Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

The pseudo-science is SETTLED!

Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”): all bullshit, all the way down.

“Discussions on global warming often refer to ‘global temperature.’ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,” says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the “validity of a ‘global temperature.’”

While it’s “possible to treat temperature statistically locally,” says Science Daily, “it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless.”

A few years after the University of Copenhagen report was published, University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, one of the report’s authors, noted in another paper that “number of weather stations providing data…plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919.”

“There are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.”

It’s all no more than arrant nonsense—a Progressivist subterfuge intended to establish and empower some form of global government with total control over First World capitalist economies with an eye towards redistributing their wealth to Third World ones—and has never been anything but. The entire history of the Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”) scam allows for no other conclusion.

Share

Gun Rights Cake

So in last night’s “die gun-grabbers die!” post, the Aesop excerpt included a link to LawDog’s classic “Gun Rights Cake” essay, one I’ve also mentioned here myself a time or three. But it suddenly occurred to me that some of y’all may not have seen it before, and probably passed Aesop’s glancing mention on by without a thought or care. And that’s too bad, because you’re missing out on a real standout of a gem of a prize: one of the most pithy, unusual, and well-put-together arguments against any further concessions to the maneuverings and manipulations of gun-grabbers who aren’t ever going to be placated no matter what we agree to give up—people for whom the word “compromise” has always meant “We win, you surrender.”

So as a public service, I’m gonna do y’all a solid and repost it again. There’s a comic-strip version which I’m all but certain I ran here a while back, and LawDog also helpfully provides a link to his own GRC repost which features some quite worthy additional material as well. But the Q&A discussion from the original text-only post is worth including a bit of, which I don’t believe I ever have put up here. So we’ll go with that one this time around.

Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?

Yes.

Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The same way you banned guns in New York. The same way you banned guns in Chicago. The same way you banned guns in Washington DC. Duh.

Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

You mean never shooting anybody, or never shooting anybody who needs it? I believe that all law-abiding citizens are human, and thus, not perfect. That’s not a reason to ban their guns, though.

All good stuff, and there’s plenty more of it. And then comes the question that leads to the timeless and immortal “Gun Rights Cake” response.

Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn’t even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about “compromise” from your camp … except, it’s not compromise.

Let’s say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with “GUN RIGHTS” written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise. Give me half.” I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, “Give me that cake.”

I say, “No, it’s my cake.”

You say, “Let’s compromise.” What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what’s left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise — let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 — and I’m left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I’m sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites — we’ll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders — and I’m left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you’ve got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I’m left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you’re standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being “reasonable”, and wondering “why we won’t compromise”.

I’m done with being reasonable, and I’m done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been “reasonable” nor a genuine “compromise”.

Nope. It’s always been subterfuge, a diabolical stratagem that demonstrates what the Left learned from the unexpected failure of another of their pet projects, Prohibition. Incrementalism has been their preferred approach to stripping Americans of their freedom ever since, on just about any issue you care to name. The inch-by-inch, step-by-step approach ensures the frog stays in the pot, see, until he’s all boiled and done. But if there’s one core, take-it-to-the-bank truth about them, it is that they will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped.

Share

Ask a silly question

Get an honest answer.

When did it become ­acceptable for politicians, and their media helpers, to target private citizens for their ­political opinions?

When those opinions diverged even slightly from Democrat-Socialist dogma, of course.

In the wake of the mass shooting in El Paso, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) released the names of a few dozen San Antonio residents who had donated to President Trump’s re-election campaign. (Castro is chairman of the presidential campaign of his twin brother, Julián.)

Castro was apparently unconcerned by the prospect that these people — retirees and small-business owners — would be inevitably targeted for ­harassment. They had voted the wrong way and donated to the wrong campaign, and they needed to be punished.

He wasn’t “unconcerned.” Harrassment and, ultimately, violent assault was the whole idea from the git-go. Unapproved beliefs, you see, must not only be punished—they must be suppressed.

Liberals view the election of President Trump as a monstrous anomaly, something that should never have happened. They view all Trump supporters, be they Acela Corridor denizens or car-dealership owners in suburban Texas, as complicit in this great evil and therefore fair game.

The media is only too happy to help. Everyone remembers what The Washington Post and The New York Times did to the Covington Catholic boys. Or recall the way CNN went after an anonymous tweeter after Trump retweeted an image he had created mocking the network.

The message to anyone who dares not march in lockstep with liberalism: You don’t matter, and we will target you for ruination whenever we feel like it.

NOW you’re getting it.

Liberals, in short, have ­resolved that anything goes as they seek to thwart and undermine democracy in the name of liberalism.

Sure, liberals always say they want more political participation from the masses, but it turns out the only participation they welcome is the kind that helps them win.

Hence, too, their efforts to use underhanded juridical means to undo the outcome of elections they lose, whether that’s the “collusion” probe in America or endless bureaucratic stalling aimed at preventing Brexit.

But the attacks on private citizens is a new low.

Perhaps. But rest assured: you ain’t seen nothin‘ yet. For the Left, the end of totalitarian tyranny justifies any and all means, and they’ll inflict casualties and stack bodies just as high as they think they need to so as to accomplish our subjugation irreversibly. When it comes to gaining, securing, and expanding power and control for themselves, the Left recognizes no limits whatsoever. That is the only rule they follow, the only morality they have, and the only rationalization they need.

Share

Fundamentally transformed

I’m having a VERY hard time not just throwing blockquote tags around this 2016 Myron Magnet classic and swiping it entire.

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

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

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

As these agencies have metastasized, they have borne out not a single premise that justified their creation, and their increasingly glaring failure has drawn citizens’ angry attention to them. Expert? As a New Deal congressman immediately recognized with shock, many of those who staffed the Administrative State were kids just out of law school, with zero real-world experience or technical knowledge. Efficient? Can-do America, which built the Empire State Building in 11 months and ramped up airplane production during World War II from 2,000 in 1939 to nearly 100,000 in 1944, now takes years of bureaucratic EPA busywork to repair a bridge or lay a pipeline, and who knows how many businesses never expand or even start because the maze of government regulation is too daunting and costly to navigate? Only last year, EPA “experts” fecklessly stood by as workers under their supervision accidentally dumped 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into the Colorado River, and the agency vouchsafed not a word of warning to downstream Colorado and New Mexico officials for an entire day before the poisonous, fluorescent-orange flood hit them. Over at Veterans Affairs, those who’ve fought for their country die in droves while waiting for medical care. But what’s the problem? asks agency head Robert MacDonald blithely. After all, at ever-popular Disneyland, “do they measure the number of hours you wait in line?”

Ensuring the citizens’ health and safety? Where is the Food and Drug Administration as counterfeit medicines and medical supplies from China infiltrate our hospitals? As for the infamously dysfunctional Transportation Security Administration, its Keystone Kops’ regularly reported inability to spot journalists carrying banned weapons onto airplanes, while they are too busy fondling travelers’ private parts or undressing grannies, is a standing national joke—on us. We lost our constitutional safeguards for this?

We didn’t lose ’em, exactly; we gave ’em away, sitting back and watching passively as, gradually, they were stolen one after another after another.

Share

The REAL “red flag”

Diplomad has it.

All over the West, not just in the USA, we have created in the past three or four decades a vile, toxic culture that leads to the sorts of murderous sprees we have seen, for example, in Norway, New Zealand, and, of course, the USA. Radicalization via Internet? Sure, but it goes much deeper than that. It goes deeper than porno and vile video games.

There is a pervasive rot spread by Hollywood, the universities, and the media, both new and legacy. It tells us we must welcome endless waves of dirt-poor aliens, who enter our country illegally, and ply them with free health care, voting rights, housing, and free schooling. We must sing the praises of single mothers; promote abortion up to the moment of birth and even beyond. Judeo-Christian values, institutions, and traditions are ripe for ridicule and destruction, and, of course, deservedly so! Western history, after all, is just an endless catalog of racism, imperialism, genocide, patriarchy, and assault on the very earth. Gaia weeps because of the white man!

Man. Men. Male. These are now foul words and concepts. There is an ongoing war, yes, war, against men and what it means to be male, in our decrepit universities, in the decaying industry known as Hollywood (notice that white men have virtually disappeared from TV commercials?) and in the media. Instead, for example, of celebrating the amazing accomplishment of American men landing on the moon, the WaPo harangues us with nonsense that the Soviet moon program was much more diverse and, of course, it sent the first woman into space and the first non-white into space. Don’t you dare think, much less say, “Yes, but the object was to get to the moon first.”

We see, as I have written before, young men alienated from their culture, told by their intellectual betters than they are all rapists and murderers and racists and just plain “TOXIC!” University orientation programs seek to deprogram the male out of young men students. Hollywood tells them they are murderers and clowns, that the future is female, and, besides, women can kick your ass, buddy! These men find the universities, the entertainment industry, the media, and the work environment hostile. Many retreat into delusional and dangerous corners of the Internet, and link up with others like them. They have no historical context for what is happening as the schools are garbage and no longer teach history, or Western philosophy, or the great accomplishments of the West; they pick up scattered and often insane ideas from weird web sites that promote dark conspiracy theories. Yes, they are radicalized by the Internet but the roots go deeper.

We are destroying Western Civilization and the result is bloody massacre.

That’s your “red flag.”

And, as the man says, it’s one you won’t ever see Enemedia or Hollywood discuss. Certainly not honestly, anyway.

Share

The more things change…

Then again, some things NEVER do.

It may be that the best book that will ever be written about today’s progressive mind-set was published in 1941. That in The Red Decade author Eugene Lyons was, in fact, describing the Communist-dominated American Left of the Depression-wracked 1930s and 1940s makes his observations even more meaningful, for it is sobering to be confronted with how little has been gained by hard experience. The celebration of feelings over reason? The certainty of moral virtue? The disdain for tradition and the revising of history for ideological ends? The embrace of the latest definition of correct thought? Lyons was one of the most gifted reporters of his time, and among the bravest, and his story of the spell cast by Stalinist-tinged social-justice activism over that day’s purported best and brightest—literary titans, Hollywood celebrities, leading academics, religious leaders, media heavies—would be jaw-dropping if it weren’t so eerily familiar.

