Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Can’t parody them anymore

You truly, truly can’t. On the other hand, why go to the trouble? They’re doing such a bang-up job of it themselves.

Pink pussyhats are being dropped from Women’s March because they ‘exclude trans women and women whose private parts are not pink’

No really, you guys. It would appear, incredible as it may seem to sane people, that these barking moonbats are in fact serious as hell about this. And that they expect to be taken seriously, by actually serious non-lunatics. Steyn, as you would no doubt expect, is having himself one hell of a good old time with it:

Three years ago I wrote:

I can’t recall ever describing The Vagina Monologues as ‘edgy’. But I did tell Joseph Brean that I was amused to see that its annual ‘V Day’ production at Mount Holyoke College has been canceled because of its ‘extremely narrow perspective on what it means to be a woman’. Hence, this Guardian headline: ‘Vagina Monologues playwright: “I never said a woman is someone with a vagina”.’ As I said to Mr Brean, the revolution devours its own: Less than 20 years after Eve Ensler ’empowered’ women by ‘reclaiming’ their vaginas, it seems a woman doesn’t need a vagina at all, and it’s totally cisgenderism to suggest you’re not a woman if you’re hung like a horse.

As is my wont, I was playing it for laughs – but, as I always say, none of the people who matter in our society are laughing. Hence, the Bathroom Wars of the subsequent years, in which the position of what used to be known to Common Law as the Reasonable Man (now presumably the Reasonable Cisman) is apparently (as I put it on Rush): What sort of woman would be offended by the sight of another woman’s penis?

Henry Ford said you could get a Model T in any color as long as it’s black, but you really can get a Volvo in any color. Whoops, sorry, I mean a vulva. In the Civil Rights era, millions marched so that Americans might be judged not by the color of their faces but by the color of their vulvas. If only the apartheid regime in South Africa had thought to issue their citizenry with vulva-colored hats. Hallelujah!

Unfortunately, the Women’s March in Pensacola is having no truck with celebrating divulvaversity, as they explained in a post helpfully labeled…

Trigger Warning and Content Warning for comments: Transphobia, Cissexism, Racism, mention of Sexual Assault, Genital Mutilation, Misogyny and Trans-Misogyny.

They’re not kidding:

The Pink P*ssy Hat reinforces the notion that woman = vagina and vagina = woman, and both of these are incorrect.

Exactly. These days it’s entirely random. You never know what you’re getting into. As I noted a couple of years back, since the two sexes became multiple genders, and “transsexuals” became “transgenders”, and “sex change” became “gender fluidity,” some 60 per cent of transgender persons now retain their original genitalia. For example, my compatriot Gabrielle Tremblay won a Canadian Screen Award for Best Supporting Actress for a film in which she showed her penis.

“Her penis”: See how easy it is to get with the program?

Steyn goes on to posit a darker side to this hilarity: namely, that the fact we’re even lending an ear to such lunatic-fringe nonsense at all signals a tremendous victory for the cultural Marxists. To wit:

The cult-Marxists have remade almost everything in society, and detaching the sex organs from the sexes is the final decisive victory: Once “the notion that woman = vagina and vagina = woman” is up for grabs, there really isn’t anything left to demolish.

A fair enough assertion, I guess, in and of itself. I suppose Steyn’s serious reflection here calls for some at least slightly serious analysis from me too, much as I do hate to interrupt the pointing and laughing to do it. So here goes.

I can’t see this “decisive victory” as anything but Pyrrhic in the long run; it can’t help but rebound against the shriekers severely, and that right soon too. Normal, ordinary Americans not in dire need of psychiatric help will go along with demented thrashing about of the “pussyhat” sort only so far. Especially when it’s accompanied by rabid denunciations of their own more traditional values and standards, coming eventually to be seen as part of an attempt to destroy them.

Which, y’know, it is. Normals have proven themselves by now to be happy enough to leave people on society’s fringes alone to sort out their own issues, as bizarre as some of those issues might be. Much as “liberal” blacks, gay men, lesbians, LGBTXQ39whatthefuckevers, “feminists,” and other melodrama queens like to posture and whine as if there had been no loosening whatsoever of various late-19th-century cultural restrictions, modern American reality is something entirely different.

Ordinary Americans, despite pockets of resistance here and there over the years, are in the main possessed of a forbearance, flexibility, and open-mindedness that speaks quite well of them indeed—especially when compared with, say, the virulent prejudice against blacks still rampant in parts of Asia, or the inflexible hostility to homosexuals or women’s rights in the Muslim world.

But our homegrown nutjobs very scrupulously avoid taking notice of any of that. They are no longer content with mere forbearance, either, having moved on instead to hurling their sundry pathologies in everybody else’s teeth and haranguing Normals with accusations of a “bigotry” and “oppression” that simply do not exist. That mulish, dull-witted, juvenile lack of perspective will only serve to curtail said forbearance with a quickness, likely to be replaced with something that will suit the freaks one whole hell of a lot less.

Amusing Irony Alert: people who lament Trump’s “boorishness” and lack of “decorum” marching around DC in broad daylight…wearing “pussyhats.”

And an aside: Call me an old-fashioned old stick-in-the-mud of an old grouchy old codger if you will. Call me unworldly, call me unsophisticated, call me a hick from the sticks, a rube. Call me delicate, or fussy, or overly fastidious and prim. Call me naive, even, although I assure you you’d be wrong on that one. I’ve been a lot of places, and I’ve seen a lot of things. I’ve skirted danger-close to being what some might consider a libertine myself, at various times and in various ways. I have, in fact, been there and done that. To a much greater extent than most, if I do say so myself.

But one thing I never once imagined seeing, not in a million years I didn’t, was a pussyhat. A hat. Shaped to resemble a pussy—explicitly, no sly subtlety or coyness in design or construction at all, leaving absolutely no room for misinterpretation. Nary a wink, nary a nudge in sight. Worn in full public view, not at a porn industry convention or a NYC Gay Pride parade, not as a tasteless joke of an off-color costume at an adult Halloween party, but in the streets of the nation’s capital. As a political statement, a petition for the redress of grievances as our hallowed Founders put it. By people who expected to be taken seriously rather than made sport of as would be due and proper, or chased off into the night by someone possessed of too much politesse to endure such a breach of etiquette without taking direct action.

Pussyhats. I mean, seriously, you guys.

I still hold that, when you think about it, this endlessly escalating tomfoolery all comes back to the same thing: the hysteric desperation these headcases feel over Trump’s election and his solid progress in keeping his bargain with the American people since he took office. The resultant anguish has driven almost the entirety of the American Left right past the edge of eccentricity or neurosis into genuine madness. The rejection of their disastrous program was a spark that ignited a shrieking, frothing overreaction which I doubt very much they can control or even moderate, no matter how destructive to their ambitions—and to themselves, personally—it will turn out to be.

It’s almost frightening to think about what the response to their coming 2018 shellacking will be. But if things continue along more or less as they have been, it’s almost certain we’re going to find out. And then we’re going to see what that gets them.

My bet? I predicted before he was even elected that there would be more assassination attempts against Trump than any president in history. After the midterms, if the shellacking I anticipate comes to pass and Left whackadoodles find themselves soundly thumped once again (UNEXPECTED!™), look for those to start in earnest, as an even more penetrating despair and hopelessness settles in deep at the ol’ Ha Ha Hotel and the more, umm, proactive inmates figure they have nothing left to lose.

Share

You will be made to…wait, WHAT, again now?

Chaos. Incoherence. Inconsistency. Add it all up and you get Progtard comedy gold.

Singer Ginuwine has sparked a heated debate on Twitter after a recent episode of Celebrity Big Brother UK. In the latest episode, Ginuwine seemingly rejected fellow housemate India Willoughby.

The controversy stems from a conversation between Willoughby and the “Pony” singer, in which she asked whether he would date a trans woman. “You would date me, yeah,” Willoughby, who is a trans woman herself, asked. “Not if you were trans,” Ginuwine replied. After Ginuwine replied that he would not date a trans woman, Willoughby attempted to plant a kiss on the singer. When her advance was rejected, Willoughby stormed off.

Mmm, s’cuse me and all, but wasn’t ZXHRR’s outrageous demand that this guy make himself available to ZXHRR for ZXHRR’s sexual use, umm, harassment? In fact, wasn’t ZXHRR’s unwanted (NO MEANS NO! EXCEPT WHEN IT DOESN’T!) lunge an actual, errrr, sexual assault? Isn’t this Ginuwine fellow, whoever the hell he is, now officially a Victim™, who must Always Be Believed? And shouldn’t Progtards everywhere be up in arms over his victimization?

No, no, I guess not. Never mind.

Now Twitter has split into two sides. One side is outraged by Ginuwine’s rejection, suggesting that his unwillingness to date trans women is transphobic and bigoted. On the other hand, some fans are rallying behind the “In Those Jeans” artist, insisting that he has a choice to date whomever he chooses. Some also suggested that Willoughby was actually harassing him.

Dude, that’s three sides. Unless, as I suspect, the ones in that last category numbered about, oh, four, and were commenting in the same spirit of mockery that I am here and therefore don’t count. One more question, though: are all the Left’s slopes as slippery as this one is proving to be?

Via Ace, who goes on to make a damned good point about where our own domestic media fits into all this tommyrot, and how Progtardia uses these horseshit Critically Vitally Important Issues ‘N Stuff as a tactic to keep the culture shifting ever Leftward.

So let’s tot it all up then: we have a Being Of Penis unequivocally rejecting a proposed sexual advance, up to and including outright assault by the Left’s own established previous standards for the term, by another Being Of Penis who wishes to be a Being Of Vagina but who everybody involved admits is not. The Being Of Vagina perpetrates the assault anyway in contravention of the clearly expressed rejection of said attack. This event cannot be acknowledged—despite its having been captured on film—by Proggies as the assault it self-evidently was, though, because…well, because reasons. Also, shut up.

I repeat: chaos. Incoherence. Complete batshit lunacy, in fact. I can’t imagine there’s a sane Normal in the Western world—be they Beings Of Penis or Vagina—who can make any sense at all of it, and whose sole wish in reaction will be anything other than to keep the whole throbbing mess just as far away from them as is humanly possible.

