Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Never give up, never give in

But sometimes it sure is hard to keep one’s eye on the ball.

Trump has seemed, at times, to sputter in implementing his transformative agenda—whether it was the Obamacare repeal, the idiotic spending bill from earlier this year, or the border wall. Coulter (and, to be sure, others) think that because it has been difficult to implement the agenda, we should just give it up; we’ve been had, the system is rigged.

Should we just stop trying, since we haven’t achieved the victories we should have won over the past two years? Should we resign to our fate of watching Democrats take over, passively allowing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to be sworn into the presidency and vice-presidency because it’s “their time”?

Well, we lost the House of Representatives and the Democrats are closing in on Trump with the corrupt Robert Mueller “investigation” so, at least we can say we tried?

Republicans, along with forgetting how to win without Trump, have forgotten the cardinal rule of warfare: the enemy gets a vote.

Yes, the Democrats are going to fight hard—harder than they’ve ever fought before—precisely because Trump and the Right are winning so bigly. Just look at what’s been accomplished thus far: massive deregulation that stimulated the economy. Yes, the tax cuts were nice. But the real economic stimulation occurred thanks to Trump’s executive order cutting thousands of unnecessary Obama-era regulations on his first day in office. From that point, the economy has enjoyed one of the greatest expansions in decades. Unemployment has plummeted, Americans are getting back to work. It’s not enough, but it’s a start.

Trump is winning. The media won’t tell you that. Academicians won’t acknowledge it. But he is pushing back. His mere presence in office is stopping the Left’s “long march” through America’s institutions.

Just look at the courts.

In two years, Trump has made a more lasting impression on the federal courts than his predecessors ever could have hoped to make. Why?

Ooh, ooh, I’ll take that one! Because of his cantankerousness, his obstreperousness, his rude, crude, obnoxious eagerness to lock horns and tussle, that’s why. In other words: because of the exact same Trumpian traits the effetes, cucks, professional-politician DC snobs, and Vichy GOPe turncoats complain loudest about. Funny, that.

Michael Walsh once wrote that Trump has single-handedly revived the “great man” theory of history. He’s correct. But Trump didn’t revive it so much as remind everyone that it never went away. One man can truly make a difference—even in the face of terrible odds. And, if that one man is a force of nature, such as Churchill or Trump, then, no cause is truly lost…so long as people are inspired and willing to fight for it.

Our task, going forward then, will be to ensure that  enough of us on the Right remain so inspired. We cannot be a movement of quitters.

Coulter and others are operating on the assumption that victory is impossible and losing is inevitable.

As y’all know by now, in my heart of hearts I think that’s true. So what? I repeat: if all we have left to us is to bloody Proggy’s nose and make him cry now and then…well, that’s still worthwhile, and is its own reward.

Yeah, I grumble sometimes about the grimness of the larger picture, and I’m gonna go right on doing it. Just the same, nobody should mistake grumbling for a willingness to either surrender or acquiesce. The core truth remains: I hate these Lefty bastards with every fiber of my being. Why on earth wouldn’t I? They intend to enslave me, to bring me to heel under the sway of a grasping despotism that has no limits and no accountability—not just me, but you and everybody else. In my book, that makes them one thing and one thing only: evil.

Plenty of us cringe away from making such a strong statement, pining for the Bygone Better Days of civility, collegiality, bipartisanship, and such-like. Again: so what? Evil is real; it walks among us not on cloven hooves but shod in fine designer loafers, clothed in tailored suits purchased with stolen money—reeking of expensive cologne instead of sulfur, brimstone, and blood. No matter how hopeless the struggle against that evil may ultimately be, it must still be resisted to the very last ounce of our strength. And who knows, maybe one day the horse will learn to sing.

I’ll let the great old punk/oi! band Blitz explain things:



Share

Hollywood, America…

And (((((((JEWS!!!!)))))))

If you’re still not seeing it, pay attention.

Historical note: you got Hollywood as a largely (but not then nor never entirely) Jewish invention, precisely because of the same white-hooded goose-stepping anti-Semitism in the OP and responses, except at the turn of the last century, coupled with the avarice of Thomas Edison Inc., Philadelphia lawyers, and Tamany Hall politics conniving to try to sue Jewish filmmakers out of business every time they made a movie, and the subsequent and reflexive decamping of the Thalberg/Mayer/Goldwyn/Selznick types from corrupt East coast environs, where justice was sold by the pound to the highest bidder, and getting off the train in Phoenix AZ on the one day in 365 it ever rains there. 