Indeed, looking backward from a time when, according to surveys, more millennials would rather live under socialism than capitalism, it’s apparent that Lyons was documenting not just a historical moment but also a species of historical illiteracy as unchanging as it is poisonous, its utopianism able to flourish only at the expense of independent thought. On a range of issues, alternative views were defined as not merely mistaken but morally reprehensible; and among the elites who dominated the cultural sphere, deviants from approved opinion were subject to special abuse. Of course, having lived and worked in Soviet Russia, Lyons made distinctions about relative abuses of power. Under Stalinism, dissidents were liquidated, or vanished into the gulag; the American Left could only liquidate careers and disappear reputations.

Well, not as hideous as being gulag-ed or Holodomor-ed, admittedly. But ask any one of the many who have had their ability to make a living destroyed, their home violated and damaged, themselves and their spouses/children hounded and stalked everywhere they went by gangs of violent commie thugs about it sometime, and just let them tell you all about how much fun it was. You’re sure to get an earful about those wonderful, compassionate humanitarians.

He acknowledges that most who followed the leftist line meant no evil—he calls them the Innocents Club, “high minded, idealistic, eager to be useful…Not their hearts, but the organs located in their skulls, were at fault.” Still, he gives no one a pass. Decades before Tom Wolfe wrote Radical Chic, Lyons showed a special disdain for the wealthy who embraced radicalism to salve their guilty consciences. Perhaps the most prominent of these was Corliss Lamont, son of the chairman of J. P. Morgan & Company, who, as head of the Friends of the Soviet Union, emerged as the chief public apologist for Stalin’s crimes. As Lyons wrote, Lamont spared “neither his money nor his energy in defending the mass slaughter in Russia, and in damning those who dared examine that horror.” Affronted, the multimillionaire sued. The suit went nowhere, but Lamont’s grandson is today governor of Connecticut.

Given his intimate acquaintance with the Left, Lyons well knew what calumnies the publication of The Red Decade would bring down on his head. At the time, especially in elite circles, the charge of “red baiting” was akin to that of racism, sexism, or homophobia today; whether made in anger or with premeditated intent, it was enough to halt any challenge to the Left’s worldview. It was a weapon deployed, he wrote, by “literary critics, book reviewers and political commentators…a neatly contrived device for heading off free and uninhibited discussion of little things such as man-made famines, horrifying blood purges, forced labor on a gigantic scale.” In fact, in almost every meaningful arena of American life, those who “ran afoul of the revolution were made to feel the full weight of their crimes; they were ostracized socially, handicapped professionally and not infrequently stripped of their jobs as well as their reputations for ordinary decency.”

Lyons’s own world of book and magazine publishing was so dominated by leftists that former adherents who turned against the Party, deemed “moral monsters and turncoats,” could be made essentially to evaporate from mainstream view. He lists no fewer than 30 writers who suffered that fate during “the intellectual red terror,” including (as if to underscore the point for contemporary readers) such now largely forgotten former luminaries as Max Eastman, John Dos Passos, and James T. Farrell. He includes himself on that list. “The part I cannot induce the uninitiated to believe is how effective the terror could be,” he writes. “When you first met a particularly far-fetched libel on your character, it merely seemed funny in its absurdity.” But continually repeated, he adds, the lies take their toll, for wherever one tried to make one’s way professionally, “there were manuscript readers, casting directors, book reviewers who—consciously or by a sort of pack instinct—took their prejudices ready-made from the Popular Front comrades.”

For all the Left’s capacity to shape opinion in Lyons’s time, the power wielded by today’s progressives is even more malign, for its heavy hand is all but unconstrained by countervailing forces. For one thing, 70 or 80 years ago, organized religion held such sway in America that even committed leftists understood that it could be derided only behind closed doors; and while there were some prominent clergymen who fell hard for the progressive line, they usually made sure to do so only as private citizens. Even they would have dismissed as lunacy the possibility that one day not only their congregants, but entire religious orders, might be widely characterized as dangerous zealots for adhering to traditional beliefs, or that agencies of government would compel them to violate their most deeply held spiritual convictions.

At least rhetorically, the Communists of the late 1930s were, in fact, far less hostile to the American idea than are today’s run-of-the-mill progressives. In an age where Americans were raised to revere their country’s singular history, they all but wrapped themselves in the flag. “Communism Is Twentieth-Century Americanism” went the party’s famous Popular Front slogan, and they did not hesitate to name their Spanish battalions for Lincoln and Washington or the Party school for Marxist instruction after Jefferson. The contrast with today’s Left, which sees American history as a cavalcade of oppression, could not be more striking. Little wonder that today’s Democrats, seeking to stay abreast of their fervent base, are as publicly invested in identity politics and collectivist economics as the denizens of any faculty lounge.

Indeed, this speaks to the most striking difference between the world that Lyons described and the one we contend with today: it’s no longer a tiny, if disproportionately influential, political entity waving the Left’s banner; it’s one of the two major parties.

This article is both chilling and infuriating simultaneously. Communism’s enduring appeal for dopes and dupes across the globe is way beyond baffling. It’s a zombie ideology that never seems to die—no matter how abject its failure, how cruel and demeaning the life-circumstances and conditions it invariably creates—nor does it ever want for fools advocating the imposition of its misery on everyone else. It just keeps staggering blindly on, to blight everything it touches along the road to ruin.

Share

A little more history

A look back at why we are where we are.

The West took a turn for the worse about 100 years ago. Three versions of a new political vision—fascism, communism, and progressivism—came to power at about the same time. Each one put the government at the center of national life. The political history of the 20th century in the West is largely the story of these three versions of a modern statist vision.

In 1922, Benito Mussolini, the founder of the fascist movement, was elected prime minister of Italy. In 1917, Vladimir Lenin seized power in Russia and founded the Soviet Communist state. In 1913, Woodrow Wilson won the presidency and swiftly laid the foundations of the progressive state that America is today.

As Mussolini put it: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” According to Mussolini, fascism meant the politicization of everything—and everything was swiftly politicized in Lenin’s “dictatorship of the proletariat,” too.

Does it seem to you that American life today is politicized to an astonishing and often ridiculous degree? Have you heard that the city of Berkeley in California has decided that the term “manhole cover” is sexist? It’s true. In Berkeley, they shall henceforth be called “maintenance hole covers.” It took the progressives about a century, changing the rules and changing the culture step by step, progressively, to make this a problem the Berkeley City Council had to solve.

But the politicization of American life is no laughing matter. Failing to adhere strictly to the Nazi party line in the Third Reich or the Communist party line in the USSR could cost you your life. In America today, failing to adhere strictly to the dictates of political correctness can cost you your livelihood, as we have seen in far too many instances already. Basic, common sense terms such as “he” and “she” have become politically radioactive, and in coercively many-gendered New York City, you can be fined for using the wrong pronoun.

As I always say, the question before us isn’t, as VDH asks in another post I’m working on, “Can’t we all just get along?” The REAL question, given that the non-negotiable precondition for “getting along” with the Left is blanket acceptance of being ruled by them, is: should we even WANT to?

Share

Bad news for Democrats=good news for Americans

No exception to the rule.

Under President Trump, America has maintained the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 50 years, there are more jobs opportunities than there are people to fill them, wages are steadily rising, and American optimism has returned. Not to mention, he is bringing jobs back to America, ensuring free and fair trade by holding countries like China accountable for predatory practices, and renewing American strength with tough negotiating tactics and the promise to put America first.

According to Democrats, America is worse off than it has ever been. While President Trump does right by the American people in his pursuit of economic prosperity, immigration reform, affordable education  and so on, Democrats continue to run further left maintaining a “world is burning” ideology. Their proposed solution? Socialism.

Pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-American policies don’t work for Democrats. Instead, they aim to manipulate voters under the guise of progress with proposals like “Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, and free higher education without ever addressing the real cost beyond dollars and cents.

No one is going to argue that people should have access to education and health care, but when all of these institutions become government run, do you trust your government to make decisions for you?

Capitalism and the free-market system have allowed for a better life for all Americans with wage increases, better job opportunities, and record low unemployment, yet the embrace of socialism by leftist politicians and many in the media only continues to amplify.

Raising the eternal question: are they stupid, or just evil? The healing power of “and”: embrace it we must!

Accepting and implementing socialist proposals like these would welcome the heavy hand of government into every American’s life and into every American’s wallet. The reality of the proposal is that America’s energy industry would be destroyed, our economy would be depleted, and jobs would be lost.

Features. Not bugs. The nut of it:

Socialism is not a representation of progress; rather it is creeping government takeover. Socialism is not about equal opportunity and lifting Americans out of poverty, it is about the liberal elites in Washington having the power to oversee everything from our methods of transportation and energy to our education and access to health care.

By George, I think she’s got it! S’truth: Democrat-Socialists are interested in nothing but power—absolute, unchallenged, and limitless power.

As confirmed Cloward-Piven devotees, Demonrats have no choice but to root for failure, decline, and malaise. This will lead to the swamping and eventual breakdown of the US system of Constitutionally limited government, damaged and distorted as it already is, and its replacement with a socialist/Marxist one. And that, in turn, guarantees for them the ultimate goal: unrestrained, ever-increasing power, over every last American’s every least action, decision, or thought.

Some of us seem shocked or bewildered by the Democrat-Socialists’ undisguised dismay over American success and prosperity. We shouldn’t be. American catastrophe is an unavoidable prerequisite for their return to the power they so maniacally crave. The misery suffered by their constituents because of widespread unemployment, impoverishment, and despair concerns them not at all. All a skeptic has to do is pay close attention to their words and actions to remove all doubt and confirm the disgusting truth about them.