This, too, is how you got Trump, you idiots. Not a moment too soon, either.

Share

I just…can’t even

Sick fucks.

Do you have a kid you’re hoping to force your socio-political ideas on? Are the attention grabbing posts you make on social media about your small child’s gender confusion lacking on Facebook likes, or Tumblr reblogs? Then fret not, dear social justice warrior, because now there’s a site called “transkids” that will sell you a small prosthetic penis for your little girl to wear around.

No really, Morse isn’t kidding. If only he was. From the “About us” section of this horrid travesty of a website:

TransKids is run by Searah, who also runs a site for trans guys called ftmessentials.com. After years of helping adults find high-quality gender expression gear, she saw the need for a site and store that focused more on kids and their unique needs.

Searah hopes that all parents coming here can trust that this is a safe and affirming place, where helping your kids live fully and embodied is our only goal. 

Umm, no, not exactly. Not by a long yard, it ain’t. Back to Morse for the unvarnished truth:

Why these people believe forcing their ideas about sexuality and gender on kids whose main concern should be who will play hide and seek with them after school is anyone’s guess. In a sane world this would be considered child abuse, but for too many platforms, this is considered “tolerance” and “open mindedness.”

This isn’t open mindedness or tolerance, this is straight up child abuse. Not only are these ideological die-hards teaching their children to grow up with the idea that they were born wrong, or defective, they’re attempting to make them wear things — by force or by persuasion — to put a penis between their legs.

I don’t know why there are people out there who believe putting a penis between a little girl’s legs is somehow now acceptable in the right context. This is not acceptable. Not in any context.

Agreed, completely. I’ve said many times here that I would never advocate harassing or tormenting the tiny handful of sad, mentally ill individuals out there who are suffering from crippling delusions about their gender. But what this “Searah” person is doing is vile—criminally so, de facto if not de jure. It amounts to encouraging this pathology among impressionable children who would most likely otherwise have no interest in such questioning at all, and doing so for political purposes. If such sinister manipulation isn’t actually against any law, then it probably ought to be.

(Via VP)

Share

The Kwanzaa con

Fake news holiday.

BLACKS IN AMERICA have suffered an endless series of insults and degradations, the latest of which goes by the name of Kwanzaa.

Ron Karenga (aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga) invented the seven-day feast (Dec. 26-Jan. 1) in 1966, branding it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what he considered the Christmas-season exploitation of African Americans.

Now, the point: There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent. Begin with the name. The celebration comes from the Swahili term “matunda yakwanza,” or “first fruit,” and the festival’s trappings have Swahili names — such as “ujima” for “collective work and responsibility” or “muhindi,” which are ears of corn celebrants set aside for each child in a family.

Unfortunately, Swahili has little relevance for American blacks. Most slaves were ripped from the shores of West Africa. Swahili is an East African tongue.

To put that in perspective, the cultural gap between Senegal and Kenya is as dramatic as the chasm that separates, say, London and Tehran. Imagine singing “G-d Save the Queen” in Farsi, and you grasp the enormity of the gaffe.

Worse, Kwanzaa ceremonies have no discernible African roots. No culture on earth celebrates a harvesting ritual in December, for instance, and the implicit pledges about human dignity don’t necessarily jibe with such still-common practices as female circumcision and polygamy. The inventors of Kwanzaa weren’t promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term “ujima,” which Julius Nyrere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger.

Even the rituals using corn don’t fit. Corn isn’t indigenous to Africa. Mexican Indians developed it, and the crop was carried worldwide by white colonialists.

That’s from a classic old column by the late great Tony Snow, laying bare the whole disgraceful swindle. I don’t give enough of a shit about the worthless tool to bother looking it up, but I’d be willing to bet almost anything that the “Dr” in Ron Malingerer’s asserted nom de fraud is as big a shuck-and-jive as everything else associated with him is.

Oh, and need I even mention the Kwanzaa Kreep himself is a woman-torturing psycho, too? In sum:

It is hard to understand why anybody would want to follow a violent felon, in a made-up holiday that mistakes racism and segregation-ism for spirituality, and fiction for history.

Because they’re fucking chumps, that’s why. With a capital C-H-U-M-P, in big bold letters so nobody makes any mistakes about it.

Share

“Increasingly detached from reality”

Some serious self-beclowning goin’ on.

Cohen says Trump is “a narcissist, “lacks empathy,” and “has an adolescent male fascination with the military.” Not wanting to be outdone, Boot has a phalanx of slurs at the ready: Trump’s “very ignorant” and “kowtows to dictators and undermines American support for freedom and democracy around the world.” He’s “a bully” and “likes to beat up on people who are weaker than him.”

Boot rehashes the baseless and well-worn charge of “tyrant” and claims that “Trump, as a personality type, is probably not that different from a Mussolini, a Peron, a Chavez. And if you were operating in Argentina or Italy, he would probably be a dictator by now.” Boot’s cheap invocation of Theodor Adorno’s discredited authoritarian personality theory—which Adorno invented to show that anyone who leaned right was a Mussolini in waiting—frames his complete denial of reality.

On policy after policy, Trump has gone out of his way to defer to Congress—perhaps even sometimes to his detriment. From healthcare to taxes, he has given Congress free rein to enact the wishes of Republican leadership. And as the travel ban makes its way through the federal court system, Trump has abided by each and every decision the courts have meted out—no matter if he agrees with the ruling or not. He has honored the constitutional principle of the separation of powers more than any president since Ronald Reagan.

Domestically, Boot declares that Trump is “undermining the rule of law. He’s actively obstructing justice. He’s backing—he’s lending the support of the presidency to monsters like Roy Moore. He is exacerbating race relations. He is engaging in the most blatant xenophobia, racism, and general bigotry that we have seen from the White House.”

Apparently, pointing out that citizens and their property in our inner cities need to be protected from rising violent crime is abominable—though curiously, it seems not to have troubled him when the Bushes did it. Boot explains later that by “actively obstructing justice” he means that Trump is “undermining Robert Mueller and his special counsel investigation.” No, Mueller’s team is undermining their own scandal-plagued investigation just fine by themselves—they don’t need any help from Trump. It wasn’t Trump who likely illegally obtained emails from the transition team. And it wasn’t Trump who demoted Peter Strzok, a rabidly anti-Trump top agent at the FBI, but then didn’t tell Congress until months later.

Boot’s rhetoric would fit right in at the editorial meetings at Salon. Parroting DNC talking points and hoping for Republicans to get crushed in 2018 (Boot says that he is “actively rooting for Republicans to lose the congressional elections next year”) is what True Conservatism™ has come to mean, it seems. Evan McMullin, eat your heart out.

The miserable yapping of these certifiable-lunatic anklebiters is like sweet, sweet music to mine ears. Suck on it, pipsqueaks. Such ludicrous, hysterical gasbaggery merits no more serious, courteous, or considered a response than just that—and is as bracing a sign as any that the right side is winning, in a more consequential fashion than may sometimes be apparent. Read the rest of Sabo’s takedown, though; it gets steadily more hilarious as it goes on, his recitation of these two pompous nitwits’ own foreign-policy failures being a particularly sidesplitting highlight.

Share

Moonbat meltdown

Wow, these freaks REALLY hate the idea of letting you hold onto a bit more of your money than you did before, don’t they?



Ace has other examples of a psychotic break caused by tax cuts. This one would have to be my favorite, though:

About 10,000 Americans will die every year from lack of health coverage if the tax reform bill goes through as proposed, Larry Summers, former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton and White House economic advisor under Barack Obama, said Monday.

Yeah, these are people who can be reasoned with, can be equably and honestly debated, are open to equitable compromise, and who might occasionally have a proposal worth considering. Funny, too, how every single thing they don’t like is going to cause quadrillions(!!!!) of deaths, but they have never yet acknowledged the hundred million or so ACTUALLY killed by their preferred system of government—preferring instead to make ludicrous fools of themselves denying it, or more despicably, sidestepping or minimizing it.

Just imagine the nightmarish ordeal of trying to explain to them the Ground Zero principle that it ain’t the government’s money to begin with if you really want to send some serious chills up your spine. And then tell me again all about how it’s either desirable or possible for us to all live peaceably within the same borders, just to double down on pointless futility.

“Unity”? Umm, thanks and all, but, well…NO.

Peripherally related update! Peripherally, yeah, but important enough to mention here.

With a bare 52-48 GOP Senate majority, and with Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee determined to even a personal score with President Trump, the Senate version of the bill that passed the House almost went down to defeat. But the Republicans held. Susan Collins of Maine fought gamely to preserve the deduction for property taxes, and she stuck with the team. Ron Johnson got what he needed. Rand Paul managed to overcome his broken-ribs situation. For a day, Jeff Flake and John McCain set aside their personal issues with President Trump.

And — incredibly importantly — it is critical for Alabama voters to grasp that not one single solitary Democrat broke ranks from Chuck Schumer to vote for the tax cut.

The Democrats cynically run ostensibly moderate-seeming candidates in Republican states like Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia. Like Doug Jones who is opposing Roy Moore in Alabama, those “moderates” falsely assure voters that they are not in Chuck Schumer’s pocket, are independent thinkers, and will not betray their conservative constituents if elected and sent to Washington. Yet, without exception, they all are brazen liars. The vote on the Senate tax bill proves the lie. When push comes to shove, when every last vote counts, Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John Tester (D-MT), and Joe Manchin (D-WV) were in Chuck Schumer’s pocket. Same with Bill Nelson (D-FL), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Not one voted for tax cuts. That is where Doug Jones will be. As the President has warned, Jones would be bad on crime, bad on defense, bad on the border, bad on judges, bad on everything. It would be like Alabama giving one of its two United States Senate seats to New York or California.

Heh. No way can I imagine THAT failing to motivate Alabamians to make sure Moore wins.

Share

One-way freakery

Well, THIS could sure explain a lot.

During last Tuesday’s minor off-year elections, a glorious total of “eight openly transgender candidates” swept to victory, squashing the hopes and stomping on the necks of transphobic bigots nationwide, who really need to either repent or curl up and die already.

