals.)

I suspect teenage boys might find him, you know, interesting. Maybe?

Well, needless to say, Joshua Chamberlain isn’t in the Nation of Nations’ index. I did find, however:

Chanax, Juan, 1096—1098, 1103, 1124, 1125

Who, exactly, is Chanax and why does he appear on six pages when Chamberlain can’t be squeezed in anywhere?

It turns out Chanax is an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who works in a supermarket in Houston. This hero’s accomplishment is that he brought in 1,000 other illegal aliens from his home village. (The link Sailer included here is broken, but the supporting article can be found here—M)

Wow. I mean, just…wow. Right when you think they can’t possibly surprise you anymore, they go and pull a real brain-buster like this. Hats off to the warped bastards for sheer brazen gall, I suppose.

The task of undoing this deeply-embedded, depraved rot is beyond daunting, beyond Herculean, maybe even Sisyphian. It is the work not of years, but of decades. But it is also vital; there is no hope whatever of reclaiming our nation and our culture without it. Personally, I’m careful to point out to my daughter now and then that her teachers don’t necessarily know everything, that they aren’t always going to be right; as a second-grader, the insidious process of indoctrination hasn’t really begun for her yet at least as far as I’ve been able to ascertain, and her teachers have all been decent, well-intentioned people so far.

But start it will—at least by junior high, I figure, if not before. My small effort may not seem like much when it comes to undermining and loosening the grip the Left has maintained for far too long on education, admittedly. But it’s a start, and I intend to encourage skepticism and independent thought in my child for as long as I’m able.

Or, y’know, allowed.

Share

Uniparty, cucks (BIRM) win big!

And they’re pissing themselves with joy over it.

Several establishment Republicans cheered as the Alabama Senate Republican candidate Judge Roy Moore lost to his Democratic opponent Doug Jones.

Here are some of the establishment Republicans who praised Roy Moore’s loss in the Alabama Senate race on Tuesday:

National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) Chairman Cory Gardner (R-CO) said in a statement, “Tonight’s results are clear – the people of Alabama deemed Roy Moore unfit to serve in the U.S. Senate. I hope Senator-elect Doug Jones will do the right thing and truly represent Alabama by choosing to vote with the Senate Republican Majority.”

Republicans lost another lawmaker in their slim majority in the Senate. Now the GOP only controls 51 seats in the upper chamber of Congress.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who donated $100 to Doug Jones’ campaign, tweeted on Tuesday, “Decency wins.”

The Mitch McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund cheered Moore’s loss in a statement, saying, “This is a brutal reminder that candidate quality matters regardless of where you are running. Not only did Steve Bannon cost us a critical Senate seat in one of the most Republican states in the country, but he also dragged the President of the United States into his fiasco.”

There’s more, all of it wretched and disgusting. My thought, though, is this: maybe the proper response is to keep right on giving the Republicrats what they seem to want most, by either staying the hell home or voting for Democrats in every election. Hey, it’s really the only way to promote those Real True Conservative Values™ you so cherish, right, cucks?

Oh, and make no mistake, this WAS a “victory” for the Unitards and their campaign against Moore Trump:

The race came so close, write-in ballots could have decided Jones’ victory. Jones won with 49.9 percent of the vote, 671,151 votes. Moore still took 48.4 percent of the vote, 650,436 votes. A full 22,819 votes went to write-in candidates. It may be unreasonable to suggest every write-in voter might have pulled the lever for Moore, but if they had, the Republican would have won.

And let’s see, who was it again that suggested Real True Conservatives™ resort to a futile write-in attempt? Why, the bugmen, that’s who:

The trouble is there has never been a more stark choice for conservative voters. Roy Moore is staunchly pro-life, while Doug Jones wants to put abortion mills in the nation’s grammar schools. Moore is an immigration patriot, while Jones is an open borders absolutist. Moore is a social conservative, while Jones embraces the Progressive social agenda. Of course, the big issue is that Moore will be a reliable vote for Trump’s judicial nominees, while Jones will be another vote against anyone to the right of Chuck Schumer.

This glaringly obvious set of facts presents a problem when trying to convince conservatives to not vote for Moore. The first card played by the bugmen is always to dismiss the target as unqualified. That was the game they played with Trump, dismissing him as a reality TV star. In the case of Roy Moore, they keep insisting that he has wacky ideas about the law and government. Unsurprisingly, that’s the first point in that French column. David French is not clever enough to be anything but ham-handed in his work.