Believe it: this is what the Democrat-Socialist Party, so far removed from what it was as late as JFK’s day, has now become. This is who they are, this is what they do. Any statement they make professing to care about your, your family’s, or your community’s welfare is a self-serving lie, offered not to comfort or inform but to deceive. They hold you in contempt, on such occasions when they give you a moment’s thought at all. Their intentions towards you are not benign; at best, they wish to avoid or ignore you to whatever extent they may, insulating themselves from any contact with you except when it’s time to fly back to their “home” district and gain your support in their umpteenth re-election campaign via obsequious flattery, oleaginous charm, and false promises. After victory, they will scurry back to their natural habitat in the verminous DC swamp with utmost alacrity, relieved at not having suffered the intolerable indignity of a return to the ranks of their knavish countrymen. And the cycle begins again.

No, most professional politicians are NOT nice people, and modern Democrat-Socialists are currently the worst specimens of the misbegotten breed. They are neither kind nor good nor decent nor honorable. They are the most noisome phlegm-wads humanity can hawk up, bottom-feeding parasites crawling around underneath the filthiest, most fly-blown compost heap imaginable. Tapeworms would find comparison with them insulting. Contract murderers would disdain their society. Junkie street-whores would feel queasy at the unwelcome prospect of shaking their hand; their pimps would cross the street to elude them, not wishing to sully their reputations by even momentary association with them.

Whenever Democrat-Socialists are shrieking, weeping, or kvetching, the rest of us should be smiling. Their unhappiness is confirmation that somewhere, something has gone right.

Share

Four-stage death roll

Paraphrasing Walter Cronkite: the thought of your kids on Communism oughta scaaaare yuh to death.

We Americans are currently in a civilizational state historians William Strauss and Neil Howe would call the “Third Turning”: an unraveling. The so-called Left is making it happen, too, with conservatives enabling it by conserving yesterday’s liberalism and being those nice guys who finish last.

In Marxist circles, this stage would be called “destabilization” — the second of a four-part process to subvert a society and seize control. The first, third, and fourth stages are, respectively, “demoralization,” “crisis,” and “normalization.”

The demoralization stage, which essentially is the undermining of a target nation’s morality (the process of radically changing the population’s “values”), was actually “over-fulfilled” in the mid-1980s already, as Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov put it at the time. This process continues and is manifested in the widespread antipathy for sexual propriety, faith, and all that is great and good — and in the lust for perversion, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, “transgenderism,” and anti-Americanism in general. We see it in the tearing down of statues; removal of long present Christian symbols; leftist propaganda and decadence in schools and entertainment;, prioritizing of illegal aliens over citizens; revising of American history and impugning of whites; and in attacks on the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and all things traditional.

This destabilization of the American mind and moral compass now has begotten, as it must, societal destabilization. This is reflected in, most obviously, the flooding of our nation with unassimilable foreigners via a purposely porous border. This serves the Cloward-Piven goal of overloading the system to cause breakdown, necessitating replacement of it with, the theory goes, a socialist one.

Of course, this human flood strains schools, hospitals, and services and resources in general. But it’s also used for propaganda purposes, with simple efforts to enforce immigration law — ones pursued by Barack Obama himself — used to demonize ICE agents and the current administration. Vile, divisive lies such as claiming that detention facilities are Nazi-like “concentration camps” lead to hatred, violence, protests, and terrorist attacks such as Saturday’s assault on a Tacoma, Washington ICE facility.
   
This is part of the greater destabilization represented by physical attacks on, threats against, and censorship of the Left’s political opposition, phenomena now being encouraged by media and facilitated by Big Tech as left-wing politicians and law enforcement turn a blind eye. Why not? This all serves to quash their political opposition.

Should this continue in both duration and increasing severity, we will eventually be brought to the “crisis” state, a relatively short stage in which there’s a revolutionary change of power.

All of this is already quite familiar to anybody with functioning synapses, which makes it sobering stuff indeed. Just don’t call ’em Marxists.

To be clear, I don’t say those fomenting this are “Marxists.” Doctrinaire Marxism is, well, so yesterday. Leftists epitomize the moral relativism imbuing our age and, as such, worship the Gods of the Shifting Goalposts. Oh, they’re not better than Marxists (they may be worse), but they have made a lateral move in lunacy. Today they’re sort of like the Marquis de Sade meets Stalin and the Stasi.

Well, I dunno about all that, now. There’s an ongoing debate in various places—mostly Right-leaning ones; the Left doesn’t care what you call ’em, so long as you submit to and obey them— about the usefulness, accuracy, and relevance of terms like “liberal,” “conservative,” “Right,” “Left,” et al for a few years now. It all seems like splitting the hairs a scoche too fine to me. Whatever your nomenclature of preference is, it’s plain enough where the battle lines are drawn; getting bogged down in semantics at this late date seems worse than a waste of time that could better be spent zeroing rifles and loading mags.

Share

How to commit national suicide

None dare call it treason. Not anymore. It’s prospering too much nowadays.

To be coherent and enduring, a nation-state must possess certain characteristics:

  • Its government must be generally deemed legitimate (a.k.a. “consent of the governed”).
  • Its borders must be adequately maintained.
  • It must not permit the formation of exclaves.

Those requirements ought to “go without saying.” But there’s a factor that’s seldom been mentioned in this connection that’s so shriekingly obvious that it embarrasses me to have to mention it:

It must not tolerate traitors.

It’s been said, and truly, that one traitor inside the gates can and will do more damage than a thousand outside them. The ability of a traitor inside the power structure to wreak havoc is limited only by the latitude others afford him: i.e., the degree to which they tolerate his presence in their ranks.

Today we don’t have a mere lone traitor embedded in the power structure. We have an entire political party whose aim is the destruction of these United States. Regard the Democrat Party’s demonstrated attitude toward the legitimacy of the current federal government, the security of America’s borders, and the tolerance of Islamic and Hispanic exclaves, and tell me how you could reach any other conclusion.

Yet a hefty fraction of the electorate continues to vote for these villains.

Yes, I said it and I meant it: Any officeholder or candidate who affiliates with the Democrat Party is a villain. (That logic applies to quite a lot of Republicans as well, but that’s a tirade for another time.) Regardless of their personal representations, they vote in lockstep. They never deviate from the Democrat position as dictated by the party’s leadership. And the party’s leadership is utterly determined to delegitimize the Trump Administration, to eliminate the nation’s borders, and to tolerate the emergence of zones in which American law is contemptuously ignored.

That a number of Democrats recently “came out of the closet” as America-haters shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Their party has given them a tacit nod for their behavior. This can only have one of two meanings:

  • Democrat Party leadership has decided that the time has come to vie for permanent and absolute power;
  • That leadership has become so weak that the party’s lunatics are comfortable in rebellion against it.

Yet at least forty percent of the electorate will vote for Democrats in 2020.

I pray he’s wrong, but fear he’s right about that. At this point, though, I’d say a country willing to countenance even a single Democrat-Socialist in national office deserves what it’s going to get.

Share

Cost-benefit analysis

Skeptic uncorks another of his truly righteous, balls-out screeds that demands to be promoted from comments-section obscurity to more prominence here on the Big Show.

If there’s anything dumber than a Cuckservative, I have no idea what it would be. I had the misfortune of being at a small political gathering a few days back with a local cuck-radio host, who is always babbling about his ‘true conservative principles’ and how Orange Man Bad violates them. The topic at the moment was immigration, particularly third world immigration.

I advanced the opinion that the proper amount of immigration from Africa was zero. The conversation went from there:

CRH: I’m all for African immigration, as long as they come the right way.

ME: That’s because you’re a moron. (Gasps from people around me)

CRH (looking at me slyly): Well, what about Ben Carson? (NOTE, I’ve heard him do this schtick on the radio before.)

ME: What about him?

CRH: Well, what if by not having immigrants from Africa, we were eliminating potential Ben Carsons? (At this point, he thinks he’s won.)

ME: Yeah, still good with that. What do you suppose the chances are of getting a Ben Carson from Africa?

CRH: Uhhh….what?

ME: Put it another way. How many thousands of immigrants from Africa would we have to import to get just ONE Ben Carson? There are 70,000 Somalis in Minneapolis; they elected Ilhan Omar. Have you heard of any Ben Carsons emerging from that 70,000?

CRH: Well, I don’t know, but that’s not the point.

ME: It’s exactly the point. To make good decisions, we have to look at statistics and evidence, not just hoping against hope. We know that by importing 70,000 Somalis we have created a little Mogadishu, in every sense of the word, in a formerly lovely city. Those 70,000 Somalis have elected perhaps the most anti-American Congresscritter in our history, and she’ll get elected for life. How does a Ben Carson alleviate that kind of damage? In all likelihood, even if one did emerge, he’d be killed and eaten by them.

CRH: So, you’re against Somalis. Don’t you find that a little racist?

ME: Maybe it’s a lot racist. I don’t give a shit. I’m just smart enough to know that if you want a first world country, you don’t bring in third world people.

I swear, when I read “It’s exactly the point,” I very nearly stood up and cheered out loud. But I saved the best for last. It involves BBQ, and you really oughta check it out if you missed it before. Trust me, you’ll enjoy it.

Share

Reparations I can REALLY get behind

What the hell, why not.

To those who suggest we might be better spending our time righting the injustices of today rather than of the distant past I say: shame on you. If these wrongs are not righted through compensation they will live on in our collective shame and the descendants of the victims will continue to suffer. Far from abandoning the principle of restorative justice we should be expanding it and exploring what other injustices might be put right through financial compensation.

One glaring example is the great evil visited on the Anglo-Saxon population by the Normal Conquest of 1066. By any standard, the effect on indigenous English society was enduring devastation. Through war, invasion and genocide, the Anglo-Saxon ruling class was almost entirely replaced, control of the church and state surrendered to foreign adversaries, English replaced by Norman French as the language of government, and England’s entire political, social and cultural orientation shifted from Northern Europe to the continent for the next thousand years.

This matters because, just as the pain of colonialism continues to be endured by its descendants, the Conquest continues to have lasting effects. In his study of surnames and social mobility, economic historian Gregory Clark concluded that Norman surnames continue to be 25 percent overrepresented at Oxbridge to this day relative to other indigenous English surnames. As Clark put it: ‘The fact that Norman surnames had not been completely average in their social distribution by 1300, by 1600, or even by 1900 implies astonishingly slow rates of social mobility during every epoch of English history.’ Not for nothing did Nonconformists and Whigs loudly oppose ‘the Norman yoke’ during the 17th and 18th centuries.