While this is all undoubtedly cause for celebration, for joyously sniffing amyl nitrite and having unprotected felching parties far beneath manholes in urban sewers across this nation, are you noticing a pattern here? Yes, I am, too—all six of these winners were born men—or, if you prefer to sound like a crazy person, had the male gender assigned to them at birth—and decided one day through magical thinking and varying degrees of medical intervention that they were women.

Eight trannies elected to office in one night? That’s good. Only two of them now identify as men? That’s bad—especially if one wants to pretend that gender is fluid. If one even dares to notice a firm statistical pattern that the roaring majority of trannies are men who claim they’re women, one risks subverting the entire Tranny Gospel. If, as the case seems to be nearly everywhere worldwide, the overwhelming majority of people who desire to change their sex are men who seek refuge in womanhood, this might suggest that our current cultural climate offers very few perks for men and plenty for women.

Unfortunately for the egalitarian-minded and those who wish to believe that the current transgender craze is anything more than a reaction to a culture that demonizes maleness, Japan stands as a sole exception to the global one-way tranny stampede, which overwhelmingly involves men proclaiming that they’re women.

Studies in Europe from the 1980s and 1990s found that when it comes to declaring you’re not the “gender you were assigned at birth,” men chose to become women at anywhere from 2.3 to 4 times the clip that women chose to become men. A study in England from the 1970s found that men chose to be women three times as often as women decided to be men.

Even more overwhelmingly lopsided is this Wikipedia page on “Transgender and transsexual politicians.” Of 45 international tranny pols listed, only two were born women. The rest were born men.

I strongly suspect that the current tranny mania which infects and clogs up so much of our popular discussion does not represent some new, bold, post-gender frontier in human development. If it did, the genders would be swapping genitals at an almost equal rate. But since it’s almost entirely male-to-female, I sense it’s nothing more than a cultural reaction to the fact that in the current climate, there’s almost nothing good about being a man.

Y’know, bizarre as it might seem at first blush, I think he just might be onto something here. Makes one wonder a bit what those comparative numbers might have looked like back when the manly virtues were admired, and men were treated with respect rather than revulsion—before the word “masculinity” was always paired with “toxic” or some other epithet.

(Via Steyn)

Share

Cherchez la feminist

Is there anything they can’t fuck up and destroy?

A Boise State University professor’s recent essay exploring the intellectual history of the meaning of gender has roiled the campus, with claims by administration officials that the article represents “the root of genocide.”

Of course it does. I mean, with “liberal” screechmonkeys, what doesn’t?

Scott Yenor, a professor of political science, wrote the essay for the Heritage Foundation website; it traces the development of contemporary transgender theory to the seminal early-feminist work The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir. Yenor demonstrates that a key premise of transgender discourse—the disassociation of biological sex from gender identity—is rooted in Beauvoir’s effort to show that femininity is not a biological fact but is imposed by society. He traces the development of this idea through first- and second-wave feminist thought, culminating in today’s radical claims that small children should be allowed to choose their gender identity and even receive hormone therapy, and that everyone should be free to use the bathroom or locker room that suits his or her identity.

Yenor’s essay is an intellectual history, not a diatribe. He concludes that the objective of transgender theory is to stop treating “gender dysphoria” in children as “a pathological syndrome requiring counseling and preventive parenting.” Rather, its “ultimate goal is public recognition of queer theory’s view of the human landscape”—an aim that leads to a fundamental conflict. In demanding that children be free to choose their gender, transgender activists would condemn as child abuse parental actions that fail to respect their child’s gender selection. Ontario’s Minister of Children and Youth Services Michael Coteau took such a position earlier this year.

In response to Yenor’s scholarly inquiry, Boise State officials reacted in a fashion now familiar on campuses nationwide.

You can easily guess what follows: “fascist,” “Nazi,” “Hitler,” “hate speech,” “violation of rights,” and on and on and on. I didn’t see any quotes referring to the Klan, but I’m sure there were some.

Hope this guy’s got tenure, because if he doesn’t, you can safely assume his career as an academic—hell, his very ability to make a living for himself and his family in any fashion at all, or to live peaceably in his own home—is now officially over. The spirit of free inquiry, honest good-faith debate, and the right to speak one’s mind openly remains what it always has been for these animals: anathema, and the respect for it nonexistent.

“Unity”? With the likes of them? No, thanks. Not now, not ever.

Update! Speaking of “unity.”

One of the stranger things about our public discourse the last couple of decades is the constant call for unity. The black hats on the political stage are always described as divisive or polarizing. The white hats are the “uniters”, bringing people together. Whenever something happens, like a disaster or shooting, the news is full of stories about how the community is united in response. Usually this means some sort of ceremony with candles and the local leaders officiating a ritual intended to show unity.

Of course, the fetish for unity is a Progressive thing. Often it takes comical turns, like when public opinion is running hard against some Progressive cause. Then the public is described as “divided over the issue.” A suitable bad guy is found and scorn is heaped on him by the media for his divisiveness. On the other hand, when opinion is slightly in favor of the Progressives, then we hear that the public is nearly unanimous in their support. This is followed by calls of unity, which means the opposition should surrender.

The classic example of this was homosexual marriage. State after state held referendums on the issue. for 30 some odds times the public voted against it. After every defeat, the media reported that a divided electorate narrowly opposed gay marriage. Then the one time it passes, a deluge of press claiming a tidal wave of support in favor of homosexual marriage. It was so convincing, the Supreme Court decided that voting was too much a bother and unilaterally declared gay marriage a sacrament.

Unity was not always a fetish for our rulers. In my youth, I had to sit and listen to civics lectures from Boomer instructors about the glories of raucous democracy. The whole point of democracy was for the people to have a civilized argument in order to gain a majority around a position. The change seems to have happened in the Clinton years. Anyone who opposed the Clintons was accused of dividing the public. As is true of so many of the problems in the current crisis, the roots of this unity fetish are in the Ozarks.

A free people cannot even coexist with those who wish to subjugate and enslave them…which renders any notion of “unity” not just spurious, but highly undesirable at best. As Zman says, it’s nothing more than a subterfuge promoted by people harboring nefarious designs on our liberty and right to self-determination. Which leads me to repeat: you can keep your damned “unity,” thanks. No market for it over here.

Nucking futs update! And then there’s the merely hilarious:

Kellogg’s will be redesigning Corn Pops cereal boxes after a complaint about racially insensitive art on the packaging.

The Battle Creek, Mich.-based cereal and snack maker said on Twitter Wednesday it will replace the cover drawing of cartoon characters shaped like corn kernels populating a shopping mall. The corn pop characters are shown shopping, playing in an arcade or frolicked in a fountain. One skateboards down an escalator.

What struck Saladin Ahmed was that a single brown corn pop was working as a janitor operating a floor waxer. Ahmed, current writer of Marvel Comics’ Black Bolt series and author of 2012 fantasy novel Throne of the Crescent Moon, took to Twitter on Tuesday to ask, “Why is literally the only brown corn pop on the whole cereal box the janitor? this is teaching kids racism.”

He added in a subsequent post: “yes its a tiny thing, but when you see your kid staring at this over breakfast and realize millions of other kids are doing the same…”

…you expect your kid to ignore it as the wholly meaningless, inoffensive thing it is and get on with your life. And if you should spy his little lip all a-quiver with misguided dismay over this wholly innocuous bit of nothing, you explain to him that there is no shame whatsoever in being a janitor; it’s honest work, and is a perfectly respectable and honorable way for anyone, black, white, brown, or other, to earn himself a living. No reasonable person ought to infer any insult at all in depicting anyone as a janitor, much less a cartoon character that, y’know, doesn’t actually fucking exist.

That’s what you’d do if you’re a responsible parent interested in raising your son right, anyway, and helping him become a mature, rational adult capable of making his way in a civilized society, rather than a pitiful, dysfunctional bag of stale piss frightened of his own shadow and taking offense at every trivial statement or action he might have the misfortune to witness and be traumatized by. Which kind of parent this guy clearly isn’t, being instead the kind of hysterical douchebag who would waste any portion of his time to register complaint about a bunch of cartoon cereal pops—which, I remind you, do not actually fucking exist—being RACIST!™

Kellogg’s knuckled under and groveled appropriately, of course:

Kellogg’s responded to Ahmed on the social media network about five hours later that “Kellogg is committed to diversity & inclusion. We did not intend to offend – we apologize. The artwork is updated & will be in stores soon.”

Wonder how much the sudden increase in their business would have amounted to if they’d had the stones to tell the pathetic dweeb to go take a flying fuck at the moon? Then again, if they had any balls in the first place, they would’ve made ALL the damned things yellow and dispensed with any attempt at pussified PC “diversity” right out of the gate—yellow being the color of most corn and all, and of the actual cereal itself. In fact, now that I think of it, they never would have changed from their old, no longer acceptable name: Sugar Pops.

Which only illustrates the rule: you give in to liberals even once, you’ll never be allowed to stop. With them, there is no satisfactory resolution that will placate them; there is only perpetual escalation. Better to just ignore the annoying psychos until they go bother somebody else. Yes, they’ll most likely be back eventually with another complaint. Ignore them then, too. It’s not as if these green-teethed granolaheads would even dream of buying your unhealthy, murderous product anyway, you know.

In a statement to USA TODAY, spokesperson Kris Charles said Kellogg respects all people and is committed to diversity.

See what I mean? That right there is where you made your mistake, chump. You paid the Progressivegeld; now you’ll never be rid of the Progressive.

Is anybody but me becoming kind of concerned over the prospect of living and raising children in a society run by such unbalanced yammerheads?

(Via Daniel)

Share

Dragon swallows sun, spits it back out again, Trump to blame!

Oh, and while we’re at it, the stupid eclipse was RACIST™, by the way.

No, really.

The Atlantic’s very lengthy essay on the failure of the eclipse to occur where a sufficient number of black people reside is entitled “American Blackout.” It clocks in at a remarkable 4,544 words and does not appear to be satire.

Concerning “the Great American Eclipse,” Brooklyn Law School professor Alice Ristroph writes in the rapidly deteriorating magazine, “there live almost no black people” “along most of its path.”

The Atlantic’s longwinded law professor assures readers that “implicit bias of the solar system” is “presumably” not the cause of eclipse’s failure to affect enough black people.