That wouldn’t do at all, so they all got back on the train, arrived in Los Angeles, saw they had 300+ days of sunshine/year, ocean, desert, mountain, plains, forest woodland, and city-scape all in close proximity, coupled with a thriving and booming metropolis, hard-working people absent trade unionism, and dirt-cheap real estate, with none of the East Coast kleptocracy previously noted, and the match was made that gave you the single greatest cultural achievement in America since ever: the movie business. 

They could shoot cowboy and indian flicks three miles from downtown L.A., because in 1910, everything from that point to the Pacific Ocean was bean fields, cactus patches, and rocky chapparal, and hordes of broke-dick former ranch hands became cavalry troopers and Schmoe-hawk tribe Indian stunt men.

Hollywood is not a Jooooooooooos!!! problem; those exact folks gave you The Wizard Of Oz, Gone With the Wind, Stagecoach (starring some B-list singing cowboy), Goodbye Mr. Chips, Of Mice and Men, The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes, Dodge City, Drums Along The Mohawk, Gunga Din, The Hunchback Of Notre Dame, Jesse James, Young Mr. Lincoln, and about 100 other movies, including a couple of Secret Service-entitled flicks starring some kid from Illinois, all in just that one year (1939)!

If you can’t suss that out, that year was the Yankee’s “Murderer’s Row” of movie-making, compared to ever in history, anywhere.

Now tell me the names of the producers and studio heads, just for those 12 flicks, in 1939.

Tell me about the Hollywood that produced, e.g. It’s A Wonderful Life, Sahara, Twelve O’clock High, Ben Hur, and 30K-40K other films, some 1000 of which are international treasures, and the high points of the entire quintessential American art form; then compare and contrast that with the Hollywood that makes any four examples of the current shite you’d care to name, and see if you can spot what changed between Hollywood 1915-1990ish, versus Hollywood from 1990-present.

What changed is who pays for films to be made. Around 1990, give or take.
When you lost the checkbook, you lost the industry’s attention.

This is what happens when you abdicate fighting culture wars, and think you can ignore them, which was the Right, inclusive, from 1960-five seconds ago. Not “conservatism”, not “Boomers” (aged about 0-15 when that clever plan was hatched), but rather every swinging Right-side Richard for 60+ effing years, and counting

Well-played.

Keep doing that, and call me when it succeeds spectacularly.
Not.

This is why those railing against Hollywood, particularly in the vein of “It’s all run by Joooooooooooooos!” are mouth-breathing morons with the IQ of a cup of custard, and less culture than a cup of yogurt.

Hollywood is an American invention, not a Jewish one.

Fucking BINGO. Read it all. From a comment to Aesop’s previous post, which was the springboard for this one:

Anyhow, whatever this “plan” is, the second you start putting parenthesis around names and hauling out the swastikas, yeah, you’ve lost me, and you’ve lost most of the U.S. population no matter how disgusting some people in Hollywood are behaving. Just point out their disgusting behavior – leave the B.S. Nazi crap far away.

Again: bingo. If you have a problem with liberal Jews—which, actually, I do myself—you should be able to easily recognize that it’s not because they’re Jews, it’s because they’re liberals. But if you’re one of those types who likes to rant about “nation-wreckers,” complains about the “exaggeration” of the horrors of the Holocaust, and thinks any Muslim country you can name will ever be as solid, reliable, and trustworthy a US ally as Israel is…well, this probably ain’t the blog for you, bub.

Share

Mask, off

One of them finally said it, so Correia runs the numbers in response, and it’s truly a thing of beauty.

Last week a congressman embarrassed himself on Twitter. He got into a debate about gun control, suggested a mandatory buyback—which is basically confiscation with a happy face sticker on it—and when someone told him that they would resist, he said resistance was futile because the government has nukes.

And everybody was like, wait, what?

Of course the congressman is now saying that using nuclear weapons on American gun owners was an exaggeration, he just wanted to rhetorically demonstrate that the all-powerful government could crush us peasants like bugs, they hold our pathetic lives in their iron hand, and he’d never ever advocate for the use of nuclear weapons on American soil (that would be bad for the environment!), and instead he merely wants to send a SWAT team to your house to shoot you in the face if you don’t comply.

See? That’s way better.

We are so divided it’s like we are speaking two different languages. Hell, on this topic we are on two different planets. And it is usually framed with a sanctimonious left versus right, enlightened being versus racist hillbilly, unfailing arrow of history versus the knuckle dragging past sort of vibe.

But basically it boils down to one side making the argument: The idea of the 2nd Amendment resisting a tyrannical government is obsolete, because the federal government is too overwhelmingly powerful, and has too many advanced technologies.    