Cambridge University, which still drips with Norman money and influence, should now consider to what extent it needs to compensate its Anglo-Saxon victims. The Sutton Trust estimates that Oxbridge graduates earn £400,000 more during their lifetimes than graduates from other UK universities. These figures imply that descendants of the rapacious Norman invader class could be earning tens of thousands of pounds more than other graduates — an undeserved lifetime premium that has survived 31 generations.  So, reparations must certainly be made.  But who shall pay, and who shall receive?

It should be straightforward for a Royal Commission to trace the present-day descendants of Britain’s Norman usurpers through a combination of genealogical and administrative research as well as — inevitably — mandatory genetic testing. A small tax on the Lampards, Vardys and Gascoignes of the world, payable to the Bamfords, Bransons and Ecclestones, would be sufficient to catalyze healing for the open sores of the past.

There will be inevitable quibbles, such as descendants of Normans claiming that they were not personally responsible. But this is feeble prattle. Countries typically honor treaties dating hundreds of years in the past, despite no one being alive who signed them. We pay debts accumulated by previous generations. Similarly, reparations correctly depend on a notion of collective and inherited responsibility, precisely why the Jews were held accountable for the death of Jesus Christ for most of the Christian era.

We are learning every day just how deep our roots in the past lie. The more we learn, the more necessary it is to see the past in terms of the attitudes of the present, and to rectify regrettable aspects. Eventually these may encompass events as old as the Indo-Aryan invasions of 1500 bc, which produced the Hindu caste system, as well as more unheralded travesties such as the American conquest of the Philippines, which introduced junk food, soap operas and general bad taste. Ultimately, only by demarcating a special class of victims and making grievance inheritable can we address the sins of the past and promote harmony in our own world.

Bang on. So if you aren’t passionately, one thousand percent behind seeing justice done for such horrible imperialist oppression, you are almost certainly a RACIST™, and should probably be killed.

Share

The fix is in all right

Bill picks up yesterday’s “Chicken shit-chicken salad” post and runs with it.

UPDATE:  Mike quotes Cerno:

Turning chicken shit into chicken salad…that still tastes like shit – Cold Fury

Cherchez le Cerno update! Might this fat, juicy worm have a barbed hook hidden in it?

No doubt. But maybe not the worm Cerno is worried about.

A daughter of avowed Trump enemy James Comey is one of the prosecutors. The judge is a BJ Clinton appointee who should recuse himself, but likely won’t. If he doesn’t, it will be a massive tell.

What’s the hook?

A plea deal, in which Epstein makes a statement to the effect that Trump made use of his underage slave-girls for the purpose of sex, as well as an exoneration of BJ Cliinton, in exchange for an extremely lenient sentence.

That’s your conspiracy theory of the day, and it worries me more than a little bit. It’s not as if we haven’t seen massive amounts of lawfare and perjury used in attempted smears of Trump already. Nobody who is paying attention would think my scenario is entirely farfetched.

Agreed, completely. Farfetched? Au contrere, mon frere; it’s obvious, and inarguable. There is no length to which they will not go, no low to which they will not stoop, to advance their agenda. Which, for the moment, is mostly haranguing, harrassing, and hogtying Trump.

Share

Democrat-Socialists: all about the chaos

Anarchy with an agenda.

On an episode of The Candace Owens Show that aired this past May, Owens had as her guest Dennis Prager. While I agreed with most of the points made by both Ms. Owens and Mr. Prager, one item struck me as an example of superficial analysis. They declared that the primary objective of the Left is “chaos.” In an immediate sense, this seems true; the so-called “progressive left” does appear to be deliberately sowing chaos in America today.

However, I submit that the Left’s “chaos” is an intermediate objective, the means to an end. They have a well defined endgame.  The Communist Bloc countries were a lot of things, but they were generally not chaotic.

What is the agenda of the Left, if it is not simply chaos?

Leftists rationalize what they are doing as being in the service of what will ultimately be a Star Trek–like “United Earth,” a one-world community ruled by the bureaucrats of the U.N., where there will be no more war, all resources will be shared, all conflicts will be “managed,” and the “masses” will be doled out whatever the elites decree the latter “needs” in return for World Peace Forevermore. In real day-to-day terms, this enables an unaccountable, parasitic globalist elite class to decide what is best for everybody. Ultimately, the progressive left elites of the West are busy selling out their own countries in order to appease the other major actors on the world stage, especially China and political Islam, to get the latter to cooperate in this globalist fantasy.

In reality, China; political Islam; and the other major independent political actor, Russia, will merely pocket the concessions of the West and continue to pursue their particular interests, in traditional great power fashion, at the West’s expense. The corrupt Western elites who have sold their souls for this paradigm don’t really care, as they fundamentally do not believe that what the West represents is worth fighting for. In short, what these corrupt globalist Western elites are engaged in is a highly rationalized form of treason.  

Writ large, what the self-styled “progressive left” is selling amounts to a modern version of feudalism, in which a self-appointed elite, whose status is maintained by the promotion of a self-serving “progressive,” neo-Marxist dogma, is anointed to tell the rest of us peasants how we must live our lives, not unlike the Divine Right of Kings. The Rest of Us will be compelled to create wealth for them, as they enjoy an opulent existence without earning it; the likes of Obama, Hillary, Macron, Merkel, etc., couldn’t produce something genuinely useful if their lives depended on it. In their world, over-educated uselessness becomes a virtue, as they are simply “above” having to produce anything. It certainly beats actual work.
 
That is what the Left wants. It isn’t chaos. It is integration into global feudalism.

Perfectly correct, to the last detail, and there should be no surprise in any of it, for any of us. From the very dawning of the Progressive era and its adherents’ call for iron-fisted, top-down rule by “expert,” t’was ever thus—and ever t’will be. The Left’s methods have been slightly tweaked when deemed necessary and expedient, but their intentions and ambitions have never changed, and they won’t.

Share

From Texas to Frisco in one simple step

Austin decides to go full Third Turd World.

Austin has long been the weird, liberal capital of Texas. The rest of Texas just sort of shrugs and puts up with it. Austin is quirky. Austin is odd. Austin lives in its own little world. Austin is also home to some of the best live music joints anywhere and you have to work pretty hard to find a bad restaurant in the city, so it’s not without its charms. The joke about Austin is that it’s nice because it’s so close to Texas (its the capital, a deep blue dot surrounded by a vast red sea). Austin is like that oddball cousin we all have. He’s there. He picks his nose and argues with light posts. But he’s nice and basically no threat to anyone, so whaddyagonnado?

Well, Texas’ weird cousin just became a threat to itself and others.

On June 20, the Austin city council passed what has to be one of the dumbest, most nonsensical ordinances since the city’s last idiotic, nonsensical ordinance (they pass a lot of ‘em, bless their hearts).

The city council made it perfectly legal to camp out on the city’s public spaces and sidewalks, under bridges and overpasses and, well, everywhere all over town – except, notably, parks and Austin City Hall.

That’s right. The city council exempted themselves from seeing homeless campouts — let’s call them Adlervilles, after the esteemed Mayor Steve Adler — on their own front porch. Mayor Adler and his cohort deemed city hall camping out of bounds. But you, owner of the local cookie store or overtaxed home, will get to see and step over and around all manner of things right out in your yard 24-7 now.

Fine. But why inflict this on homeowners, business owners and everyone but themselves? I’m not making this up. They claim it’s mean to issue tickets for running a clothesline off the Discount Tire store – which has actually already happened! That the tickets create a spiral out of which the homeless cannot escape. So it’s somehow better to issue tickets if you water your lawn at the wrong time, because Harry the Homeowner can actually pay the fine, but inhumane to keep the streets free of bedrolls and poop – a policy which in Los Angeles is giving rise to medieval disease. Only in the liberal mind does this make any sense.

Oh, I think we can take that bit about just who “can actually pay the fine” as more or less dispositive here. Not that the sanctimonious virtue-signalling isn’t worth some points as well, mind. Remember the eternal rule: for liberals, charity really does begin at home. Yours, not theirs.

Share

Lurching ever Leftward

“Moderate Democrat”: an oxymoron if ever there was one.

For anyone wondering if there were any centrist or “moderate” Democrats who could appeal to independent voters and threaten President Trump’s reelection bid in 2020, the first two debates answered that question. There aren’t.

The narrative many in the media spun is that this race is a battle of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders and far-left Sen. Elizabeth Warren versus numerous “moderate” or “mainstream” candidates such as Mayor Pete Buttigieg or former vice president Joe Biden. What we have witnessed from the first two debates, however, is that all the candidates are now pandering to a radicalized Democratic Party base far out of step with most Americans.

In 1962, Democratic President John F. Kennedy advocated one of the largest tax cuts in American history. Now? Democrats like Sanders openly advocate taxing the middle class to pay for lavish spending projects like full free college tuition and taxpayers paying off student debt. Sen. Kamala Harris openly bragged that “when” she became president, she wouldn’t hesitate to pass anti-Second Amendment measures with no input from Congress. Harris’s threat should send a chill up the spine of every freedom-loving American.

Oh, you can rest assured that it does. The real question is: how many freedom-loving Americans still remain? Worse: after all the decades of propaganda and indoctrination from government schools, the universities, the entertainment industry, the press, and even Big Bad Government itself, how many CAN there be? Denied a proper education regarding their own national history and the country’s philosophical roots, taught to despise its Founders as reprehensible, slave-owning cads, do most Americans still treasure freedom, or even understand it at all?

On January 23, 1996, Democratic President Bill Clinton declared in a State of the Union Address that “the era of Big Government is over.” Twenty-three years later, every major candidate in the second Democratic primary debate raised his or her hand in support for taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants. All seem bent on the elimination of America’s sovereignty. Most of them support a version of the socialist “Medicare for All” program Sanders has proposed, which would end private health insurance. Unrestricted access to abortion seems so “automatic” it was hardly mentioned in the second debate.