“Still, an eclipse chaser is always tempted to believe that the skies are relaying a message.”

How awful it must be to cling so furiously to a belief system that makes you this miserable. And, y’know, stupid. Right out in public, no less.

“Implicit bias of the solar system.” “Presumably.” I mean, good LORD, man. You can’t help but feel a little bit sorry for the poor buffoon.

Share

The grave-robbing Left

Fucking worthless lunatics.

A group of protesters who want the body of an alleged Ku Klux Klan leader removed from their city have broken the soil over the grave.

The campaigners claim it has taken officials in Memphis, Tennessee, too long to exhume Nathan Bedford Forrest – who was a lieutenant general in the Confederate States Army.

They also want the statue of the soldier on a horse on the burial site to be removed. The rebel cavalryman, who died in 1877, has been buried in the city’s Health Sciences Park since 1904.

You want another Civil War, assholes? This is how you get one. Of course and as usual, they’re complete morons with no knowledge of actual, y’know, history. Therefore, Forrest’s post-war reconciliation speech—one among several—sailed right over their empty heads:

Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God’s earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation.

I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don’t believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.

I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgement in selecting men for office and vote as you think right.

Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand.” (Prolonged applause.)

According to legend, which may or may not be apocryphal, Forrest then affectionately kissed the black woman who had handed him the flowers on the cheek, and scandalized the entire nation in so doing. His post-war commitment to reconciliation, brotherhood, and unity was apparently genuine, and he was joined in those sentiments by many of his fellow Confederate officers.

None of which matters one bit, of course, and will make absolutely no difference in the muttonheaded excuse for “thinking” prevalent amongst such benighted cretins as these graverobbers. It is a waste of time to even attempt to debate within the century-old crypt they desecrated. They want to re-fight the Civil War, re-open long-healed wounds? Let them enjoy the bitter harvest of their blank stupidity, then; let them suffer horribly and die in pain, according to their own ignorant desires. Let them reap the whirlwind; let them pay in blood for their willful ignorance.

So be it.

Inserted update! Only just noticed that the above story is from 2015. So I guess we have an actual starting date now for when the Race-Baitin’ Left lost its collective(ist) mind.

(Via Stephen)

Update! Where will it end? I’ve already told y’all, it will NEVER end.

ROSE: (whispering) Thomas Jefferson had slaves.

SHARPTON: Had slaves, and children with the slaves.

ROSE: Exactly. Should they take down the Jefferson Memorial?

SHARPTON: I think that people need to understand when people that were in enslaved and robbed of even the right to marry — and had forced sex with their slave masters — this is personal. This is not some kind of removed discussion from us. Our families were victims of this. Public monuments are supported by public funds. You’re asking me to subsidize the insult of my family.

ROSE: Then I repeat: Thomas Jefferson had slaves.

SHARPTON: And I repeat that the public should not be paying to uphold somebody who has had that kind of background.

Rush knows as well as the rest of us that there’s more to this than just a few monuments:

Thomas Jefferson was one of the founders of this country, and you see what this really is about here? This is about not just delegitimizing Donald Trump, and it’s not just about getting rid of him. These people are on a tear to delegitimize this entire country, as part of their effort to transform it and — dare I say — overthrow it however they might try to make that happen. But it is absurd — and during all of this, what I notice is that people on our side of the aisle, we kind of chuckle. “Ha-ha-ha. Listen to Reverend Sharpton, he’s off on another wild tangent.”

And nobody stands up and responds to this stuff in any kind of way in the public square that defends it. And it’s as though if we let the kids have their say and get it out of their system, it will eventually go away. I think we have learned that this isn’t gonna go away. These are people that cannot be mollified. These people are gonna have to be defeated, folks. And I think that’s what a lot of people don’t have the stomach for. I mean, the idea of tearing down the Jefferson Memorial?

There’s no point in responding to it. There’s no point in explaining it. They will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. And that’s going to mean bloodshed. I don’t see any rational way of denying it at this point.

Share

Why you don’t put mentally disturbed people in foxholes

Not if you actually want to win wars, you don’t.

  • Guys would literally snap over a dear John letter. Their personal issues came out and they were instantly combat ineffective.
  • Now take someone confused about whether they are a man/woman. Take those psychological and emotional issues and put them in that environment
  • Take someone who is right off the bat not uniform or part of the same team. Give them special treatment because of their identity.
  • Take that person, put them in that stressful war environment and watch what happens. It’s a fucking ticking time bomb.
  • You have to be incredibly tough mentally, physically and emotionally. War is not a fucking video game. It tests every ounce of your being.
  • You can’t teach someone to be a fearless warrior in a fucking PowerPoint. You either have it or you don’t. You can hack it or you can’t.
  • We had guys who couldn’t. When faced with combat situations they crumbled. They had mental and emotional issues. They were a liability.
  • To be successful at war, you have to become a warrior mentally, physically, and emotionally. You can’t fake it and go through the motions.
  • In war if it comes down to kill or be killed, and you hesitate, you’re dead. It’s a simple as that. It’s not a fucking video game.

No, it certainly is not; hell, boot camp isn’t, much less actual war. The idea that every precious snowflake has some kind of natural right to be in the military is horseshit. Fallen arches can keep you out; asthma can. And mental illness can too, which is exactly what “transgenderism” is. Also horseshit: the idea that the military is some kind of social-justice-oriented cultural leveling device, or Welcome Wagon with guns. The military is for killing people, breaking things, and enforcing our national will on adversaries. Anything inhibiting its ability to do those things needs to stay well to the other side of the barbed wire, and should stick to spitting on soldiers at airports instead. That comes more naturally to them anyway.

Share

Delenda frigging EST

Just when you think they’ve reached Peak Lunacy.

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture.

Well, actually, ummm, no. Most parents know that “rape culture” is complete fucking horseshit—the sane ones, that is. Or so I would hope.

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so. He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls.

If he’s at all intelligent, he understands that not all of what a twisted freak like you calls “misogyny” is actually, y’know, misogyny.

He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

“Ungrateful”? No, not so much that. Demented, hate-filled, obsessive Feminazis like you, yeah.

I teeter frequently between supporting my son and educating him. Is it my job as his mother to ensure he feels safe emotionally, no matter what violence he spews?

What “violence” he “spews”? I’d really have to see an example of such before I’d believe it. As for translating the rest of it: For “supporting my son,” insert “being an actual loving mother.” For “educating him,” substitute “lecturing, hectoring, bullyragging, and intimidating him out of any trace of normal masculinity.” Your “job as a mother”? You haven’t the vaguest fucking clue, you sick bint.

As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become.

Of course they don’t. That’s because the “men” you hope they become aren’t men at all; they’re emasculated, steercotted little pussies, pushed around and bullied out of any truly masculine identity at all. I repeat: sick bint.

I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true.

How very sad for you, you weak, pathetic freak. Every single premise presented in this paragraph is simply fucked beyond redemption. And with that, we draw near to the nut of things.

My sons won’t rape unconscious women behind a dumpster, and neither will most of the progressive men I know.

Neither will most of the men you know, period, de-balled Progressivists or otherwise.

I love my sons, and I love some individual men. It pains me to say that I don’t feel emotionally safe with them, and perhaps never have with a man, but it needs to be said because far too often we are afraid to say it. This is not a reflection of something broken or damaged in me; it is a reflection of the systems we build and our boys absorb.

And there it is: it most certainly IS a reflection of something broken and damaged in you. This whole wretched screed is nothing BUT a public display of just how badly damaged, how completely broken, you are.

This deranged bitch is a perfect exemplar of the dank, twisted hole into which Progressivism drags everything within its reach. Pity the poor boys raised by such a diseased mind; what hope have they of ever leading a normal, sane life after having been endlessly harangued during their formative years by the kind of woman who would put her petty politics ahead of properly nurturing her offspring?

It’s easy enough to mock a sicko like her, sure enough, and it should surely be done every chance we get. But we should never lose sight of an important fact: the damage done by her despicable ilk is real, and most likely irrevocable. Her sons may have the strength to rebel against her, and throw off her malignant influence in the end. But it’s likely going to cost them. And in the end, it will cost all of us.

Share

The identity transaction

Haven’t looked in on Eric Raymond in a while. I have been remiss.

There was a very silly news story recently about “Claire”, a transsexual “girl” with a penis who complains that she is rejected by straight guys for ‘having male parts’. Er, how was “she” expecting anything different? By trying to get dates with heterosexual teenage boys using a female presentation, she was making an offer that there is about her person the sort of sexual parts said boys want to play with. Since “she” does not in fact have a vagina, this offer was fraudulent and there’s no wonder the boys rejected it.

More to the point, why is this “girl” treated as anything but a mental case? Leaving aside the entire question of how real transgenderism is as a neuropsychological phenomenon, “she” clearly suffers from a pretty serious disconnect with observable reality. In particular, those delusions about teenage boys…

I can anticipate several objections to this transactional account of identity. One is that is cruel and illiberal to reject an offer of “I claim identity X” if the person claiming feels that identity strongly enough. This is essentially the position of those journalists from The Hill.

To which I can only reply: you can feel an identity as a programmer as strongly as you want, but if you can’t either already sling code or are visibly working hard on repairing that deficiency, you simply don’t make the nut. Cruelty doesn’t enter into this; if I assent to your claim I assist your self-deceit, and if I repeat it I assist you in misleading or defrauding others.

It is pretty easy to see how this same analysis applies to “misgendering” people with the “wrong” pronouns. People who use the term “misgender” generally follow up with claims about the subject’s autonomy and feelings. Which is well enough, but such considerations do not justify being complicit in the deceit of others any more than they do with respect to “I am a programmer”.

A related objection is that I have stolen the concept of “identity” by transactionalizing it. That is, true “identity” is necessarily grounded not in public performance but private feelings – you are what you feel, and it’s somehow the responsibility of the rest of the world to keep up.

But…if I’m a delusional psychotic who feels I’m Napoleon, is it the world’s responsibility to keep up? If I, an overweight clumsy shortish white guy, feel that I’m a tall agile black guy under the skin, are you obligated to choose me to play basketball? Or, instead, are you justified in predicting that I can’t jump?