Which, especially in light of Kill ‘Em All Swalwell’s oops-did-I-say-that threat to nuke 2A-supporting Americans, pretty neatly provides confirmation of everything we’ve been saying all along. But never mind that right now, on to the really good stuff.

First, let’s talk about the basic premise that an irregular force primarily armed with rifles would be helpless against a powerful army that has things like drones and attack helicopters.

This is a deeply ironic argument to make, considering that the most technologically advanced military coalition in history has spent the better part of the last two decades fighting goat herders with AKs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Seriously, it’s like you guys only pay attention to American casualties when there’s a republican in office and an election coming up.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Barack Obama launched over five hundred drone strikes during his eight years in office. We’ve used Apaches (that’s the scary looking helicopter in the picture for my peacenik liberal friends), smart bombs, tanks, I don’t know how many thousands of raids on houses and compounds, all the stuff that the lefty memes say they’re willing to do to crush the gun nut right, and we’ve spent something like 6 trillion dollars on the global war on terror so far.

And yet they’re still fighting.

Okay, so let’s say Congressman Swalwell gets his wish, and the government says turn them in or else. And even though the government has become tyrannical enough to send SWAT teams door to door and threaten citizens with drones and attack helicopters, rather than half the states saying fuck you, this means Civil War 2, instead we’ll stick to the rosiest of all possible outcomes, and say that most gun owners comply.

In fact, let’s be super kind. Rather than a realistic number, like half or a third of those people getting really, really pissed off and hoisting the black flag, let’s say that 99% of them decide to totally put all their faith into the government, and that the all-powerful entity which just threatened to kill their entire family will never ever turn tyrannical from now on, pinky swear, so what do they have to lose? And a whopping 90% of gun owners go along peacefully.

That means you are only dealing with six and a half MILLION insurgents. The entire active US military is about 1.3 million, with about 800,000 reserve. Which is also assuming that those two Venn diagrams don’t overlap, which is just plain idiotic, but I’ll get to that too.

Let’s be super generous. I’m talking absurdly generous, and say that a full 99% of US gun owners say won’t somebody think of the children and all hold hands and sing kumbaya, so that then you are only dealing with the angriest, listless malcontents who hate progress…  These are those crazy, knuckle dragging bastards who you will have to put in the ground.

And there are 650,000 of them.

To put that into perspective, we were fighting 22,000 insurgents in Iraq, a country which would fit comfortably inside Texas with plenty of room to spare. This would be almost 30 times as many fighters, spread across 22 times the area.

And that estimated number is pathetically, laughably low.

In one of the bluest states in America, the New York SAFE Act only has like a 4% compliance rate. And that’s mostly just people choosing to ignore an onerous law. Because the further you get away from the major cities, the more people just don’t give a crap about your utopian foolishness. Its benign neglect, and most Americans are happy to ignore you until you mess with them. You start dropping Hellfire missiles on Indiana? Fuck you, its game on. And that 1% is going to turn into 50% damn quick.

So just by the numbers, it’s an insurmountable problem, but we’re just getting started with how stupid this idea is.

And, incredible as it seems considering the level of stupidity already dispersed and put to rout here, Larry’s right—he is just getting started. Really, though, this bit is what it mostly boils down to:

In something that I find profoundly troubling, when I’ve had this discussion before, I’ve had a Caring Liberal tell me that the example of Iraq doesn’t apply, because “we kept the gloves on”, whereas fighting America’s gun nuts would be a righteous total war with nothing held back… Holy shit, I’ve got to wonder about the mentality of people who demand rigorous ROEs to prevent civilian casualties in a foreign country, are blood thirsty enough to carpet bomb Texas.

You really hate us, and then act confused why we want to keep our guns? But I don’t think unrelenting total war against everyone who has ever disagreed with you on Facebook is going to be quite as clean as you expect.

Probably not, no. It certainly shouldn’t be, anyway.

But that’s what we’re dealing with here, isn’t it? It’s a completely child-like, petulant, spiteful outlook, one wholly divorced from anything resembling reason or reality; it wants what it wants, because reasons, and it expects to get it toot fucking sweet, too. Or else.

Believe it or not, Larry has plenty more yet, and it’s…well, it’s reassuring, is what it is—more so than anything I’ve come across since Black Tuesday, in fact. Disastrous and dark a portent as the midterms were, some small hope still remains to us, a hope tightly interwoven with America’s gun culture and its 2A devotees. Which, I can’t think of anything more fitting, more right, than that. Conclusion:1““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““1

To pull off confiscation now you’d have to be willing to kill millions of people. The congressman’s suggestion was incredibly stupid, but it was nice to see one of you guys being honest about it for once.  In order to maybe, hypothetically save thousands, you’d be willing to slaughter millions. Either you really suck at math, or the ugly truth is that you just hate the other side so much that you think killing millions of people is worth it to make them fall in line. And if that’s the case, you’re a sick bastard, and a great example of why the rest of us aren’t ever going to give up our guns.