The current crop of Democratic candidates is unprecedented in its embrace of far-left ideology. Democrats used to skirt around the idea of any sort of nationalized or single-payer health system. Many rejected it outright. Now? Former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper and Sen. Michael Bennet—both characterized as “moderate” by the press—repeated the leftist idea that “health care is a human right.”

Still currently leading in the polls, Joe Biden is the most highly-touted “moderate.” However, in his first debate for the Democratic nomination in 2020, Biden came out in favor of “mandatory” biometric “smart-guns,” nationalized preschool, and “free” community college. If these ideas are now what the media counts as “moderate,” then they have completely shifted the Overton window so far to the left that America may be in a bit of trouble.

Gee, ya think? Might be more useful at this point if we think of the Overton Window not as a window but another in a long list of ratchets, all of which turn only one way: to the Left.

Share

Business as usual in the Clown World kakistocracy

One of Dov’s most toothsome rants.

We lugs don’t trust anyone in Washington, and we have kind-of figured out finally that the system is too unwieldy, too corrupt ever to fix. The Swamp, we now know, cannot be drained because it is not a marsh or everglade but an ocean of sludge filled with plastic straws, unrecyclable paper, Strzok-Page love notes, and 33,000 bleached messages about yoga and wedding dresses. The System betrays all. Half of us vote for a liberal like Clinton, only to be presented with an end to Welfare, a tough crime bill, and a dry-cleaning bill for a dress stain. At least he delivered Midnight Basketball. The other half of us, deep-rooted patriotic conservatives, vote for Republicans and end up with Justices like David Souter and Harry Blackmun, with wage and price controls, and with international “free-trade” agreements that all-but-destroy our steel and aluminum industries, while decimating our manufacturing. We elect Liberals who run on peace agendas, like Woodrow Wilson (“He Kept Us Out of War”) or JFK/LBJ who swear they will not allow a Goldwater to embroil us in military catastrophe, and we end up with our boys dying overseas in huge numbers in Vietnam. Or the other half of us go with our more conservative “America First” approach, and we end up with reckless adventurism aiming for regime change in the Arab Muslim world, based on the delusion that there beats in the heart-and-soul of every resident of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria a passion to actualize the writings of Rousseau, Locke, and Thoreau.

We watch our borders overrun brazenly, shamelessly. No control, with millions teeming to enter illegally, lecturing us: “We have a right to be here!” They could lecture us “Yankee Go Home!” but we cannot send them back? They don’t speak a word of English except the one sentence they have been taught by American Leftist activists to memorize: “I claim asylum because of well-founded fear of persecution based on my ethnicity, race, and religion. Para todas las demás preguntas, marque 2 por Español.” (For all other questions, dial 2 por Español.) We see the Democrats swear for decades to guard the border, build a wall, and protect the endangered lower economic class and African Americans from a swarm of cheap labor, until the Democrats figure out that the lower economic class and African Americans are in their pockets anyway, while the New Illegals actually turn Republican strongholds into Democrat states. So we turn to Republicans, who promise to fix the border. Next thing you know, the capitalist big business “Chambers of Commerce” are in cahoots with the Left, importing the same Illegals for cheap labor. We turn to Reagan for some conservative rugged patriotism and firm strength, and he grants universal amnesty to Illegals. Then Bush-the-First promises to be even kinder and gentler. Then Bush-the-Next decides that, since he has Spanish-speaking relatives who can pronounce “nookyuluh” as well as he can, we may as well let the Illegals keep coming in because, unknown to the Liberals, the Illegals all are small-business owners and all are devout Hispanic Catholics who are pro-life and anti-abortion like the Pope, pro-family, conservative Republicans at heart. And then Bush!-the-Last comes in, with Ana Navarro as his political advisor, telling us that we don’t want to keep the millions out because we are “better than that.”

So we elect Trump, who promises to deport 10 million Illegals, and we give him a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and we oust John Boehner for a new young dynamic GOP House Speaker who was the Vice Presidential nominee and conservative conscience of the losing Romney campaign, and that guy turns out to be Whatever. He gets his one “Budget Reconciliation” chance in a two-year legislative term to pass a budget that will build a border wall because that is the one bill every two years that does not require a filibuster-proof 60-vote Senate vote for passage, so it’s a piece of cake. And he “pulls a Bill Buckner” (rest his soul) and leaves it out. So even though the President proves to be a once-in-a-generation Transformational President who brashly eliminates swaths of economy-strangling regulations, who dramatically renegotiates one after another terrible international trade treaty, who fearlessly pulls out of cockamamie international fiascoes like the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Nonsense, who moves the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and recognizes United Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital and Israeli sovereignty over the Golan, who directs laser-focused attention at the border crisis and tries one-after-another-after-another stratagem to deal with the morass, who waves a magic wand and resurrects a Dead Economy with bold tax cuts and even more determined deregulating and converts it into a blazing-hot engine, who reduces African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, and female unemployment to historic lows, who changes the face of the Supreme Court and nominates more than one hundred solid conservative federal district and appellate judges, who reimagines America’s energy-producing capabilities and converts America into a net exporter of energy and the world’s largest energy producer, who recalibrates the Veterans Administration and V.A. health care, who forces through a “Right to Try” initiative that allows Americans with perilous ailments access to cutting-edge medical research possibilities — despite all that, and so much more, the GOP House not only drops the ball but butt-fumbles.

No solutions or meaningful fixes to medical coverage, health care, and the mess exacerbated many times over by Obamacare. No solutions to the Southern Border national emergency. No groundbreaking ground-breaking infrastructure legislation. And so the American voters throw the bums out in 2018.

The Left Democrat districts were going to vote Democrat no matter what. The conservative Republican districts were going to vote GOP no matter what. But in 2018, Democrats targeted more moderate, though conservative-leaning swing districts, and they campaigned on promises. We will do it. We will fix health care. We will find a fix for the border. We will rebuild the infrastructure. The message and that promise won the day. The same moderate, conservative-leaning swing districts that repeatedly had given the Republicans control of the House for much of the past two decades switched over for a better way. They were promised an end to the old Obama-era shenanigans. No more Democrats Gone Wild. No more Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

We Promise.

Do I even need to tell you to read all of it?

Share

Plugs gets plugged

Looks like the Democrat-Socialists have figured out that Gropey Joe has no more chance at the presidency now than he did the other seventeen times he tried.

Look at everything our fake news media chose not to tell us in 2008 when Biden was running for vice president — and don’t forget we are talking about the same fake news media that sent legions of fake journalists to Alaska to find out which library books Biden’s rival, then-Gov. Sarah Palin, checked out.

Only now are we learning that in 1975 Biden said his party needed a “liberal George Wallace,” that he believed segregation was a good thing as a “matter of black pride,” and that he voted to restore the American citizenship of confederate president Jefferson Davis.

Did you know that as recently as 1988, Biden praised a Democrat segregationist as a  “man of character and courage?”

All of this is coming to light now for only one reason: the media were not interested in 2008 because in 2008 the media were only interested in protecting Barack Obama.

Here is the first black president hooking up with a vice president enamored with segregation and segregationists and the media buried it all — and did so while attacking Obama’s rivals (Palin, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Donald Trump — who have no history of BFF’n segregationists) as racists.

But now, NOW, now that the media want a far-left extremist to win the 2020 Democrat nomination, now that they want Mean Little Mayor Pete Buttigieg or Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, now that the media have decided no more old, white guy presidents, they are all over Biden’s racist past.

In other words…

Eleven year later, we are just now entering day four of the media vetting Joe Biden.

Odd, innit? And this latest reveal is hardly the only thing they’re throwing at poor ol’ Gropey Joe.

So I was really intrigued with this ABC hit piece. We played the sound bites of it yesterday. They just ran a hit piece on Biden that you don’t see the media run against Democrats, hardly ever. And it hit all the points, the things that you know about Biden and Ukraine, Biden and China, Biden and his son — Biden and his son divorcing his wife and marrying his brother’s widow, his cocaine problem, getting kicked out Navy.

You know all that because we’ve told you about it. But people that read the Drive-By Media have no idea until yesterday — and ABC hit everything. The same day the New York Post Page Six went deep, deep, deep into the problems with Joe Biden’s son Hunter and cocaine and the strange business deals with the ChiComs and Ukraine. You just don’t see this, and I made the observation yesterday that I don’t think it’s journalism. This was not journalism. This was full-fledged political activism.

I’m thinking this is happening because the New York Times is not yet ready to run this stuff. The Washington Post is not yet ready to run this stuff. But somebody within the Democrat Party wants Biden gone, and they’re trying to maneuver the Drive-Bys into helping them get rid of him. When this kind of stuff starts… You know, it could be that, as I speculated yesterday, ABC did this just to do it, and they did it early enough where people could forget it and it wouldn’t hurt Plugs, and then they could say later on (sputtering), “Hey, we’re fair.

“We — we — we did a hard-hitting piece on Biden and his kid.” But with this today and then the New York Post Page Six with another one today — these two things on top of it — I think the bottom line here is that Biden is finished but doesn’t know it. And he may know it, by the way. He just hasn’t fallen over yet. But it’s coming. Whoever this is… It could be elements of the Obama Regime. It could be the Democrat National Committee. It could be a Democrat strategerist somewhere. It could be a Democrat consultant somewhere, could be people inside his own campaign.

Yep, he’s toast. See ya in the funny papers, Gropester.

Share

The most dangerous game

A sneaky end-run aimed at shattering one of the last jagged shards of Constitutional governance.

While the Supreme Court might rule against allowing an interstate compact to go into effect without the prior Congressional consent that the Constitution’s Article I section 10 requires for states to enter into interstate compacts, it also might not. And since the National Popular Vote folks think they can change the Constitution while flouting the rules for changing the Constitution, they might feel equally free to ignore whatever the Supreme Court tells them the Constitution requires. And whatever can or cannot get through today’s Congress is no guarantee that some future Congress might not find the National Popular Vote acceptable while ignoring the pesky requirement of prior Congressional consent.