If they cannot use their claims to authority as a means to dismiss the target, they resort to character assassination. This was the tactic they tried on Trump, by trying to paint him as a sexual predator and abuser of women. Somewhat comically, the bugmen played this card on Moore, planting absurd stories about him from 40 years ago. Bugmen lack a spine, as well as a soul, so they just assume everyone is as weak-willed as they are, when it comes to standing up to pressure. They always get this wrong.

In the end, the only thing left for these guys is to lie, and that is the one thing that comes naturally to them. Somewhat amusingly, French finishes his column with:

Anyone who tells you that your choice is limited to pro-abortion Doug Jones or an incompetent, unfit apparent child abuser like Roy Moore is simply lying to you. If you are a faithful conservative, you can write in a different name or stay home. You can reject the choice served up by the plurality of Alabama GOP primary voters and simply say, “If you want my vote, you have to do better.”

Gee, funny how I don’t remember these useless, fork-tongued cucks making any such assertion when they were attempting to cram McStain or Romney down our throats only a few years back. Oh well, onwards:

Elections in America are almost always binary choices. This election is a binary choice between the Democrat and the Republican. If conservatives listen to the bugmen and stay home, Jones will win. That’s how it works. The inescapable logic of French’s argument is that he wants Jones to win. He lacks the guts to say it, but that’s what he is doing. The whole point of his effort against Moore, and the work of other bugmen his handlers have deployed, is to damage Moore so that Jones is able to win the election.

That’s the irony of these efforts. Conservatism is, if nothing else, a practical acceptance of the world as it is. The choice in an election is between two less than ideal options. If there is ever a time when you have the perfect candidate in a race, it means you are dead and are in heaven, where you get to vote for Jesus Christ. On this earth, the choice is always between two flawed men. French’s argument, in addition to being childish and stupid, is the exact opposite of the conservative position with regards to political choices.

Moral nullities like French like to bang on about their principles. He has the habit of posting pictures of himself from when he was a rear echelon guy in Iraq. It’s a cheap tactic he learned from John McCain. He’s the type of guy Ralph Waldo Emerson had in mind when he wrote, “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” That’s because the talk of principles from bugmen like French is just another tool of the trade. His job is (to) promote the interests of his masters. That’s the life of every soulless bugman.

Indeed it is. Incredibly enough, perennial losers like French—flush with this “victory” and made cocky by the back-to-the-future renewal of their Washington Generals relationship with the Democrat Socialist Globetrotters—are now puffing out their sunken chests (covered in ribbons and medals from their heroic REMF JAG-lawyer service in Bumfuckistan, where on a clear day they could almost hear the bullets flying at better men than they) and proudly declaring their intention to “retake” the Senate seat in 2020 with a Real True Conservative™ candidate, someone much more amenable to pretending to “fight back” against the Democrat Socialists while nobly losing every battle. Because Principles, you guys.

Unfortunately for them, their next chosen Potemkin warrior will assuredly be smeared the same way Moore was, leaving the bugmen slackjawed, confused, and helpless to respond. This flummoxed condition will hold indefinitely, at least until the rest of us are finally forced to admit that real change is unachievable under our squalid and corrupt system until a viable third party is established, thereby creating an effective work-around nullifying future bugman skullduggery.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, it’s far more likely that we’ll see Civil War v2.0 first, which has now been made almost inevitable by yesterday’s demonstration that there is no voting our way out of this mess. Thankfully, the bloodbath will probably have the effect of washing the DC gutters clean of said corruption and squalor, if nothing else. And then along will come the ever-reliable David French and his Shitweasel Squad or their successors, to consolidate another Pyrrhic “victory” by bravely shooting the wounded.

Share

The Long March

How we got here, and where it’s all leading.

Disabling of independent thought. Nothing is more threatening to petty dictators than a citizenry’s widespread ability to think clearly and independently. Radical education reformers have sought for generations to drum the capacity for independent thought out of students. “Critical thinking” has been made into a garbage term for fads that have students doing anything but gain content knowledge.