No reason it can’t be both there, Larry. But it ain’t just math they suck at; as I always say, it’s reality that’s always been their biggest problem.

(Via WRSA)

Share

No going back

TL proposes a first step.

From a rational point of view, there is no way ever to get back even one scintilla of freedom or liberty. No matter how hard we vote, no matter how outraged and screaming we get, there is NO way to ever return to a semblance of liberty and freedom. It cannot happen. Not in this system. Not with this debt. Not with the contempt of every government official toward our rights, property and privacy.

It is time, then, to draft a Petition of Dissolution. Our friends on the left will be as willing to do so as those on the right. The things of government are unmanageable; it is too corrupt; too trapped by its own arrogance; too divisive in its manner to listen to reason or work to solve the nations problems. This government created over two hundred years ago is no longer capable of working as designed. It cannot even obey its own codes. There are laws for government officials and other laws for citizens. There are few if any actual punishments of government employees, while every word is a potential prison sentence for the citizen. The republic has become some sort of kingless Kingdom with only barons, lords and sheriffs running amok, demanding satisfaction for their whims.

We can look at fault if we want to, but does it matter? Is anything more clear than the fact that this government is not capable of understanding how ridiculous it is when it speaks of laws for one citizen and different laws for others? That special groups can murder, maim and rape children and others will be tried and imprisoned for the same actions? That is a system that has FAILED. There is no other way to view its actions or its reasons. A judge in one circuit overrules the President?

I know that by suggesting a Petition of Dissolution that it is exactly what George Soros wants. It is what the communists in the federal government want. But the trap has already been set to slowly grind resistance to these groups into dust. The push to disarm the citizenry will only get more insistent and resistance to it more fractured and distanced as time goes on. Each city will enact illegal confiscations and then states and little by little all rights will be lost. The Second Amendment is the only one that matters at a time like this.

Now, while the greatest majority still hold the weapons of resistance, is the time to dissolve this union no matter how difficult it is for the heart to conceive it. The alternative is an inexorable decline into misery, destitution and ultimate ignoble slavery. It is our right and duty to alter or abolish. It is the only thing left to which we should swear an oath. I don’t know what is on the other side of such an act, perhaps the exact same outcome, but with the knowledge that we stood and we gave everything to deny the tyrants their victory. But, maybe something better…after the worst.

I still can’t see this as remotely likely; should such a thing be undertaken, FedGovCo will certainly quash it with a quickness anyway. But TL is absolutely right about that “right and duty” business; the Founders spelled that out in no uncertain terms for us. To wit:

…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…

Which brings us ’round to this:

If one thinks about how America’s cold civil war could be resolved, there seem to be only five possibilities. One would be to change the political subject. Ronald Reagan used to say that when the little green men arrive from outer space, all of our political differences will be transcended and humanity will unite for the first time in human history. Similarly, if some jarring event intervenes—a major war or a huge natural calamity—it might reset our politics.

A second possibility, if we can’t change the subject, is that we could change our minds. Persuasion, or some combination of persuasion and moderation, might allow us to end or endure our great political division. Perhaps one party or side will persuade a significant majority of the electorate to embrace its Constitution, and thus win at the polling booth and in the legislature. For generations, Republicans have longed for a realigning election that would turn the GOP into America’s majority party. This remains possible, but seems unlikely.

As for moderating our disagreements and learning to live with them more or less permanently, that too seems unlikely given their fundamental nature and the embittered trajectory of our politics over the last two decades.

So if we won’t change our minds, and if we can’t change the subject, we are left with only three other ways out of the cold civil war. The happiest of the three would be a vastly reinvigorated federalism. One of the original reasons for constitutional federalism was that the states had a variety of interests and views that clashed with one another and could not be pursued in common. If we had a re-flowering of federalism, some of the differences between blue states and red states could be handled discreetly by the states themselves. The most disruptive issues could be denationalized. The problem is, having abandoned so much of traditional federalism, it is hard to see how federalism could be revived at this late juncture.

That leaves two possibilities. One, alas, is secession, which is a danger to any federal system—something about which James Madison wrote at great length in The Federalist Papers. With any federal system, there is the possibility that some states will try to leave it. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have gone their separate ways peacefully, just within the last generation. But America is much better at expansion than contraction. And George Washington’s admonitions to preserve the Union, I think, still miraculously somehow linger in our ears. So secession would be extremely difficult for many reasons, not the least of which is that it could lead, as we Americans know from experience, to the fifth and worst possibility: hot civil war.