You can’t base “identity” on a person’s private self-beliefs and expect sane behavior to emerge any more than you can invite everyone to speak private languages and expect communication to happen.

The self-contradictory madness of Progressivism has reached its end-stages. There really isn’t a whole lot further for it to go, and it needs to be put out of its—and our—misery, before it can do any more damage.

Share

Delenda est

Another delightful Schlichter column.

Name one normal person who has watched the leftist freak out and said, “Yeah, I’m convinced. That severed Trump head Kathy Griffin is hauling around? Really makes you think.” It sure does – normal people think, “Thank you, Lord, for helping America dodge that drunken, malignant bullet the liberals fired at us.”

But then nothing the liberals have done since last November’s humiliation has sought to expand the Democrats’ constricted base to include us normals. Instead, everything they have done seems designed solely to appeal to the coastal snobs and welfare cheats who are already committed to liberal fascism, and to demonstrate to everyone else how right we were to reject that pant-suited Chavez wannabe.

When you watch what they’re doing in response to normal Americans standing up and asserting the right to govern ourselves, you see the progressives making the losers’ choice at every turn. From concocting elaborate Russian fantasies – I keep expecting someone to demand Trump make Moscow General Hospital release his original birth certificate – to applauding performance art designed to make regular people gag, they choose wrong. And we can safely point this out because they’re too smug and/or stupid to listen.

This has been going on for a long time. A few years ago it was their collective swoon over the scuzzy shenanigans of the filthy lowlifes of what they called the “Occupy Movement.” But that Astroturf farce was only a “movement” to the extent that progs imagined that footage of its coterie of clowns executing bowel movements against cop cars was going to win over normal people.

Okay, that didn’t work, so the next brainstorm was to decide to refuse to recognize the results of the 2016 election – no doubt the people who left the Democrats would be convinced to return to a party that has made its centerpiece #TheResistance to what those voters voted for. And how better to appeal to the regular folks who chose Trump over Felonia von Pantsuit than, “Why, let’s have thousands of hideous crones wearing hats evoking genitalia march around talking about how working class men are bad.”

Yeah, no. That failed too. Have you seen any v-caps lately? Gyno headgear is now “La Macarena” of political novelty acts.

But Russia spazzing doesn’t create jobs, and it doesn’t address the underlying issues that led people who could’ve been voting for Hillary to diss her. So, especially after 12 months with no leaks of damning evidence and the reluctant admissions even from leading Democrats that there is no evidence of TRUMP LOVES PUTIN BECAUSE TREASON! at all, damning or otherwise, no one cares who wasn’t already offended to the core by normal people daring to make themselves heard last November.

And having that insane political Sasquatch wandering out of the woods every once in a while to insist that she actually won the election does not help. Which is why we should heartily encourage her to continue her bizarre quest for the presidency.

As they say: liberals want conservatives to shut up. Conservatives want liberals to keep talking. It’s never been more true than it is right now, when they’ve gone well past just talking and are only a small step or two away from squatting on all fours and baying at the freakin’ moon.

Actually literally insane update! Another example:

Co-host Brian Kilmeade asked why the issue of climate change had become a “religion” for the left, to which Steyn noted those on the left argue border enforcement is an impossibility, yet they believe they can control the heavens.

“I think precisely because it is so meaningless,” Steyn replied as to why the left is so invested in the issue. “Because if you say to them, ‘Let’s enforce the border’ — ‘What? Are you out of your mind? That’s just a natural phenomenon. We can’t enforce the border. People are going to be coming in anyway.’ But if you say to them, ‘We can control the very heavens,’ that, we can do. And it’s actually literally insane. The less it has to do with your life, the more the left is invested in it.”

Well, not quite. They want absolute, unquestioned control over that too. I’d rephrase that to: the less it has to do with objective reality, etc.

Share

Comey chaos

If this keeps up, I’m going to need to dig out the ol’ thesaurus to find an alternative to the word “dementia,” because we’re all going to be sick of that one.

Comey’s not going to charge Hillary? What a stand-up guy! The very model of a dedicated public servant!

Comey’s re-opened the Hillary investigation? What a partisan hack! He’s just thrown the election to Trump! This is literally a police state!

Comey’s investigating Trump’s ties to Russia? Thank God! This career civil servant is all that stands between us and that fascist dictator!

Comey’s fingering Huma Abedin for forwarding emails to Carlos Danger? God, this Trump stooge won’t let up, will he?

Trump’s fired Comey? How dare he? This is a crisis for the integrity of our institutions…

As it turns out, he misspoke somewhat on the matter of Huma Abedin sending classified emails to her spambot penis of a hubby to print out during breaks from sexting middle-schoolers. Which is how we arrive at the brain-exploding scenario of Trump firing Comey for being unfair to Hillary. Boy, that Putin is always nine chess moves ahead, isn’t he?

He IS good, isn’t he? I mean, he must be: he has Trump in his back pocket, our national elections under his complete control, and driven the America-hating Left into paroxysms of patriotic fervor for the first time since…well, ever. That’s a record of accomplishment anybody might envy.

Share

IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!!!

Well, that’s it. They’ve finally convinced me, and I’m done with Trump. He has to go; this is a bridge too far for even me.

The waiters know well Trump’s personal preferences. As he settles down, they bring him a Diet Coke, while the rest of us are served water, with the Vice President sitting at one end of the table. With the salad course, Trump is served what appears to be Thousand Island dressing instead of the creamy vinaigrette for his guests. When the chicken arrives, he is the only one given an extra dish of sauce. At the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, instead of the single scoop for everyone else. The tastes of Pence are also tended to. Instead of the pie, he gets a fruit plate.

Follows, a truly pathetic freak-out which not only includes the usual deranged and butt-hurt liberal sore losers, but also the neo-“conservative” likes of David Frum and the execrable Jennifer Rubin, who characterizes Trump based on this latest hairball yakked up by the Insane Left as “a man unable to restrain his urges.” I’ll let Bre Payton handle the obvious response to such dementia:

This brings me to the obvious question: WHO CARES? Who cares if the president’s waitstaff are able to anticipate his preferences and have a Diet Coke or a second scoop of ice cream ready? That’s called good customer service! The White House waitstaff serve Trump nearly every day, so of course they know what kind of dressing he likes on his salad or what his beverage of choice is. And why are we all assuming that the other dinner guests couldn’t just ask for another scoop of ice cream if they wanted it? I have a hard time imagining the White House kitchen staff denying someone more dessert.

But that’s not how the inside-the-Beltway folk see it.

Well, naturally not. They’re incapable of seeing anything other than a curtain of purest blood-red when it comes to anything Trump says, does, or attempts.

And that’s the beauty of it, see. He’s got the Beltway cattle in full stampede now, and in true bovine fashion they’re lowing and bawling in confusion and fear as they run they know not where just as hard and fast as their spindly legs will carry them. May their hysteria continue to blind them to the reality that they’re being carefully driven…right off a cliff.

May they continue to find themselves unable to contain their raving madness, and may the sane population see it unleashed in all its repellent pathos. And may that stupid, ignorant, stupid, incompetent, stupidstupidSTUPID swine Trump continue to run rings around their asses, until their options are reduced, literally, to: A) shit, or B) go blind.

Two scoops of ice cream, instead of just one. My God, it’s like Watergate, or the Holocaust, or something. Clearly, the man is unfit to be President.

Heh. I’ll say it again: Most. Fun. Presidency. EVER.

(Via Ace)

Share

Just another embarrasment

So at long last, here we all are.

Ivanka Trump likes to dance with her young sons to blow off steam when she gets home from work, a cute video she shared on Instagram Thursday suggests.

The video, which has already racked up more than half a million views, shows the always elegant Ivanka, still in her coat, busting a move with three-year-old Joseph while baby Theodore looks on from his high chair. Ivanka captioned the video, “Little moments matter, especially for working moms!! #TBT to an after-work dance party with my boys.” She plugged her new book by linking to a Working Mother magazine article about Women Who Work.

A minor firestorm erupted on the left Wednesday when the State Department retweeted Ivanka’s post promoting the book, in possible violation of a federal ethics rule that bars the use of public office for private gain.

This is possibly the most corrupt thing anyone in government has ever done, according to some of the comments.

And you should read them; the apoplectic, hysterical foaming at the mouth is truly epic.

Know what the truly heartwarming thing is, though—the thing that can’t help but bring a smile to your face regardless of the unhinged lunacy behind it all? Just this: how unhappy must these hapless earwigs be that they could spend even a moment letting themselves be upset by such nonsense? How miserable must someone’s life be—to what depths of intractable unhappiness must they have descended—to reach the point where they could even pretend that something like this could ever matter to anyone, anywhere?

And how much must it gnaw at them that most of us not only will never even hear of this ludicrous “controversy,” but would not give a perceptible damn about it if we did?

Yeah, yeah, I know: it’s all part of their strategy of throwing any and everything they can at Trump hoping something will stick eventually; their “outrage” is phony, their “concern” ginned up, their regard for any sort of “ethics violation” is thimble deep. But if this is the level of desperation they’ve reached, well, I don’t think there’s any possible argument to be made that they’re winning here. As Debra concludes:

So much hateful gnashing of teeth at the sight of a lovely mommy enjoying some quality time with her little boys. It’s pretty pathetic.

Well, sure, it is that, I guess. But it’s also funny as hell.

Share

Weird!

Okay, I confess to being not entirely sure what to make of this.

If you’re any student of politics, you saw Steve Bannon on the cover of Time magazine in early February — “The Great Manipulator,” it called him — and knew to start the countdown then.

Dead strategist walking.

He’d crossed the line that a politician’s advisers mustn’t, to a place and prominence where only the most foolish of them tread. Or at best he’d failed to prevent the media from tugging him there.

He was fine so long as he was a whisperer. On the campaign trail and on the Potomac, you can whisper all you want.

He was damned the moment he was cast as a puppeteer. That means there’s a puppet in the equation, and no politician is going to accept that designation, least of all one who stamps his name in gold on anything that stands still long enough to be stamped. Or whose debate performance included the repartee: “No puppet, no puppet. You’re the puppet.”

“I’m my own strategist,” the president told The New York Post early last week, and the message to Bannon couldn’t have been louder and clearer if it included a four-letter word.