Most college students today probably could not answer even a fraction of the questions on an eighth grade general knowledge exam from 1912. Without core knowledge, people have a difficult time putting any knowledge into its proper context. After decades of such politicizing reforms, you can end up with college students so muddled in their thinking that they need “trigger warnings” before reading anything that might conflict with the social and emotional programming they’ve experienced. In the propaganda phase, we’ll see how political correctness compounds this problem by cultivating the fear of rejection for expressing one’s thoughts.

Ever more bureaucratization. Human freedom is inversely proportional to the bloat of the administrative state. I’m not sure who should be credited with first making this observation. It resounds in the work of the American Founders, Alexis de Tocqueville, Friedrich Hayek, and even the psychiatrist Carl Jung, among many others. But the piles of regulations that put businesses, as well as personal lives, into straitjackets attest to this destabilizing trend for human freedom.

You can trace this back quite a ways, particularly with President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs put into place to address the Great Depression. But it certainly helped put into high gear the bloat we see today. Compounding the problem is the notion that immigration should be limitless and the nation borderless, despite a national debt of $20 trillion. The metastasis of bureaucracy is a huge indicator we’ve been on the path to centralized power that feeds corruption and lays groundwork for communism.

Erasure of collective memory. Another crime of radical education reform is its attack on the study of history, civics, and the classics of literature. Today we can see the bitter fruits of such 1960s radical education reform, which has roots going back to 1920s with John Dewey. If we are no longer able to place ourselves and society into the context of historical events, our vision going forward will be blurred at best.

It gets even worse if we don’t learn how our form of government functions. Today fewer and fewer college students have the capacity to understand that the First Amendment serves as a buffer against totalitarianism, not something to be abolished under the pretext of “hate speech.” And depriving students exposure to literary classics like Shakespeare (based on the charge that such works are “Western” and therefore ethnocentric) prevents them from discussing the universal human condition and our common humanity.

Instead, students are increasingly fed grievance studies and identity politics. As universities go this route, it trickles down to K-12 education. As a result, we are losing the social glue of our common traditions and heritage—not just as a nation, but as human beings. This cultivation of ignorance by the education establishment over the years compounds the isolating effect on people. It makes youth especially vulnerable to becoming fodder for power elites.

That’s from part two of a truly monumental work, a near-comprehensive primer on the mechanisms by which communism has infiltrated our society. I excerpted that bit because it underlines what I’ve always believed is the single most important step of the early stages: the infiltration and takeover of the educational system, and its subsequent use to not only promote communism, but also erode respect for American values, distort historical fact, erase knowledge of our Founding and our civic structure, and diminish the very idea of the value of liberty and the concept of unalienable, God-given rights themselves. From part three:

Once communism gained a foothold in Russia, it doomed its citizens to lives of scarcity, misery, social distrust, terror, and mass murder. The same goes for China. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, the Castros, Che Guevara, Joseph Stalin, the Kims of North Korea—all of them were brutal dictators enabled by a system that always places too much power into the hands of too few people. It’s a corrupt and cruel system that allows an elite oligarchy—which Lenin called a “vanguard”—to enslave the entire population.

But what about a nation like America, which was built on the idea that every human being is endowed by our Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? We have a Constitution that guarantees these rights and separates the branches of government, placing restraints on government so individuals may live freely. Furthermore, this document intentionally contained the seeds of slavery’s destruction. Americans shed a lot of blood to protect the freedoms enshrined in that document for us and for our posterity.

So is it possible that we, a free people, could ever throw it all away? Could we sell ourselves into the slavery called communism? Sadly, of course we could. Anyone who forgets his birthright is more likely to squander it. And there has been a lot of forgetting. As Ronald Reagan warned, “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”

Chillingly prophetic words, those. And then there’s this:

Nearly 100 years ago, the Italian communist Antonio Gramsci declared that the key to achieving global communism was through culture, not promoting socialist economic policies that had little appeal in the West. This would require a “long march through the institutions” of society, destroying them from within so communism could fill the vacuum.

Radicals of the 1960s like Saul Alinksy picked up on this theme, noting that “the system” (i.e., American freedom) could only be destroyed once radical operatives had secured control over society’s institutions. The deep state is one example of institutional takeover that’s been building through decades of bureaucratic bloat, with operatives embedded in the military and intelligence agencies. The cultural takeover of media outlets, academia, and entertainment is both broad and deep today, after decades of creep.