Under present circumstances, the American constitutional future seems to be approaching some kind of crisis—a crisis of the two Constitutions. Let us pray that we and our countrymen will find a way to reason together and to compromise, allowing us to avoid the worst of these dire scenarios—that we will find, that is, the better angels of our nature.

Unlikely in the extreme, since the nature of the Left—hungering to enslave all Americans under an all-powerful federal tyranny of exactly the stripe the Founders dreaded and abhorred most—allows for no “better angels.” We’ll just have to see how it all plays out, for better or worse.

Share

Forecast: bleak

This ain’t good.

Professor Valentina Zharkova gave a presentation of her Climate and the Solar Magnetic Field hypothesis at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in October, 2018. The information she unveiled should shake/wake you up.

Zharkova was one of the few that correctly predicted solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.

Her models have run at a 93% accuracy and her findings suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020 and running for 350-400 years.

The last time we had a little ice age only two magnetic fields of the sun went out of phase.

This time, all four magnetic fields are going out of phase.

Scary stuff indeed. A rise in average temps of half a degree over centuries—the most frightening prediction alarmist AGW Watermelons (Green on the outside, Red on the inside) have been able to manufacture—is something humanity can quite easily survive. A solid sheet of glacial ice creeping down into the southern areas of US northern-tier states, the Farm Belt converted to tundra…umm, not so much.

As Glenn always says, Fallen Angels looks more and more like prophecy by the day.

Share

Degeneration

Sowing chaos, with nefarious intent.

A Florida school district allowed a self-described transgender female student regular access to the boys’ locker room, with no advance warning to the boys or their parents. The first time she walked in, she caught “boys (literally) with their pants down, causing them embarrassment and concern by the fact that they had been observed changing by an obvious girl,” says a complaint letter to Pasco County School District from Liberty Counsel, a pro-bono constitutional law firm.

With a “gag order,” school administrators forbade teachers from talking about the change, and ordered a male P.E. teacher to supervise the potentially undressed girl in the Chasco Middle School locker room, the letter says. When he refused to “knowingly place himself in a position to observe a minor female in the nude or otherwise in a state of undress,” administrators told him “he will be transferred to another school as discipline for ‘not doing your job in the locker room.’”

In an email, an administrator initially threatened to put the male coach on administrative leave, telling him that refusing to supervise a potentially naked female student would “not be tolerated,”said Liberty Counsel attorney Richard Mast. The school’s other P.E. teacher, who is female, also objected and was ignored.

Pasco parents have yet to be informed by the school of this situation, yet the transgender student continues to have open access to private male areas, according to Liberty Counsel. Despite the initial September incident, then legal contact in October, the elected board for the district with 70,500 students has so far taken no action and administrators have refused to budge.

“Unfortunately these things are going on across the country, primarily with school psychologists and guidance counselors,” said Mast. He noted that it’s standard for public schools to pass transgender policies without informing parents, voters, or taxpayers first. That means the public only hears about it after children have been affected, withholding all opportunities for parents to prevent their child’s exposure to this kind of sexual indoctrination, confusion, and exploitation.

Last year in a Georgia public school, a five-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted by a “gender-fluid” male classmate in the school bathroom after a transgender policy allowed him access. He allegedly pushed her against the wall and repeatedly jammed his fingers into her genitals while she struggled. The district refuses to believe the alleged victim and the mother has pulled her daughter from the school, which never notified her of the incident and maintains its bathroom policy.

Unpossible. We’ve been repeatedly told by our betters that this kind of assault has never happened, because it can’t happen, because reasons.

It appears Pasco schools adopted their transgender policies with no notice to their elected school board, parents, or voters. Instead, they were implemented after the district hired Jackie Jackson-Dean, a school psychologist, as a LGBT liason. Her website lists her as the “primary author of the school district’s [LGBT] best practices guide,” which names her as its”lead content developer.” That guide says transgender pronouns, locker room, bathroom, dress code, and sports access are a student’s “right.”

So, having a school “LGBT liaison” is now a thing, is it? Say, just how deep DOES this rabbit hole go, anyway?

An OutCoast.com article from 2017 says Jackson-Dean uses her position at the school to connect students with an organization called Metro, which has nine Tampa Bay locations. Metro helps LGBT minors and adults meet, gives counseling to LGBT-identified and questioning people including minors, and hands out drugs that aim to reduce HIV transmission when people have risky sex. Metro website notes that the Food and Drug Administration has approved this drug for children 15 to 17, meaning legal minors.