Trump went so far as to suggest that he was barely acquainted with Bannon before August 2016, when Bannon joined his presidential campaign. Wrong. Trump had been a guest on the radio show that Bannon used to host nine times. But his rewrite of history was telling. Bannon needed to be erased because he was taking up too much space on the page.

Politics is a tricky business, Washington is a treacherous place and Trumplandia is downright brutal. In all three realms, you have to strike the right balance of self-promotion and self-effacement. The media’s no help: We love few archetypes better than that of the brilliant mastermind who’s the real power behind the throne. But the savviest operators find ways to resist that assignment, deflecting as much credit as they claim.

So you guys feel free to correct me if I’m getting this wrong and all, but: the NYT is now reduced to attacking Trump by…defending Steve Bannon? Really? REALLY?

Wow. I have to admit, I’m slackjawed flabbergasted over this one. Trump has them so completely discombobulated I’m gonna have to come up with some new categories here to cope with the contradictory madness emanating from them daily. Like, say, “Shit Or Go Blind,” or something along those lines. I repeat: WOW.

Via Breitbart, whose headline take makes way more sense of this than I’m able to: “NYT: The Media Manipulated Steve Bannon’s Image to Drive a Wedge Between Him and Trump.” Well, yeah, sure. But now they’re gonna openly admit to that? I repeat: slackjawed. Flabbergasted. They continue to have no clue at all as to how to approach destroying Trump. Nothing they’ve tried so far has worked; in fact, each new attempt has blown up in their faces and made their plight worse. They just can’t seem to grasp that we don’t believe or trust them anymore, and no longer care what they may say about anything.

May they remain forever clueless.

Share

Delenda est

Yes, they are in fact completely nuts.

As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.

That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.

This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.

This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.

Okay, that’s from Part the First. This is a very careful, well-thought-out thesis intended not to lay out an effective method for debating Leftards—which I’ve long posited is a waste of time anyway—but for destroying them, for reducing them to a quivering mass of blubbering confusion incapable not just of debate but of even coping with reality at all, on any level. Case in point:

In this video, Mike Wallace will make the mistake of trying to assert intellectual superiority/dominance over Peter Jennings by asserting that a real reporter would leave a US combat Patrol to be ambushed and killed, so he can get “the story.” Few others on the panel truly believe this to be noble, and many offer spirited logical arguments focusing on the value of soldier’s lives, the morals involved, and other logical arguments. Wallace repels them all, and then becomes even more assertive of his position.

After almost ten minutes of successfully fighting off polite, logical criticisms, Col. George M. Connell, USMC, is asked his opinion. He sneers with disgust and slowly and angrily says,

I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can’t have it both ways.

As a hard-core Liberal ideologue, Wallace was undoubtedly programmed to betray his in-group, of course. Have no illusions, as a Liberal, he was subconsciously programmed to betray our nation and our people. If a war would benefit us with cheap oil, he would oppose it, saying, “No blood for oil.” If a war had no benefit to us but would kill our troops, he would have no problem sending our military men to some place like the Sudan or Somalia, to die for outsiders who wouldn’t even appreciate their sacrifice. He would have wanted deeply (though he was probably ignorant of the urge’s existence) to betray the US and his fellow in-group members.

Here, Colonel Connell presents an image of Wallace as weak, cowardly, and helpless, and he presents it as ancillary to the main argument.

This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine. Here, it affected his mood and his ability to focus, in a way which a person without such a disorder couldn’t possibly imagine. His false reality was attacked, and he didn’t even get a chance to defend it. Even worse, in his mind, everyone else now accepts that he is inferior, on the word of another. Someone has done to him what he is programmed to do to others. He has been inferior-ized, and the group is now focused on him, his aberrance, and his weakness.

There’s much, much more here, and I can’t possibly do it all justice with mere excerpts, no matter how lengthy; you really gotta read it all. But the denouement of the Wallace segment is just too delicious not to share with y’all:

This interview is interesting in the context of our national debate over politics in that it highlights two different styles of debate with Liberals. For the first seven and a half minutes, debaters treat Mike Wallace as a reasonable equal, and seek to sway his opinion with logic. In response, Wallace becomes ever more forceful in his treasonous assertions, even as he trips himself up with his own arguments. Of course, this is exactly what our reasonable and respectful treatment of Liberals in our national political debates has gotten us today, on the national stage.

After seven and a half minutes, one man utters a few contemptuous sentences, reducing Mike Wallace to a traitor whom everyone should ignore. And Mike Wallace’s response to this contemptuous dismissal of his views?

A chastened, hand-wringing coward, saying, “It’s a fair reaction,” followed by a complete cessation of his traitorous Liberal assertions. If you examine the video at 42 minutes and 57 seconds, Mike Wallace’s face actually contorts into a micro-expression of extreme agony. Pause the video, and it is astonishing. I have seen that expression in real life myself – this was not a once in a lifetime event. All Liberal ideologues have that pain inside them. In a state of nature, that force within their brain probably kept them alive, by forcing them to swallow their pride, and avoid confrontations at all cost. Today, it lays there within them dormant, waiting for a Conservative, with sufficient testicular fortitude, to step up to the debate, and use it to modify their behavior, and train them to not espouse Liberalism.

Of course the most important aspect of Colonel Connell’s response is that in arguing with emotion and crushing the Liberal, he has just set the course for the Lemmings within the group. Not a single individual on that panel will even begin to support Mike Wallace’s position at that point. Indeed, the issue would not even be raised again.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate a Liberal, and lead a movement. The Liberal is the example waiting to be made, not an equal. The Liberal is deserving of nothing more than passing contempt.

Now ask yourself how would the pansies who lead the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have debated Mike Wallace. Would they even consider doing anything similar?

This is our problem.

It damned sure is, and I still maintain that there’s a lot more behind that than mere coincidence, happenstance, or Republican incompetence. It’s collusion, plain and simple: the maintenance of a comfortable status quo between colleagues pretending to be adversaries for the sake of perpetuating their privilege at the expense of those they purport to serve.

How else to explain the Obamacare/Obamacare Lite debacle? These nefarious vermin maintain that 60 Senate votes are required to repeal the Obamacare trainwreck, but it didn’t pass with 60 votes; it was enacted by the underhanded “reconciliation” maneuver…and there is not one damned thing that says a repeal can’t be done the exact same way. Anybody remember the “nuclear option,” pray tell?

These Republican frauds act as if Harry Reid never even existed—as if Nancy Pelosi, of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” infamy, wasn’t now saying this:

The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.

Bold mine; blank, wet-brained, arrogant, downright depraved hypocrisy all Pelosi.

And not one Republican that I’m aware of—not ONE—calling her out on this, or even suggesting the reconciliation swindle as a prospective means to staunch the hemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Republic represented by Obamacare.

Forgive me, folks, for wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic of this post, but I think that ultimately, they’re at least somewhat related. Because the truth seems obvious: the Republican establishment never really was opposed to Obamacare, nor to any of a thousand other contra-Constitutional Democrat Socialist depredations. They never intended or desired to stop any of it. All they ever really wanted was their turn at the wheel.

How does this relate to my original topic here? Like this: if the Uniparty establishment that has done so much damage to our country over so long a period is to be stopped, it’s going to be up to us to do it. The above strategy for confronting and discombobulating Leftards is but the beginning. The election of Trump the Disruptor, against all odds and in open defiance of that same Uniparty establishment, was the opening salvo in a long war. These are but the first halting, staggering steps towards restoring our nation to its former greatness. In the end, it may not be possible without bloodshed; I pray that isn’t so, but I can’t say even now that I think that’s the way to bet.

But we have to try; we owe that to ourselves and our children, at the very least. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep right on rendering the liberal media irrelevant and speaking directly to the American people via Twitter; he needs to get out periodically for more rallies like he did in Florida a couple weeks ago, and let the harrumphing, naysaying propagandists suck a big, fat, hard one every time he does.

Most of all, we need to keep right on letting the Uniparty know that, warts and all, imperfections and all, We the People support him. Doesn’t mean we can’t call him out and press him when he’s wrong; doesn’t mean we have to agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says or does. But in my view, he’s done pretty damned well in these early days, and I’ll still take ten of him to any number of business-as-usual professional politicians you’d care to name.

I expect that somewhere in the Stygian depths, his pockmarked visage limned by the red glow of fire and brimstone, the eternally dysfunctional asshole Mike Wallace is groaning in agony as he watches our President try to alter our course. And that makes me happy. I want more in the long term, of course; we all do. But for now, I’ll take it. And so should you.

Share

Delenda est

Yes, they are in fact completely nuts.

As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.

That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.

This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.

This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.

Okay, that’s from Part the First. This is a very careful, well-thought-out thesis intended not to lay out an effective method for debating Leftards—which I’ve long posited is a waste of time anyway—but for destroying them, for reducing them to a quivering mass of blubbering confusion incapable not just of debate but of even coping with reality at all, on any level. Case in point:

In this video, Mike Wallace will make the mistake of trying to assert intellectual superiority/dominance over Peter Jennings by asserting that a real reporter would leave a US combat Patrol to be ambushed and killed, so he can get “the story.” Few others on the panel truly believe this to be noble, and many offer spirited logical arguments focusing on the value of soldier’s lives, the morals involved, and other logical arguments. Wallace repels them all, and then becomes even more assertive of his position.

After almost ten minutes of successfully fighting off polite, logical criticisms, Col. George M. Connell, USMC, is asked his opinion. He sneers with disgust and slowly and angrily says,

I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can’t have it both ways.

As a hard-core Liberal ideologue, Wallace was undoubtedly programmed to betray his in-group, of course. Have no illusions, as a Liberal, he was subconsciously programmed to betray our nation and our people. If a war would benefit us with cheap oil, he would oppose it, saying, “No blood for oil.” If a war had no benefit to us but would kill our troops, he would have no problem sending our military men to some place like the Sudan or Somalia, to die for outsiders who wouldn’t even appreciate their sacrifice. He would have wanted deeply (though he was probably ignorant of the urge’s existence) to betray the US and his fellow in-group members.

Here, Colonel Connell presents an image of Wallace as weak, cowardly, and helpless, and he presents it as ancillary to the main argument.