But it is the mediating institutions have been most relentlessly attacked—family, church, and voluntary organizations—because they serve as buffer zones of influence that help shield individuals from abuses by the state. Today they are more vulnerable than ever to total absorption by the Mass State, a prerequisite for communism.

Such has been their success that to even take note of this sinister “progress,” much less suggest that it should be seriously pondered or examined, is to hazard getting oneself labeled as a deluded headcase, an irrational, conspiracy-theorizing lunatic. Which in turns suggests just how difficult a struggle lies ahead of us, and how long it might take us to turn the tide—assuming that’s even possible at this late date.

Like I keep saying: not by accident, no coincidence. Once you acknowledge that, the rest follows as surely as dawn follows dark. These articles make an ironclad case for the proposition, and specific as they are, backed up by plenty of supporting links, amount to damned useful support for any good-faith discussion of the matter you might happen to find yourself involved in. From part one:

Although communist and socialist governments murdered well more than 100 million people in the course of the twentieth century, that number spikes even further when you include the practical bedfellows of communism, like Nazism and fascism, for example. According to the calculations of Professor R. J. Rummel, author of “Death by Government,” totalitarian regimes snuffed out approximately 169 million lives in the twentieth century alone. That number is more than four times higher than the 38 million deaths—civilian as well as military—caused by all of the twentieth century wars combined.

As Rummel states: “Power kills. Absolute power kills absolutely.” The common thread that runs through communist and fascist ideologies is their totalitarian nature, which means they control people by breeding scarcity, ignorance, human misery, social distrust, the constant threat of social isolation, and death to dissenters. All in the name of justice and equality.

They cannot abide any checks or balances, particularly checks on government power as reflected in the U.S. Bill of Rights. They fight de-centralization of power, which allows localities and states true self-governance. Such restraints on the centralized power of the state stand in the way of achieving the goal of communism: absolute state power over every single human being.

Which is why they’ve worked so diligently to neuter the Constitution, to dismiss it as a document of only historical interest with merely notional, glancing relevance to life in America today—”how could they have foreseen” etc and blah blah blah—or, alternatively, to promote it as a “living document” infinitely malleable to more comfortably suit the whims and fads of the moment.

It has become fashionable in some quarters on the Right to bash the Constitution as a failed document, a near-useless, poorly-conceived, slapdash botch doomed to said failure by its own in-built flaws right from the start. I never have subscribed to that theory myself; it has admittedly failed as the primary guardian of our rights, sure enough. But it’s my belief that the failure, just as Adams warned, was ours. Had we demanded strict adherence to its policies and prescriptions as we should have, and raised a real howl every time it was traduced or ignored by maleficent politicians with barely-clandestine designs on our natural rights, it would still be functioning perfectly well as the blueprint for proper governance of a free people.

The Constitution didn’t break down on its own; because of a soft complacency going back many, many years, it was broken. I have serious doubts as to the possibility of putting it back together again; I consider civil war or partition or both to be far more likely, sobering as it is to anticipate. But if repair and restoration is ever to happen, a clear understanding of who and what broke it, and why, would have to be a vital first step.

Share

“Paglia: The Dumbing Down of America Began in Public Schools”

And that was neither accident nor coincidence.

In the last several years, Americans have been sensing that something is seriously wrong with the current crop of young people. True, they are likely to have the most education credentials any generation has ever received. They also are technically-savvy, and as such, have a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips.

But in spite of these factors, today’s students seem to exhibit a character that is high in sensitivity and low in knowledge. What gives? Why are our students turning out like this?

Camille Paglia recently revealed the answer to that question. Paglia, a long-time Democrat, feminist, and college professor, believes the problem started in the earliest stages of education in the nation’s public schools:

“It’s really started at the level of public school education. I’ve been teaching now for 46 years as a classroom teacher, and I have felt the slow devolution of the quality of public school education in the classroom.”