What, no NAMBLA referrals? If not, why not? Is this “expert” some kind of closeted H8RRR or something?

An “LGBT-Inclusive School,” Jackson-Dean’s guide says, has: “Health and sexuality education that is inclusive of all sexual orientations and gender identities”; “curriculum that regularly includes information about LGBT people, history, and events”; and “Library resources and displays that are inclusive of LGBT people, history, and issues.” It also has “Proms, homecoming, and athletic events that allow for gender-neutral alternatives to ‘King’ and ‘Queen’”; and “Observations of Mother’s Day and Father’s Day that affirm all family structures.”

We are building a better world. All of them, better worlds.”

A school that is helping LGBT students will not only treat families as potential sources of trauma whose rejection directly leads to LGBT children’s depression and suicide, but also have “‘Out’ teachers,” “Inclusive paperwork (e.g. NOT mother/father),” and “Messaging from administration regarding non-tolerance of harassment and discrimination,” the guide says.

Jeez, but what a sprawling, destructive, indecipherable mess. Which, if you think that isn’t the entire point and purpose of all this balderdash, you got yourself some more thinking to do.

The boundless, balls-out arrogance of these “educators” is what really stands out like a beacon to me. They manipulate the children for PC purposes, ignore or openly defy the rights of parents to any authority or even input regarding the “education” of their own children, operate in secret without oversight, and are unaccountable to anyone other than their own superiors at the state and federal level. They infantilize parents, sexualize children, and politicize the education process itself.

A number of commenters to the article say that this is the hill to die on—the line in the sand dividing peaceful attempts at dialogue, reconciliation, and redress from violence and war. Given that, as I’ve so often said, all of our problems with the seditious Left begin with government-school indoctrination of our youth, I’m having a hard time finding a way to argue with that.

Share

Breaking bad

Claremont’s The American Mind is thinking about Trump.

After almost three years, American progressives and the conservative Never Trumpers are no closer to understanding the man and the political situation he’s helped to create than they ever were. If we wish to make some progress in understanding him and the state of the country, we need to start from a different point of view.

Good character remains more desirable and honorable than bad character—even if bad character does not necessarily make for a bad president, nor good character for a good president. Based on his critics’ account of him, the question about Trump would seem to be, at least from the conservative point of view: how comes such a bad man to do so much good? That is, is it really the case, as the Never Trumpers’ minor premise asserts, that Trump is such a bad man? So bad that it was morally imperative to usher Hillary Clinton to the White House in his stead?

I’m reminded of Winston Churchill’s line about the socialist Stafford Cripps: “He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire.” The Never Trumpers see no virtues in Trump, and admire none of his vices. The resulting portrait is a caricature, a rough, unrevealing one. No one would ever call him a moral paragon—not even the president himself. But the Trump universe theorized by the Never Trumpers is all dark matter; it doesn’t acknowledge the traits we see with our own eyes, including some admirable vices, but also his distinctive virtues, whether we choose to dislike them or not. The critics seem to prefer an explanation of Trump that is, as the cosmologists say, non-luminous.

Michael Barone’s Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future (2004) is a short book with a useful distinction that begins to illuminate the phenomenon of Trump. It describes two countries, as it were. “Hard America” is shaped by the marketplace forces of competition and accountability. “Soft America” is the realm of public schools, self-esteem, and government social programs. The latter, according to Barone, produces incompetent and unambitious 18-year-olds, the former hard-charging and adaptable 30-year-olds. Somehow, uneasily, modern America includes both.

Donald Trump considers himself a kind of ambassador from hard America to soft America. Many (not all) of the asperities of his character are related to his career path. He calls himself “a builder,” and America “a nation of builders.” He knows his way around a construction site, and his virtues and vices skew to that hard, brazen, masculine world of getting things built quickly, durably, beautifully if possible, and in any case profitably. He wants to revive hard America’s mines, factories, and building sites, in the face of what he knows is the growing power of its despisers in soft America.

Trump also knows his way around a television studio. The hard reality of being a builder and landlord is combined, in his case, with being a longstanding reality-TV star. If the preceding president cast himself in the role of “no-drama” Obama, the current one plays all-drama-all-the-time Trump. From the beginning his kind of real estate verged on show business. Branding and selling his name, which have constituted the largest part of his business for a while, represented for him another step in the direction of show business. Show business is a business, however, and Trump likes to interpret what might be considered the softer side of his career in the hardest possible terms. He emphasizes numbers—the ratings, the advertising dollars, the size of his crowds. He has survived in several cutthroat industries, and intends to add politics to the list.