Yet the basic reason why the so-called National Popular Vote scheme threatens democracy is that it does not, and cannot, enact a national popular vote that is nationally regulated and supervised. The whole scheme rests on the constitutionally entrenched state control of the selection of presidential electors. What its backers call the “national popular vote” is, as they themselves acknowledge, the aggregate of votes in 51 separate jurisdictions with 51 separate sets of ballot access laws, voter identity checks, and voter eligibility requirements.

And if state officials can’t steal an election legally, they can always do so illegally. In states like Washington and Oregon, which have only mail-in balloting, or in states like California, which allow absentee voting without any demonstrated need, federal authorities cannot in practice keep officials from flooding or allowing activists to flood the “state popular vote” with out-of-state residents with fake addresses, who mail in ballots in every state for which they can download and send in a ballot, or outright ghost voters who are nothing more than a name and a fake registration. With the electoral college as it is, one-party states like California can allow as much fraud and force as they like, but they can only swing their own state’s electoral votes. With the National Popular Vote scheme, California officials can swing Maryland’s and New York’s electoral vote by stuffing ballot boxes without bothering to leave Sacramento.

Can—and most certainly will. The Electoral College remains the most obvious confirmation of the brilliance of the Founders, a means of averting mob rule, and guaranteeing the right of residents of smaller states to a say in their own governance rather than having the entire country ruled according to the arrogant caprice of NY, California, and other shambolic disaster areas.

I’ve long said that the tyrannical depredation most likely to spark Civil War v2.0 is an open, no-shit national attempt at gun confiscation. I still think that’s so, however unlikely it may actually be. But a strong case can be made that the disenfranchisement of great swathes of the country via a contra-Constitutional nullification of the Electoral College by rights ought to be at the very top of the list. Should such an abomination actually come to pass it cannot—it MUST not—be allowed to stand, lest our already-fading birthright be stolen from us entirely, and forever.

I’ve quoted this stark passage many times here already, but it can’t be repeated enough:

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Every word a gem, shining like the brightest of diamonds; how disgracefully far we’ve wandered from a proper dedication to our duty to live up to them.

Share

Comeuppance, chaos, and collapse

Okay, this is most certainly NOT satire. I mean, it isn’t the Bee, so it can’t be. Right?

We are constantly enlightened by the social justice community in our universities and media to the undeniable truth that Western civilization is a feral colonial enterprise, that its free market system is an abomination predicated on the exploitation of the world’s disadvantaged, and that its advances in science, technology, medicine, art, the concept of the individual, political democracy, law and the amenities of everyday life offer little to be proud of.

Notwithstanding, we may wonder why this slough of despond we deplorables inhabit is the obvious goal and destination of a volkswanderung of immigrants, refugees, migrants and “illegals” from countries they apparently cannot wait to leave in their dust, whether in the Middle East, Africa or Central America. Are these poor people deluded? Are they a collection of dedicated masochists? Do they not realize they are entering the Ninth Circle of Hell? But they persist, unfathomably. Or perhaps not. Perhaps they are animated by a higher purpose.

Clearly, Western culture should be sent to the chop shop, dismantled piece by piece, and sold off to the newcomers. They may conceivably reassemble the parts into something far superior than the civilizational vehicle we’ve been driving around in. Indeed, these “parts” may have been theirs in the first place. We have been guilty of so much in the past, of condescension as well as outright plunder. We are obviously morally obligated to cheer them on, to surrender our “white supremacy” in favor of the nobility, wisdom and cultural glory of Third World saviors and aboriginal peoples. Perhaps we should be grateful to our betters for bringing the manifold fruits of their accomplishments to our wide-open doors. Perhaps that is their real agenda, bless their souls.

There are many unsuspected facts we will now have to accept. Socrates was black. Jesus was a Palestinian. The Library of Alexandria didn’t really burn to the ground before Aristotle’s purported visit. The Muslim caliphates did not, as we have been misled to believe, rely on Syriac and Jewish scholiasts for their epistemological talents. Christopher Columbus was a heartless marauder—and, besides, he was after the fact since African sailors had visited these shores thousands of years earlier, as Leo Weiner reveals in Africa and the Discovery of America.

Okay, I think I got it now. It ain’t satire; it’s sarcasm. But it’s also a faithfully accurate summation of Progtard ideology and opinion, too. Solway hones it to a razor-sharp edge with this part:

The fact that America and Europe have garnered 474 Nobel Prizes in Science while Egypt and Algeria have three between them and the rest of Africa none—is only a sign of Western decadence and the obvious fact that Third World countries have been savagely kept down by the Western conquistador onslaught responsible for stealing the discoveries and inventions of the now benighted continent. The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI) tells the same story, ranking 185 nations along the spectrum of Very High, High, Medium and Low. Of the 51 nations in the Very High category, 80% are white; no African nation is in that category; indeed, 87% fester in the Low bracket. Once again, the responsibility incontrovertibly lies with the Western spirit of pillage and destruction, which has robbed these nations of the fruits of their cutting-edge thinking and contributions to human betterment and expropriated these for its own purposes.

Well, it would HAVE to be our fault, wouldn’t it? I mean, otherwise, we might have to take ourselves a long, hard look at some painful realities—all of them extremely unfriendly to shitlib “thought”—forcing us to then rethink a few things. And God knows we can’t be having any of that, now can we?

Share

School daze

A forgotten past will bury the ignorant.

Many of us do not know that senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures—and this change was made not that long ago. In 1913, around the beginning of the Progressive Era, the 17th Amendment to the Constitution tossed aside this critical feature of the Framers’ design, replacing it with the direct election of senators we have today.

The Founders would certainly have opposed the 17th Amendment because they would have understood that it would throw the system they gave us completely out of balance, as it, in fact, has done. It was perhaps the single change that would do the most to undo what the Founders had accomplished by means of the Constitution.

Hrrmmm; “…around the beginning of the Progressive Era,” you say? Must be a coincidence.

The Senate was once a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but the Senate has abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election. Because the state governments no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the federal government, the power of the federal government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states. State governments increasingly are relegated to functioning as administrative units of today’s gargantuan central government.

The Founders would say we no longer have a federal system, that the 17th Amendment in effect overthrew the 10th Amendment. Here is the 10th: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The 10th has become a dead letter. Instead of retaining many of their powers and responsibilities as the Framers intended, the states are more and more entangled in administering federal programs and in carrying out federal mandates. These mandates are often not even funded by the federal government; the costs of unfunded mandates fall on the states.

The many new departments of the federal government that have accumulated in Washington, D.C. during the Progressive Era in which you and I now live, such as Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, involve themselves in, and even direct, functions the Framers left to the states.

Direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of liberty. The erosion of Americans’ individual liberty that has resulted is no doubt the most important consequence of the change. Many of our troubles today are self-inflicted, the result of us forgetting how the Founders’ system was designed to work and the unwise changes we have made because of our forgetting.

This ignorance is no more coincidental than the insidious 17th; it was painstakingly wrought according to a plan spelled out by a whole Progressivist pantheon of treacherous villains like Alinsky, Gramsci, and Marcuse, among many others. The doom it foreshadows is a feature, not a bug. And don’t think for a minute they’re done yet, either.

Tragically, because of our forgetting, we may be on the verge of making another mistake like the one Americans made in 1913. There is a powerful movement afoot to get rid of the Electoral College, an essential constitutional safeguard of American liberty.

As you know, each state is allotted as many electoral votes as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives. To become president of the United States, one must win election state by state. Eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by direct vote, as the progressives are determined to do, would transform the office. Its occupant would in effect become the president of the Big Cities of America, and the last vestiges of autonomy guaranteed to the individual states by the Constitution’s electoral system would be swept away.

One more time: NOT by accident, NOT coincidence. Doubt that? Don’t.

The near sole purpose of present-day academia is indoctrination. This is a fairly bold thesis, but the evidence is in its favor.

A “bold thesis”? Really? It’s nothing more nor less than established, incontrovertible fact, seems to me, but YMMV. Onwards.

The increasingly progressive leftist agenda is sweeping through academia and conservatives are passively watching it happen.

The main indoctrination stories you hear are those of radical professors on college campuses, outlandish majors created to forward social justice movements, and, on occasion, a political outburst by a high school teacher.

Although these issues need addressing, by far the biggest – and the one that should scare everyone the most – is the silent indoctrination.

Indoctrination is no longer dependent upon the political beliefs of teachers. We are now past that. Course material is blatant political propaganda. Not just the course material for gender studies and similar. The core curricula of grade school through college.

I completed my first two years of high school at Oxbridge Academy, a private school in south Florida. My last two years at were at Laurel Springs, an online private school. This gave me a whole new perspective on bias in academia.

Although I had teachers and access to tutors, I seldom interacted with either. I thought removing interaction with an individual would reduce if not eradicate bias.

I was very, very wrong.

The removal of an instructor allowed me to see just how biased course materials are. And the discussion boards with fellow students showed me just how unaware of this others were. Unless you are involved with politics to a degree, it can be easy to miss politically motivated material.

The lack of political education in combination with the demand that students trust their textbooks as reliable sources allows the left to silently indoctrinate students.

She includes some truly appalling examples from actual textbooks that ought to be deeply shocking—but aren’t. Not anymore. Which is in itself a big problem. Bottom line:

Conservatives once laughed at radical campus politics, imagining that upon impact with the “real world,” blue-haired social justice warrior activists would have to grow up and confront the hard realities of the capitalist marketplace. Instead, what’s becoming increasingly clear is that academic leftism is metastasizing off-campus, spreading into some of the world’s largest corporations as well as institutions of culture, with graduated millennial employees as its carriers.

While the right wrestles with how to deal with big technology companies’ hostility to conservative voices on their platforms, the source of that enmity goes mostly unremarked upon: Google’s highly credentialed workforce has roughly the personal politics of a faculty lounge. Regrettably, universities don’t live up to the Las Vegas adage–what begins on campus definitely does not stay there. It spills over into every aspect of our broader culture, from complaints about actors not precisely matching the intersectionality profile of the characters they portray, to the leftward tilt of America’s corporations.

Say it with me: NOT coincidence. NOT by accident. They’re working a plan…and the plan is working.

Share

“Why is San Francisco such a mess?”