According to Paglia, teachers at elite institutions are unable to see this decline in knowledge because their students often come from private schools and wealthy homes, which presumably still retain some elements of rigorous education. The great majority of students, however, can be described in the following way:

“What has happened is these young people now getting to college have no sense of history – of any kind! No sense of history. No world geography. No sense of the violence and the barbarities of history. So, they think that the whole world has always been like this, a kind of nice, comfortable world where you can go to the store and get orange juice and milk, and you can turn on the water and the hot water comes out. They have no sense whatever of the destruction, of the great civilizations that rose and fell, and so on – and how arrogant people get when they’re in a comfortable civilization. They now have been taught to look around them to see defects in America – which is the freest country in the history of the world – and to feel that somehow America is the source of all evil in the universe, and it’s because they’ve never been exposed to the actual evil of the history of humanity. They know nothing!”

Exactly right…and to paraphrase Reagan, almost everything they think they know isn’t so. “No sense of history” is the crucial bit; in every budding Marxist shitrapy under the sun, the first thing the New Bosses do (apart from ending private ownership of firearms, natch) is to get busy rewriting history to suit their purposes. It’s been no different here—which is how we’ve gone, for instance, from George Washington being the Father of his Country to George Washington, miserable slaveowning bastard. That’s if they deign to even discuss him at all.

As it happens, I’ve been re-reading some old H Beam Piper of late, and there’s a passage from Space Viking that might bear remembering right about now. To wit:

The barbarians are rising; they have a leader, and they’re uniting. The people who don’t understand civilization, and wouldn’t like it if they did. The hitchhikers. The people who create nothing, and who don’t appreciate what others have created for them, and who think civilization is something that just exists and that all they need to do is enjoy what they can understand of it—luxuries, a high living standard, and easy work for high pay. Responsibilities? Phooey! What do they have a government for?

And now, the hitchhikers think they know more about the car than the people who designed it, so they’re going to grab the controls…

It wasn’t the war that put Hitler into power. It was the fact that the ruling class of his nation, the people who kept things running, were discredited. The masses, the homemade barbarians, didn’t have anyone to take their responsibilities for them. What they have on Marduk is a ruling class that has been discrediting itself…And they have a democracy, and they are letting the enemies of democracy shelter themselves behind democratic safeguards.

That’s part of a longer discussion on how civilizations die off, and was written in 1962 or thereabouts. Funny, innit, how the more things change, the more they stay the same?

(Via Insty)

Update! Colleges: part of the problem too.

Are they our betters because of the degrees they hang on the walls of their over-priced, open-floor plan townhouses? Going to college used to mean something more than you had nowhere else to go after high school. It was a training ground for the leadership class. A college student was an invitee to an intellectual banquet where he could sample the best of Western civilization, of art and literature, of civics and philosophy. But today, it’s all gender studies and grade inflation, with whiny social justice warriors drowning out any voice that won’t sing in tune. It is steam table trays heaped with gray, fatty meat and limp asparagus – the Golden Corral of the mind.

Our aspiring leadership class leaves college with an anchor of debt and the itch of chlamydia, poisoned by a politically correct hook-up culture that amazingly manages to combine the most boring and annoying aspects of both leftism and debauchery. Out go these future leaders on their “slut-walks” and the rest of us look at them and think “Hard pass.” We’ve raised a generation of immoral puritans, living their lives in constant fear that somewhere, somehow, someone is having a normal sex life.

Where are the elite’s achievements? Our betters have been running things and yet they are the ones crying loudest about how awful things are. It’s another scam, of course. Things are awful, but not for them – do you think the Westside Los Angeles folks I dwell among are hurting? No, let the good times roll – on the backs of the people east of I-5. Things are hard out there in actual America (but improving under Donald Trump, the quintessential Anti-Better), and our ruling class is demanding action. That action is to direct more money and power to the ruling class. That’s the answer to every policy question. Yeah, they’ve failed, but if you reward them, well, then they’ll totally start succeeding.

Iraq, the 2008 financial meltdown, health care…the hits keep coming, and the answer for the last failure is always the same. Trust us, and double down. Accountability? That’s for us suckers.

It’s Schlichter again, and it’s dead on the money. I excerpted the latter part of this column a week or so ago, but this bit was apt enough to attach to this post, so you get another chance to go read it if you missed it before.

Share

RIP, BSA

Aesop knows Full Convergence when he sees it. And he knows what’s behind it, too.

Surrendering completely to the hopelessly polluted cultural tides, the Boy Scouts of America announced they will start letting girls into the organization next year.