Whether in business or in politics, Trump disliked the airs and claims of “experts,” detached from and above the subjects of their experiments. He distrusted their glibness, too. He identified with working men and women, and promised (at least) to add jobs, to boost economic growth, to “win” for pipe-fitters and waitresses, too. He defended their Social Security but blasted the fraud of Obamacare, whereas Romney had scorned the 47%’s “entitlements” but gave Obamacare (based, you may recall, on Romneycare) a pass. Romney lacked perhaps what Kanye West would call “dragon energy.” When in a primary election he had done well among voters without a high school degree, Trump memorably declared, “I love the poorly educated.” You’d never hear Romney, nor any other mainstream Republican, say that!

These are but a few of the character traits that add up to make Trump, love him or hate him, one of our greatest and most accomplished Presidents—after not even two years in office. This is a long but REALLY good article, which serves as a springboard for several AmMind articles also taking a deeper look at Trump—including this one:

It is a testimony to the sanctimonious humorlessness of our elites that they still don’t find Trump funny. He has an undeniable knack for coming up with catchy, biting nicknames. No amount of Red Bull will ever help poor Jeb shed his “Low Energy” moniker. And who can hear Elizabeth Warren’s name and not think of Pocahontas? (Trump didn’t coin that one, but he definitely made it stick).

Though the political value of a sense of humor is considerably underappreciated, it is not, at the end of day, a great virtue. Courage is though. And here Kesler does not fully give Trump his due. He only ascribes to him “a kind of courage in defense of one’s own.” Trump, in fact, is manly. And it is his manliness, more so than his other qualities, his fame or his views that accounts for his popularity and his success — and makes up for his shortcomings and missteps.

Trump’s manliness is not that of a soldier who risks his life in combat or of a general who leads men into battle. In this regard, he is not as manly as his Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis. Trump’s manliness is that of a man who is not afraid to say out loud what others only whisper and to incur the wrath of the ruling class for doing so. Trump is more manly than Mattis in this regard (and to almost any politician in recent memory, for that matter: if Mitt Romney had displayed half of Trump’s courage in 2012, he probably would have been President).

I don’t think it much matters to anybody whether Trump is “more manly” than Mattis—least of all, probably, to the two of them. In fact, the combination of attributes we used to call “manliness” shouldn’t be placed in some hierarchy according to which is the greater; one is either manly or, increasingly these days, one is not. No, courage on the battlefield isn’t quite the same as the courage required to stare down a powerful opponent across a boardroom table before cutting him to pieces in a hardnosed, high-stakes business negotation. But courage they both certainly are, I’d say, with their own distinct virtues and prospective pitfalls. And both are extremely valuable, and ought to be encouraged rather than denigrated.

We all know what we are not allowed to say in America. Every week brings a reminder of what happens to those who deviate from the accepted script when speaking of any of the Left’s protected identity groups. The state, it is true, does not criminalize hate speech, but public opinion does censor it. Heretics are not imprisoned — they are fired, disgraced and declared untouchable.

Not surprisingly, immigration has been Trump’s signature issue. He not only says what he isn’t supposed to say — “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best” — he doesn’t back down when the elites unleash their fury against him for saying it. In fact, he usually doubles down — “Mexico is forcing people in that they don’t want, and they want us to take care of those people.”

By challenging the reigning consensus on immigration and not bowing to the pressure to recant, Trump teaches his countrymen a lesson in courage. Americans see in Trump a man willing to take on the elites who scorn them and to not only withstand their attacks but to fight back — often successfully. Trump doesn’t just punch — as he likes to say, he counterpunches.

Okay, enough of the excerpting, although I could easily go on and on with this one too. Just read all of the both of ’em.

Share

Real deal

Careful what you wish for, libtards.

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

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

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

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

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

To all those who have compared Trump to Hitler,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Via VP)

Share

A little pre-Halloween horror

I’m aware, as most of you readers are or should be by now, of the esteemed Aesop’s take on all this. But I don’t think he’s spelled it out quite as completely and concisely as he does here. It amounts to an excellent precis, and I couldn’t agree more.

The conventional wisdom and polling data say the Dems are going to pick up 10 House seats for sure next month, but whether they can flip the majority (23+ seats) is still an open question.

If they do, it’s all impeachment and investigation, all the time.
Which will almost certainly lose them the House again in 2020.
(And FWIW, I consider trying to undo 2016 by impeaching Pres. Trump, like trying to undo the 2nd Amendment, to be an actual revolution-inducing act, in a kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out way. And not metaphorically. YMMV.)