Sorry for going dark most of this week, folks. Been spending all my time trying to work out a deal on an old beater car, having been without for two months now—which definitely cramps a Door Dash-driver’s style, as one would imagine—due to a bunch of crap I ain’t gonna get into now. So, laying all that troyerik mishegoss aside, let’s clear out a few open tabs, shall we?

Lemme see, lemme see, what do we have lying around here…oh, this one looks like it could be fun.

Sooner or later, every San Franciscan is going to have to answer this question: Why is the best city in the world such a mess?

Meanwhile, everyone else is asking: Why—San Francisco inarguably being the shit-strewn Third World mess that we all know it to be—do some people there cling so desperately to the delusional conceit that it’s still somehow “the best city in the world”?

The Washington Post is the latest to be on San Francisco’s case. It was once the Paris of the West. Now it’s “Too homogenous, too expensive, too tech, too millennial, too white, too elite, too bro.”

Too complicated, too desperatively evasive, when all they had to say was: too liberal, for too long—a conclusion based on an Everest of real-world evidence provided by every other urban shithole in America run for the last five or six decades by liberals.

And everyone knows it. I heard from a woman who was one of the neighbors when I lived on 21st Avenue, years ago. She was a kid then and played with my daughters on the sidewalk — jump rope, games like that. “This is not the city I grew up in,” she wrote. “I will never come back.”

You hear that a lot from expatriate San Franciscans. They moved out for a hundred good reasons, but a lot of us loyalists stayed with the city. We still like the city — the feel of it, the small-town nature of San Francisco, the neighborhood restaurants, the corner stores, the nutty vitality of the place.

A lot of those nuts readily to be found right on the streets, if you don’t mind sorting through the stuff they’re embedded in. Kernels of corn too, I bet.

True confession: first West Coast tour time the band did way back in the mid-90s, I myself absolutely LOVED SF. I had a couple of friends there who showed me around some; the three or four Bay Area (one was in Oakland, I believe) shows we did were very well-attended and received, too. Overall, I had a great time there. I still consider it the single most beautiful city I ever did see, although I was quite surprised to find so many of the people I encountered to be stiff, prickly, standoffish assholes—this, at a time when I’d been living in New York City for several years already, supposedly the world’s capital of Rude. Not so, folks; SF was WAAAAY worse, to my great shock and disappointment.

But this is no little “cable cars climbing halfway to the stars” view of the city. People who have lived here for a long time can see clearly what’s wrong with the city. But it’s San Francisco. It’s like a romance gone awry. It’s complicated.

No, it isn’t; much as you might like to think it to be, it really, really isn’t. It’s liberal governance, producing the exact same results it does any and everywhere it’s tried.

To cope with these problems, the citizens have continued to elect weak city governments, all built on compromise and deals with competing pressure groups. At City Hall everybody is responsible for everything and nobody is responsible for anything.

Another perfectly-typical, Mark-1 Mod-0 hallmark trait of liberal governance, which is never anythink like as weak as it needs to be.

To make a complex problem worse, the city has so many rules and regulations that it has become nearly impossible to build anything.

Ahem. Typical. Hallmark. Etc. Problem NOT complex. Problem very, very simple. It’s beginning to seem jaw-droppingly incredible to me that even this poor schlub can remain oblivious to it. But now we get to the truly pitiful part.

The Washington Post is right. It’s too too. So why do we loyalists stay? Why don’t we cash out, sell our modest homes for a million bucks and buy a mansion in Broken Bow, Neb.?

It’s the people you find here. People like Fran Martin and Anne Seeman and their neighbors, who turned a neglected eyesore in an out-of-the-way neighborhood into a 6-block-long showplace called the Visitacion Valley Greenway. People like Nancy Windesheim and Joan Carson, who headed an effort to repair and landscape a one-block section of Esmeralda Avenue in Bernal Heights and turn it into a small treasure, complete with a children’s slide.

OOOOH, A SLIDE? Woooo-weee, that there’s some high-class living right there, you betcher. Why, out here in Benighted Ign’ernt Knuckledragger Hell, you only ever come across one of them thar fancy slidey-board thingies at, oh, EVERY FUCKING SCHOOL, PARK, AND PUBLIC PLAYGROUND YOU HAPPEN PAST. Usually more than just one of ’em, actually. Yes, such things are a good bit less rare than hen’s teeth to us hicks from the sticks. Only ’round these parts, you don’t have to worry about the big, steaming pile of fresh-cranked wino turd you’ll find yourself deposited face-first in at the end of the ride. That would seem to be a feature exclusive to these urban liberal utopias the poor souls trapped therein tell themselves we’re all so very envious of.

There are other people with smaller visions who built community gardens all over the city; the neighbors who put in a kids’ swing just off San Jose Avenue.

Waitwaitwaitwait: do you seriously mean to tell me that in addition to a slide, SF also boasts A SWINGSET TOO BESIDES? I can’t believe it. I WON’T believe it.

Many of these people are not native San Franciscans pining for the good old days and complaining about how the city has gone to the dogs, dammit.

They moved here because they saw something special in this place. They did a lot of work to make San Francisco better. Not just talk. Hard work.

And in return, got the same payoff doled out by liberal governance everywhere, every time: a stinking bag of shit. Just remember folks: what they’ve done for SF, they can damned sure do for you too. And fully intend to, whether you like it or not.

Share

Driving the herd

Making psychosis hip.

A 2018 study carried out by Lisa Littman, a physician and professor of behavioral science at Brown University, found that the vast majority of the youth in her sample who identified as trans all had one thing in common: They had been directly exposed to one or more peers who had recently “come out” as trans. Furthermore, these children, according to their parents, had exhibited a noticeable increase in internet and social media consumption. Transgenderism, it appears, was trending.

Recent studies suggest media coverage of transgenderism play a role in what is called the “media contagion effect.” The glorification and normalization of the increase in transgender activity by the media has clearly influenced the malleable masses.

In social psychology, behavioral “contagion” refers the tendency for certain behaviors demonstrated by one person to be imitated by observers. Exposure doesn’t have to happen in person — it can happen through a television, computer, or on the big screen.

Interestingly, 2018 saw a record growth in trans roles on television.

And if you think that’s a coincidence, you’re nothing but a damned fool. This next part seems self-evident, so obvious it’s almost embarrassing to bring it up at all. And yet.

The prefrontal cortex is especially susceptible to being shaped by life’s experiences in adolescence, such as stress and peer pressure. The “rational part” of an individual’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until around the age of 25. This is something that needs to be emphasized. A 12-year-old child should not be allowed to undergo treatment like gender re-assignment, and any parent that helps facilitate such drastic surgery should be questioned by relevant authorities.

Even the notion of “reassignment” is a misnomer. Anyone with a basic understanding of the human anatomy knows that it’s impossible to physically “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. The idea that a transgender man becomes a woman, or that a transgender woman becomes a man is as foolish as it is pernicious. Only the most naïve would look at someone like Bruce Jenner and assume that she is a natural, biological woman. At best, transgender men become feminized men and transgender women become masculinized women. This may sound harsh, even crude, but in the eyes of broader society, many transgender individuals are considered impressionists, merely mimicking the sex with which they identify. This is problematic on many levels.

According to Dr. Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, gender reassignment surgery simply doesn’t work. In an article for the Heritage Foundation, Anderson notes: “The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people — extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered — documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.”

Every decision has a consequence. And the decision to transition at an early age can have dire consequences.

Ladies and germs, the winner of this year’s coveted No DUH! award. In sum:

For the vast majority of us, our sense of being male or female aligns with what’s listed on our birth certificates. Nevertheless, a smaller proportion of the population identifies as transgender, which includes people whose internal sense of gender identity is not consistent with their gender at birth. In turn, some look to surgery for answers. But surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t magically change us into the opposite sex. Aesthetically, perhaps. Surgery can, of course, alter appearance. But surgery can’t magically or biologically transform us into something we are not.

Though you may find the following words harsh, they need to be said — scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological men and transgender women are not biological women. Any claims to the contrary are ignorant of scientific evidence. As Princeton philosopher Robert P. George once put it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

Like Germaine Greer, Linda Bellos, Sheila Jeffreys, and Camille Paglia, I am critical of trans ideology. I take issue with the fact that so many people have been swept up in this transgender wave. The dangers of trying to treat mental ill-health by transitioning from one sex to another cannot be overstated. When every ounce of unhappiness is consolidated into the gender issue, society enters dangerous territory. These are not the words of a bigot or a transphobe. These are the words of someone critically questioning a particularly nefarious cultural trend.

Nefarious it is. Not because the handful of pitiable individuals who actually do suffer from the affliction of gender dysphoria have nefarious intentions, but because they (and others) are being used as political whips in the hands of the degenerate Left, to herd Heritage Americans right over the cliff like so many head of lowing cattle.

Share

Go home

Rod Dreher says LOL get fucked, baby-killing carpetbaggers.

I’m so sorry. Really, just very sorry. Here entitled Yankees like the NYT’s Ginia Bellafante thought the American South existed to give Millennial Brooklynites a place to reproduce Park Slope, but more affordably, and now we’ve gone and ruined it for them with our deplorable social and religious views.

Okay, so right away you guys KNOW I ain’t gonna like tis bint’s twaddle much. Methinks an old-fashioned fisking might be in order here. Emphasis mine throughout.

“The New South’’ was a term conceived in the aftermath of the Civil War to suggest a set of aspirations of some southern elites who hoped to rebuild a backward and devastated place into a world better aligned with Northern urban values.

Oh, so THAT’S what it was, eh? Here I’d thought all these years it was something more comprehensible and less permanently damaging, like a plague of locusts or something. Too Biblical a reference to pass muster, probably.

Over the many decades, it has acquired various layers of nuance, but today it tends to call to mind a string of cities from Charlotte, N.C., to Austin, Tex., that have essentially been Brooklynized by way of a progressive social culture and a tweaked fidelity to some of the South’s more marketable traditions.

Uh huh. And eventually those cities will find they’ve been “Detroitized,” “Chicagoized,” and/or “San Franciscoized,” its residents stepping around humongous piles of human shit in the streets, dodging stray bullets on their way back to the exhorbitantly-priced 600-square-foot apartment they flatter outrageously by calling “home.”