This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine. Here, it affected his mood and his ability to focus, in a way which a person without such a disorder couldn’t possibly imagine. His false reality was attacked, and he didn’t even get a chance to defend it. Even worse, in his mind, everyone else now accepts that he is inferior, on the word of another. Someone has done to him what he is programmed to do to others. He has been inferior-ized, and the group is now focused on him, his aberrance, and his weakness.

There’s much, much more here, and I can’t possibly do it all justice with mere excerpts, no matter how lengthy; you really gotta read it all. But the denouement of the Wallace segment is just too delicious not to share with y’all:

This interview is interesting in the context of our national debate over politics in that it highlights two different styles of debate with Liberals. For the first seven and a half minutes, debaters treat Mike Wallace as a reasonable equal, and seek to sway his opinion with logic. In response, Wallace becomes ever more forceful in his treasonous assertions, even as he trips himself up with his own arguments. Of course, this is exactly what our reasonable and respectful treatment of Liberals in our national political debates has gotten us today, on the national stage.

After seven and a half minutes, one man utters a few contemptuous sentences, reducing Mike Wallace to a traitor whom everyone should ignore. And Mike Wallace’s response to this contemptuous dismissal of his views?

A chastened, hand-wringing coward, saying, “It’s a fair reaction,” followed by a complete cessation of his traitorous Liberal assertions. If you examine the video at 42 minutes and 57 seconds, Mike Wallace’s face actually contorts into a micro-expression of extreme agony. Pause the video, and it is astonishing. I have seen that expression in real life myself – this was not a once in a lifetime event. All Liberal ideologues have that pain inside them. In a state of nature, that force within their brain probably kept them alive, by forcing them to swallow their pride, and avoid confrontations at all cost. Today, it lays there within them dormant, waiting for a Conservative, with sufficient testicular fortitude, to step up to the debate, and use it to modify their behavior, and train them to not espouse Liberalism.

Of course the most important aspect of Colonel Connell’s response is that in arguing with emotion and crushing the Liberal, he has just set the course for the Lemmings within the group. Not a single individual on that panel will even begin to support Mike Wallace’s position at that point. Indeed, the issue would not even be raised again.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate a Liberal, and lead a movement. The Liberal is the example waiting to be made, not an equal. The Liberal is deserving of nothing more than passing contempt.

Now ask yourself how would the pansies who lead the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have debated Mike Wallace. Would they even consider doing anything similar?

This is our problem.

It damned sure is, and I still maintain that there’s a lot more behind that than mere coincidence, happenstance, or Republican incompetence. It’s collusion, plain and simple: the maintenance of a comfortable status quo between colleagues pretending to be adversaries for the sake of perpetuating their privilege at the expense of those they purport to serve.

How else to explain the Obamacare/Obamacare Lite debacle? These nefarious vermin maintain that 60 Senate votes are required to repeal the Obamacare trainwreck, but it didn’t pass with 60 votes; it was enacted by the underhanded “reconciliation” maneuver…and there is not one damned thing that says a repeal can’t be done the exact same way. Anybody remember the “nuclear option,” pray tell?

These Republican frauds act as if Harry Reid never even existed—as if Nancy Pelosi, of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” infamy, wasn’t now saying this:

The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.

Bold mine; blank, wet-brained, arrogant, downright depraved hypocrisy all Pelosi.

And not one Republican that I’m aware of—not ONE—calling her out on this, or even suggesting the reconciliation swindle as a prospective means to staunch the hemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Republic represented by Obamacare.

Forgive me, folks, for wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic of this post, but I think that ultimately, they’re at least somewhat related. Because the truth seems obvious: the Republican establishment never really was opposed to Obamacare, nor to any of a thousand other contra-Constitutional Democrat Socialist depredations. They never intended or desired to stop any of it. All they ever really wanted was their turn at the wheel.

How does this relate to my original topic here? Like this: if the Uniparty establishment that has done so much damage to our country over so long a period is to be stopped, it’s going to be up to us to do it. The above strategy for confronting and discombobulating Leftards is but the beginning. The election of Trump the Disruptor, against all odds and in open defiance of that same Uniparty establishment, was the opening salvo in a long war. These are but the first halting, staggering steps towards restoring our nation to its former greatness. In the end, it may not be possible without bloodshed; I pray that isn’t so, but I can’t say even now that I think that’s the way to bet.

But we have to try; we owe that to ourselves and our children, at the very least. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep right on rendering the liberal media irrelevant and speaking directly to the American people via Twitter; he needs to get out periodically for more rallies like he did in Florida a couple weeks ago, and let the harrumphing, naysaying propagandists suck a big, fat, hard one every time he does.

Most of all, we need to keep right on letting the Uniparty know that, warts and all, imperfections and all, We the People support him. Doesn’t mean we can’t call him out and press him when he’s wrong; doesn’t mean we have to agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says or does. But in my view, he’s done pretty damned well in these early days, and I’ll still take ten of him to any number of business-as-usual professional politicians you’d care to name.

I expect that somewhere in the Stygian depths, his pockmarked visage limned by the red glow of fire and brimstone, the eternally dysfunctional asshole Mike Wallace is groaning in agony as he watches our President try to alter our course. And that makes me happy. I want more in the long term, of course; we all do. But for now, I’ll take it. And so should you.

Share

A foolish inconsistency

The hobgoblin of little liberal minds.

So they hate Trump but what are these protestors and their media enablers for?

As far as I can tell they are for children but also for killing unborn ones with no restriction, no apology, and no need for a fee. They are for LBGT and women’s “rights,” but ally themselves with Muslims who practice FGM, oppose abortion, treat women like cattle, and promote and engage in honor killings, and advocate death for LBGT people. They are for women’s rights, but want men who think they are women to use women’s washrooms. They are for free speech, but shut down anybody who disagrees with them, and, of course, ally themselves with Muslims who oppose freedom of speech and thought as part of their core dogma. They are against racism but try to stir up old racial animosities and conflicts that had long been resolved, buried, and forgotten. They are for poor working people, but oppose the tax and the regulatory structures that create jobs. They are for poor working people but favor unrestricted immigration that drives down wages, crowds out jobs, and absorbs the funds of public welfare schemes. They want free education for all, but oppose letting poor and middle class people have the right to choose their schools, unlike the rich people who do. They shout “Love Trumps Hate!” as they bash opponents with bricks and poles. They have spent decades denouncing the military, the CIA, the NSA, and the FBI as oppressors of the people, but now want those agencies to sabotage an elected president. The wealthy ones denounce gun ownership and walls but live behind protective shields of men with guns and walls around their exclusive properties. Hollywood stars who made millions living in the land of make-believe denounce non-existent Trumpian “brownshirts” and bravely proclaim their resistance! They are for the environment and prove it by flying to environmental rallies in their private jets. They, well . . . you can go on with this sad litany.

I think when all is said and done we have to conclude that there is a large element of mental disturbance.

Well, of course. You can’t cope with that much cognitive dissonance without being either stupid, crazy, or both.

Share

Liberals want conservatives to shut up; conservatives want liberals to keep talking

And there’s a reason for that.

The Democrat Party – guardian of pathology: worship of foreigners, embrace of the underclass, fawning over feminist and sexual freaks, hostility to free speech, slobbering over globalism, blindness regarding Islam, and blindness to violence and the breakdown of public order.

Guardian of working people (or anyone else)? Not so much.

So what we’ve seen is one of the great political parties of 20th-c. America turn itself into a zoo whose inmates couldn’t recognize (a) Hillary Clinton’s monstrous betrayal of our fighting men and diplomats in Benghazi and (b) the astonishing corruption involved in her pay-to-play Clinton Foundation and its Saudi donations. Grotesque speaking fees caused not even a raised eyebrow in the sycophantic house press.

Nothing remarkable there. Our Hilly.

Pointless, reckless, aggressive, unconstitutional war in Libya and Syria? Not an “anti-war” protestor within a thousand miles.

The stench was overpowering but she was the Democrats’ star. Coal miners to the remainder bin. Tough.

As annoying as they’ve been, and will continue to be, we should all hope they keep right on—let their insanity and total dysfunction have full and free rein for all to see. They’ll fix things so no Democrat Socialist can get elected to the lowliest local office imaginable for the next hundred years. And America will be far, far better off for it.

Although I must say, I don’t think it’s that they couldn’t see Hillary’s “monstrous betrayal” etc. It’s that they didn’t much care; they chose to overlook it, for political purposes. In truth, it’s even worse than that: they chose to try to help cover it up. Which only makes them that much more slimy and repellent, really.

Update! Just keep talking, babe.

Candidates aspiring to take over as chairman of the Democratic National Committee met Monday night to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get the party back on track.

Democrats must provide “training” that focuses in part on teaching Americans “how to be sensitive and how to shut their mouths if they are white,” urged the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party, Sally Boynton Brown, who is white.

The event’s moderator, MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid, asked the candidates how the party should handle the Black Lives Now movement.

The candidates uniformly emphasized that the party must embrace the activists unreservedly.

“It makes me sad that we’re even having that conversation and that tells me that white leaders in our party have failed,” Brown said. “I’m a white woman, I don’t get it…My job is to listen and be a voice and shut other white people down when they want to interrupt.”

Did I say they won’t be able to get elected to anything for a hundred years? Okay, I was wrong; make it a thousand. As Steve Sailer says: “Back in 2009 I suggested that Republicans could help rebrand the Democrats as The Black Party, but white Democrats seem intent on doing that to themselves all by themselves.” But it’s even worse: they’re not The Black Party, they’re the Indigent, Belligerent Black Thug Party. No need to smear decent black folks by associating them with the Democrat Socialists’ only remaining constituency, y’know.

Oh, and have I mentioned how dignified and worthy of respect and serious consideration those “pussy hats” make you look, ladies?

*snicker*

Share

What’d I tell ya?

They will never stop. NEVER.

Ivanka Trump and her three children were harassed by a fellow passenger Thursday on a flight out of New York.

An “out-of-control passenger” was “verbally berating” the 35-year-old daughter of President-elect Donald Trump and “jeering” at her children, according to TMZ.

“Your father is ruining the country,” the JetBlue passenger said to Trump, the entertainment news site reports.