Of course this is an asinine, self-destructive, and completely wrong move for the organization, but it’s just another proof that it needs to crawl under the porch and die.

First is was the atheists pushing back against reverence, then it was the gay Scouts and NAMBLA would-be scoutmasters pounding out any notion of a scout being “morally straight”.

Both of those are a problem for a post-Christian society run by the most toxic iteration of secular humanism, and now we can add feminism to the list of afflictions.

Because a large swath of bitter, ugly, misandrists is perpetually offended at the idea of boys being boys, and growing up to become men. “We can’t be having any of that.” they say with an upturned nose, and a chip the size of Gibraltar on their shoulder. In a way, it was inevitable, as fathers have been relentlessly pushed out of the home by one-sided divorce courts where due process goes to die, aided and abetted by no-fault divorce, and most boys are lucky if they even know their own father, let alone have one around to go to a scout troop meeting or outdoor adventure.

We can’t let boys be boys, and we certainly can’t have them hiking, running, building muscles and healthy bodies, climbing rocks, shooting bows and rifles, and slingshots, learning responsibility, self-reliance, masculine strength, personal and physical courage, whether on a swim across a lake, or learning to save lives at the pool or when someone is injured, or learning how to do 87 different things to such a degree that most Eagle Scouts should probably be given a college associate’s degree on the spot. They’ll get all self-assured, they’ll tussle, they’ll skin their knees, break some bones, get dirt on the carpet, and generally become the men that women of today still long for (in vain, mostly) if the ratings for Mad Men and Daniel Craig’s rebooting of 007 back to Connery levels were any indication. The sisterhood won’t allow that, for it swims upstream against the currents of the depraved culture, and one glimpse of it undoes hour of tedious lectures on diversity and metrosexuality, while making the buckets of Ritalin and Prozac and Paxil heaped into and hurled at normal, healthy school-age boys a total waste of money.

We have a society of harpy man-hating women, and pussified metrosexual males, that go pale at the thought of raising boys who’d climb mountains, sail around the world solo, join the military and kill people and break things, find buried treasure, hunt pirates, or go to the moon. Only women and people of color should do that, because they’re better than the rich white old male patriarchy that carved the greatest nation on earth out of harsh wilderness with two hands, a strong back, a sharp mind, and guts. Oh, and while we’re at it, stop singing the praises of your mother country. It triggers the snowflakes.

Society now wants boys to shut up, check their privilege, wallow in their race guilt, genuflect to defective dystopian savages, and go sit on the couch in their footie pajamas sipping cocoa. Not bring groceries to a widow and her kids, or mow an old woman’s lawn, or – God forbid! – go to church or synagogue and read a Bible.

We can’t have them building things, building strength, building their minds, building their confidence, and learning to Be Prepared. O hell no! They need to learn to depend on government, and its endless soul-sapping bureaucracy, to let it be the same fount of plenty it is for millions of welfare moms married to the government in fatherless homes, once a rarity, but now, the near-universal norm across all races and every level of economic status.

And the same things that have pussified the rest of society will now become the norm in the troops, as they have in the military, and business, and school, and churches, and in short order, only the pussified priggish beta males will be left there, along with the militant recruiting LGBTEIEIO contingent, and in a few short years, everything the girls who wanted into the Boy Scouts to find will have been driven out of it, by the herds of clueless feral shitting and scratching-up-everything hens that they are, like their mothers before them were.

The men will leave, and the boys, forced into a game where they can’t win, will quickly lose interest, and quit in droves. And so, a once-proud and honorable organization, that had raised millions of exceptional scouts into Star, Life, and Eagle Scouts, and millions more boys into simply decent, confident, and competent men, will fade into obscurity and irrelevance. Which, after all, was the whole point of the exercise driving all the pressure on them in the first place. Mission Accomplished, ye shitweasels of cultural decay, you’ve felled another oak, and rotted another pillar of society.

Ah, but all is not lost. After the final Moslem victory over us, the harpies will be subjugated, LGBTTSTVTPXQ39 will be mouldering in mass graves, the Commie Left will be cowed and its media propaganda arm silenced, and the rest of us will be forced to toughen up a great deal if we’re to manage any sort of effective resistance at all. The BSA won’t be a part of that, alas. But I’d bet a good many troopers from the Old Scouts will.

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