Actually, you dope, Charlotte has been a very liberal city for as long as I’ve been alive—at least. Any recent Progressivist “Brooklynizing” was superfluous and unnecessary here. I can’t really speak for Austin, but I suspect it’s a similar story there. Not that it matters; as with any and every young Progressivist with absolutely no knowledge of or regard for the history of the places they choose to infest in their migratory meanderings, she just can’t help but pat herself on the back for the world of good she’s done for us inbred cretins, the improvements she’s so magnanimously making in our lives and surroundings. She seems completely unaware that these backwaters even existed before she flounced on in and plopped her sorry ass down in our midst.

How will these new abortion laws affect the redistribution of talent to places whose economies prosper from that talent? Under the current conditions, I wondered if women like Tess and her friends, many of whom moved from New York or Los Angeles, would have chosen to relocate to the Deep South. I asked some of them, and they told me that they were not sure.

One, Allison Gourlay, arrived in New Orleans a few years ago from a studio in Greenwich Village she could barely afford. At first she had a hard time finding work and questioned her decision.

“I was talking to a friend one day when I wasn’t sure and she said, ‘Stay, this place is about to blow up. It’s on the cusp of something big, can’t you feel it?’ This is cheesy, but I got goose bumps. New Orleans is really a place to establish work-life balance but I’m getting ready to start a family and it scares me,” she said.

Back to Dreher to handle that one:

She’s getting ready to start a family, but the possibility that the Louisiana legislature might make it harder for her to exterminate her unborn child makes her think about abandoning the city where things are otherwise pretty great for her?

Why not? Makes as much sense as any of the other nonsensical crap they spew. Myself, I encourage her to abandon, abandon away. Don’t waste a moment, honey, you might be too late. Better still, just don’t come down South in the first place. We’re all racist, homophobic, misogynist Neanderthals ’round here, you know: semi-retarded, Christian zealots to the marrow, implacably opposed to a Woman’s Right To Choose (to murder her baby for convenience’s sake), utterly hostile to Women’s Health Care (ie, unrestricted abortion) too. Every cliche you ever heard about us God-bothering knuckedraggers is one hundred percent true, I assure you. Be sure to tell all your hipster-douchebag friends, ‘kay?

“When you meet all these young people moving here who are so passionate and intelligent and changing the rules and making the city what it is, it is so inspiring. But it really worries me that it could no longer be that place.”

Yeah, how deeply awful it would be if our Southern cities were somehow transformed back into the peaceful, affordable, pleasant places they were before you goddamned urban-liberal transplants moved in and got busy turning them into the same kind of blighted Gomorrhian nightmare you left in ruins behind you.

“Making the city what it is”? It never once occurred to you that the city was already something long before you ever thought of moving there, and that maybe its long-time inhabitants liked it the way it was and had no wish to see their rules changed or their communities “Brooklynized,” did it? No, in your staggering arrogance, you and your fellow egotists arrive not to respectfully appreciate or assimilate but to wreck and radically alter, with neither permission nor invitation. Back once more to Dreher for the closing bitchslap:

I concede that it’s interesting to talk to progressive Northerners who moved South, thinking that the Grand March of Progress would inevitably make the benighted (but cheap) metropolises of Dixie into non-deplorable locales — but who are learning that they, in fact, live in the South.

What chaps my butt about the piece is the assumption by the author (and those she writes about) that the South ought to assimilate to the dominant progressive culture. The message of this piece is, If you Christianist troglodytes don’t let us progressives have our abortions, we’re not going to move there and contribute to your economies. 

I have an idea! All y’all could pack up your progressive colonialism ethic and go the hell back home.

I have friends who are pro-choice Southern liberals. I believe they’re wrong about that, but this is their home, and I’ve got no problem with them speaking their minds, and advocating for the kinds of laws they would like to see. But you’d better believe I have a big problem with these people who come down to take what’s good out of the South, but the moment Southerners — who are in general more socially conservative — express through their democratically elected legislators opinions that run counter to the sensibilities of Williamsburg, these people are thinking of leaving? Go. Just, go. 

DAMNED skippy. Go indeed; try y’all’s hand at fixing the nearly-uninhabitable rathole you fled, instead of colonizing us, whydon’tcha. Don’t let the door etc, y’heah?

Share

Christians Vs Churchians: what works, what doesn’t

If you preach it, they will come.

Stop accepting the Bible as true and admit Christianity has gotten it terribly wrong on homosexuality. This is the advice Rev. Oliver Thomas gives in a recent opinion article in USA Today for how the church can stop “hemorrhaging members” and see brighter days.

He warns that “the church is killing itself” because it has painted itself into a corner by actually believing what the Bible says. He contends that Christians should just admit that the Bible gets it wrong on so many important issues and that “reason and experience” should be our new guide, as if this is a new idea. He says the church is terribly wrong about sexuality, particularly homosexuality, and would do very well to wise up, lest it find itself reduced to a warehouse for cobwebs.

“Churches will continue hemorrhaging members and money at an alarming rate until we muster the courage to face the truth: We got it wrong on gays and lesbians,” he says.

We don’t have to wonder whether Thomas is correct. Not only is he wrong, but an impressive body of very strong data and experience demonstrates the precise opposite of what he claims is true.

Yes, many churches are hemorrhaging members, and have been since the early 1970s. But anyone who studies these things carefully will tell you this is happening almost exclusively in the more politically and theologically liberal mainline churches. These are the same churches that are doing exactly what Thomas calls for: rejecting the credibility and authority of Scripture.

This same research shows the churches he says must change or else are holding rock-solid steady in attendance. These are the more conservative congregations that unapologetically take the Bible at its word, including on homosexuality. His advice here is not just ill-advised, but the equivalent of telling any retailer that the way to growth is to stop being helpful to your customers and jack up your prices. Let’s see how true this is.

Research done jointly at Harvard and Indiana universities makes this clear, reporting that the number of adults attending liberalizing mainline churches has tanked precipitously from 35 percent of the American population in 1972 to 12 percent in 2016. This decline of the mainline churches began in the early 1960s when they started to question and officially change their positions on historic Christian basics like the deity of Christ, the existence of miracles, the reality of sin, and the atoning death of Jesus and His resurrection, as well as jettisoning biblical convictions about sex, gender, and abortion. People started running for the doors of these churches with every new compromise, and this exodus continues en masse today. It could hardly be worse if these pastors asked their parishioners to leave and never come back.

The Harvard/Indiana University research also shows that the churches that take the Bible as the reliable word of God are doing very well. Compromising on biblical truths was, and is, a devastating church-growth strategy. Holding fast to these truths and preaching them boldly is a very effective one. Let’s look at some real numbers from the folks at the Pew Research Center showing the same thing.

Pew’s “America’s Changing Landscape” explains that, between 2007 and 2014, mainline Protestant churches declined by 5 million adult members. This is hemorrhaging by any sober accounting. Churches in Pew’s “evangelical” category grew in absolute numbers by about 2 million between 2007 and 2014. Again, the exact opposite of what Thomas prescribes.

Since we all know liberalism poisons and ultimately destroys absolutely everything it is allowed to touch or influence, that’s no surprise—especially when we’re talking about an institution they hate as vehemently as they do Christianity. But here’s where things get interesting:

When same-sex-attracted Christians go to church, they are not choosing the pews of churches Thomas is calling us to become. Again, it’s just the opposite. Research conducted jointly at Columbia University and the University of California at Los Angeles by scholars who are not shy about supporting gay politics found that gay- and lesbian-identified people are 2.5 times more likely to attend churches that took a more conservative view on Christianity (including homosexuality) than the so-called “welcoming and affirming” congregations that celebrate it.

The authors of this study were paternalistically perplexed about why same-sex-attracted people would choose churches that they assumptively described as having a “hostile social environment to LGB individuals,” as if such people don’t know what’s good for them. Well, maybe same-sex-attracted individuals find such churches are indeed not hostile or hateful.

The assumption of bigotry and intolerance on the part of most if not all Christians is a core tenet of liberalism, irreducible and non-negotiable, which is pretty ironic in light of their present-day alliance of convenience with murderous Islam. The old mantra “love the sinner, hate the sin” was much more than just a slogan for the congregation of the small town church I grew up in, and I’m sure it’s probably the same in most others. It was an obligation for those sheltered folks, a standard to be lived up to. They might have been put off by homosexual behavior; they surely considered it immoral, a willful flouting of Biblical strictures against self-indulgence and morbid sins of the flesh. But the bottom-line truth is, in almost twenty years of every-Sunday-without-fail attendance and participation there, I can’t recall much in the way of either discussion of or interest in the whole issue. I damned sure never heard any “hatred” expressed over it.

Ironically, those rainbow flags you see flying outside some churches proudly announcing “We welcome all!” are not appealing to the very people they are intended to attract. It’s the churches that so many on the left mistakenly and irresponsibly accuse of “hating the gays” that are actually where many gay people find what they’re really looking for.

People seeking Christ are not looking for a scripture-denying church. They want the real thing, not in spite of it making real demands upon them and teaching the scriptures as they are, but very likely because of it.

Kinda surprising, that. A heck of a lot more thought-provoking stats and analysis to be found in the rest of the article, arriving here:

It’s finally time to stick a fork in the liberalizing project within Christianity that has been hard at work over the last 60 years or so. Hard numbers judge it a massive failure on every measure year after year.

If you know the Left and its established MO of infiltrating, corrupting, and perverting institutions until they’re brought fully into line with Leftist ideology, it’s pretty hard not to conclude that the “failure” was actually the real objective all along. Remember the unassailable truth of O’Sullivan’s Law: any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. You won’t find a better example of it than what’s been done to Christianity; its enfeeblement was accomplished in an incredibly short span of time relative to the fifteen hundred years in which it had flourished. The onset of the Church’s descent into fossilized irrelevance closely coincides with the Left’s ascension to dominance, which can reasonably be viewed as something more than mere happenstance.

Share

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

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

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

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

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

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

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