“Why is she on our flight? She should be riding private,” the man, who was apparently holding his own kid in his arms, then exclaimed.

Another passenger on the flight out of John F. Kennedy International Airport told the site that Trump “ignored the guy and tried distracting her kids with crayons” before the man was escorted off the flight. As he was removed, the man reportedly yelled, “You’re kicking me off for expressing my opinion?”

God damned right, you hysterical asshole. For some of us, politics isn’t our sole reason for being, and you have no more right to harass a private citizen—one who, if I remember correctly, is a big ol’ liberal herself, ironically enough—in an airport than anyone else does. Most especially because you gutless wonders have seen fit to surrender to the Mooselimbs, you just don’t fuck around like this in an airport anymore, or anywhere near one. Just another “benefit” of decades of idiotic Progressivist policies, and thanks a pantload for that, too.

JetBlue released a statement to TMZ that said the decision to remove a customer from a flight was never “taken lightly.”

“If the crew determines that a customer is causing conflict on the aircraft, the customer will be asked to deplane, especially if the crew feels the situation runs the risk of escalation during flight.”

Shoulda waited to “deplane” his obnoxious ass until they were at cruising altitude.

A man, identified by TMZ as the husband of the passenger who was booted from the plane, wrote on Twitter:

Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them. #banalityofevil
— Matthew Lasner (@mattlasner) December 22, 2016

“Banality of evil”, is it? Dang, there’s that loud whizzing sound overhead, the one I mentioned the other day.

Tell me, have we reached peak “punch back twice as hard” yet? Because personally, I’m just about ready to start giving it right back to these crybullies, up close and personal, measure for exact fucking measure.

Unity? With these people? In a pig’s eye, and when Hell freezes. I sure hope like hell the Donald keeps right on employing his private security right alongside the Secret Service. He’s going to need every bit of protection from these frothing fascist losers he can get.

I heard on the radio earlier they put the two shitwits on the very next flight—instead of on a permanent no-fly list where they belong. Ah well, maybe next time…and there will certainly BE a next time, you can count on that.

Share

Madness

Inmates, running the asylum.

It was an epochal moment for the military and perhaps for all of society. Screwing up her courage, Air Force First Lieutenant Kara-Ann McBee walked into her commander’s office on the D-Ring of the Pentagon and announced that she was a giant squid.

Kara was slender and tomboyish, with an upturned nose, freckles, and an attractive brush-cut hairdo. She could have been Tom Sawyer’s sister. She did not appear to be a giant squid.

“But I am, sir,” she said, rigidly at attention and clearly nervous. “I’ve known it since I was a little girl. I…sir, I am a squid trapped in a woman’s body. I’m trans-phylum, sir.”

The commander, Colonel R. Boyd Gittim, was stunned. He was a compact, graying man in his mid-fifties, a combat flier who had slipped through the screening process to high position in what insiders called the Five-Sided Wind Tunnel. He was not well suited to the complex personnel issues of the modern military.

Colonel Gittim sighed. He knew of course about LGBT, which he thought of as Lettuce, Bacon, and Tomato, and he knew there existed crucial military questions about whether boys could use the girls room. Squids were too much.

It wasn’t his Air Force any longer, he thought grayly. Wars were fought by remotely-controlled drones now, and the best pilots were probably fifteen-year-old gamers with no social life. They could do it from home by internet. He decided to retire and drink himself to death.

Dacowits needed something to do. Things were slow in the trenches of discrimination. Most victories had been won. A woman commanded the SEALs, who had been disarmed to prevent violence. The new main battle tanks had changing tables, and urinals had been outlawed throughout the services or converted to flower pots to preclude uncomfortable spaces. The warriors of social justice needed a Cause.

Virtual squids were just the thing.

An unenlightened Marine general said “the whole business is crazier than three monkeys in a bag. What is this freak show coming to?” The Washington Post ran an editorial comparing him to Hitler and saying that his attitude would lead to a second Holocaust. Of course, the Post thought that everything would lead to a second Holocaust.

In his last days in office, President Obama ordered that all federal buildings be equipped with litter boxes, saying, “A country as great as America was–is–that all the world wants to be like, and wishes it was, cannot seem to penalize citizens who think they are animals, even if they aren’t–though of course they are. Who are we to decide what kind of animals other people are? Praise Allah.”

This clarion call to probity and fairness echoed around the world and was adjudged to embody the clarity and internal coherence characteristic of Obama’s speeches.

Which, actually, it does.

Share

The Hard (un)Truths of Ta-Nehisi Coates

A perfect storm of bigoted lying-liberal idiocy.

Coates’s recent memoir, Between the World and Me, an instant No. 1 bestseller dubbed “immense” by Publishers Weekly and deemed “essential, like water or air,” by A.O. Scott, will not only win every prize in sight, they’ll have to invent some new prizes for it. Perhaps Coates will be tapped to be our first Public Intellectual Laureate. Not only is the book selling by the boatload, but as it is very angry, very left-wing, very topical, and very short, it also seems certain to be ushered into the exclusive club where the real money of publishing is: college and high-school reading syllabi. Between the World and Me stands ready to be a central influence in the way young people are taught to see race in America.

And that is disheartening. Coates’s book is bitter, and it is embittering. It’s angry about things we should be angry about—only the straw man Coates frequently invokes would claim the race problem is solved in America—but it also displays an inchoate generalized contempt for America, especially white America. Coates simply assumes that the country is as poisoned by race obsessions as he is. The book is 176 pages of question-begging.

Here’s a little news flash for Coates and other idiots: the race problem will NEVER be solved, in America or anywhere else. A preference for one’s own peer group is hard-wired into the human psyche; there always has been and always will be a tendency on the part of at least some of us to let that preference slip and slide down the greasy slope of xenophobia and fear into outright antipathy, whether open or not, towards those of a different tribe. Always. And no amount of smarmy lecturing, hectoring, or even legislation is going to change that.

Hey, it’s a mean old world. Deal with it. Or whine incessantly about it, as Coates and nearly every other “liberal” does–IT’S NOT FAIR!!!–and let it rob you of any chance for whatever happiness might be possible for you out there, and then blame everybody else for your self-inflicted misery. Your choice. You’ll no doubt be surprised at how little most of us care about which way you wind up jumping, and how little patience we’ll have for your self-righteous attempts to blame us for what is essentially and by definition your problem.

To Coates, history is a maze in which every path leads back to the dragon in the center, which is slavery. So blame the white racist superstructure even if a black cop working for a black county run by black politicians kills a black suspect—that would be Coates’s college acquaintance Prince Jones, who died when an undercover cop in Prince George’s County, Maryland, mistook the young man for another suspect and Jones responded by ramming his car at the officer, who shot him.

When Coates isn’t ignoring facts, as in the Martin and Brown cases, he shamelessly misrepresents them, as in the case of Jordan Davis, a black Florida youth who was fatally shot by a white man after a dispute over loud music. “The killer was convicted not of the boy’s murder,” Coates writes, “but of firing repeatedly as the boy’s friends tried to retreat. Destroying the black body was permissible—but it would be better to do it efficiently.” This is an outrageously false recounting. In no sense were the actions of Michael Dunn, the shooter, deemed “permissible.” A jury initially deadlocked on the most serious charge, but after a second trial, Dunn was indeed convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole, in addition to a 90-year-sentence for conviction at the first trial of three counts of attempted murder and firing into an occupied vehicle.

The case wrapped up last October, well before Coates’s book went into production. But Coates, purposefully vague, omits names when referring to the case on page 112, even though the details are clearly those of the Davis murder. By specifically mentioning Davis 18 pages later, he shows that this is the incident he was referring to. (Coates has been consistently irresponsible on the matter: He began a February 15, 2014, Atlantic piece, published after the first trial but before the second, “I wish I had something more to say about the fact that Michael Dunn was not convicted for killing a black boy.” The piece was grossly misleading at the time and remains uncorrected on the Atlantic’s website.)

Ordinary journalistic standards don’t apply to Coates. His aggrandizement is the predictable outcome when a self-flagellating elite class, having spent 30 years propagating notions of group rights and group guilt while dismissing individual agency, concludes that victim classes should be encouraged to bear witness to “my truth,” the better to advance an extreme vision. New York magazine detected no irony in titling its recent cover story “The Hard Truths of Ta-Nehisi Coates.” Coates is both an effect and a cause of the cultural leadership’s resistance to the precise and the rigorous, the rational and the logical. The book won’t be questioned by the cultural mandarins—can’t be questioned, can’t be treated as anything less authoritative than holy writ—because they share Coates’s feelings, and that is the only reality that matters.

Coates’s detachment from fact is nothing compared with his moral detachment, however. He says, “my heart was cold” when he watched the Twin Towers burn and collapse. The cops present on September 11 deserved to die because they all shot Prince Jones; firefighters had to go because they are kind of like cops, though if Coates has any examples of firefighters killing black men, he does not supply them. Those office workers guilty of believing themselves to be white obviously had it coming to them. And everyone else who died? Black office workers? Foreigners? Shrug.

This is not a man possessed of hard truths, but rather a hard heart. To praise Coates is to condone mass hatred.

Yeah, well, to be a “liberal” is to be a hater, y’know. Their whole existence is organized around this kind of unreasoning narcissistic hostility–which is basically the hostility of the child towards the parent who won’t allow him to eat nothing but candy and ice cream for every meal. BECAUSE TEH INJUSTICE™!!

Read on for more examples of the kind of juvenile, dull-witted but self-satisfied “thinking” that is running the Western world now, and will in the end be the downfall of it.

Update! I just gotta include this, which amounts to the bottom line: “Does that sound like a man who holds the moral compass of America in the palm of his hand, or someone in urgent need of therapy?” And that reminds me of this great old Seinfeld scene:




Although in Coates’ case, I’m not sure even “a team” would be enough. Wretched neurosis as consuming as his might require a whole new field of study, with its own universities, research labs, and an entire body of literature dedicated to figuring it out and coping with it.

Or, alternatively, we could all shrug our shoulders, say “meh,” and leave him to go right on wallowing in it while we go out and have a beer or something. I can’t speak for all of y’all, but I know which way I’m leaning.

Share

Categories

Archives

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



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