If they don’t get the House in the mid-terms, they’ve already turned the crazy up to “11”, and they have nowhere left to go there, except actual, regular, political violence. I expect them to do that, because
a) they’re really that stupid
b) they have no other choice
c) they lack the common sense or insight to recognize the result of that course of action beforehand, and lack the self control among their idiot minions to stop it anyway even if they wanted to.

That will be an extinction event for them, because the Right will declare open season on them, and the Moderates will sit back and watch approvingly.

Because once you yell “Play ball!” on killing your political opponents as a viable course of action, Americans have a long and distinguished history of shoving that bat right up your ass. And then, going after your family for good measure. 

And both sides know that after the first killing, all the rest are effectively free, so this promises to be a short but ugly spasm of violence. To start.

After that, any bets or prognostications enter a fogbank of epic proportions, because once you uncork that genie, things will get out of hand and we’ll all be lucky to live through this, as Fred Thompson warned us.

As he says, that’s it in a nutshell. My one quibble, which is minor: personally, I don’t think they’re going to even be able to gain House seats. In fact, I expect them to lose some there too; their Kavanaugh debacle will cost them, but it’s just one of many self-inflicted wounds they’ve suffered, eye-openers all for anyone paying even slight attention, with the Kavanaugh mess being the moldy cherry on top of the whole flyblown shit-sundae. Executive summary:

The Leftards have lost their minds.
Before they can regain their senses, you’re going to have to get their attention first.
The only thing that will do that, amounts to large numbers (Antietam/Gettysburg-large, not 9/11-large) of them stacked up like cordwood, or hanging from lamp posts.

Sadly—tragically, for all of us—it would seem so. A clarifying quote from the first time around:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
—William Tecumseh Sherman

I also remember a quote from Grant, which I can’t find online: “If we have to fight, I’d rather do it all at once and then make up and be friends.” Don’t know how relevant that one is now, but it came to mind for some reason.

Share

“We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization”

You may not be interested in culture war. But culture war is interested in you.

I do believe the right has often been guilty of exploiting and weaponizing certain news events or outlier stories, and I wish from the bottom of my heart that I believed this despicable attempt to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life was a bottoming event in our political discourse. But I believe it is “the new normal,” not a bottom, and that the worst manifestations will not be in a Senate Judiciary Committee, or a heated campaign (both of which are bad enough), but will be in our businesses, our lives, and our communities, until these vestiges of cultural Marxism are soundly defeated.

Conservatives have claimed (rightly) for some time that it would be quite difficult to win the war on terror if we could not label it and identify it for what it is – Islamic jihadism. I would say that right now, in the present context, conservatives will have a very difficult time surviving in this culture if we cannot identify, accurately, the battle in which we find ourselves. Well-meaning people of faith frequently comment that we must avoid getting sucked into the culture war. Good luck with that. You’re in it. You’ve been made to care. And no head-in-the-sand-ostrich routine is going to save you now. We are locked into an existential battle for the future of western civilization. A romantic clinging to the idea of neutrality, denying the antithetical frameworks by which both sides see the human person, the human condition, and the nature of a free society, will lead to one side’s victory, and the other side’s annihilation. That is the reality in which we now live.

It would be nice if conservatives of faith had some support in the church, that allegedly spiritual institution of Christian community, doctrine, and practice. If you want to know what the church will look like in 3-5 years, look at what the culture is doing now. If you want to know what the culture looked like 3-5 years ago, look at the church now. From all but complete outliers in Rome and evangelicalism, the Christian church is in the theology of capitulation business now, desperate to fit in, desperate to be accepted by Vanity Fair, and oblivious to the fact that no amount of surrender is going to prove sufficient. Non-churched leftists are completely comfortable calling their ideology “leftism” or “progressivism.” The cultural pacifists that fill today’s pulpits lack the courage to even self-identify for the humanism-soaked sponges that they are. Christians, you are all alone if you are looking for the church to defend your cause, mission, and purpose. I don’t blame unbelievers for laughing at the latest screed that comes from today’s emasculated church; I do blame believers for not doing so.

My despair has come from the realization that our divide in this country is not merely sociological, that the other side is playing for keeps, and will stop at nothing to win. It is exacerbated by the realization that potential courageous opposition – the church – is asleep at the wheel. And my turmoil is unresolved by the realization that the tactics we will face as a remnant defending western civilization and the American experiment in the decades ahead will not, and cannot, be reciprocated by our own side. If we forfeit a quest for civility and decency, we will have already lost.

And that is where we find ourselves. A large percentage of the American population, enterprising, traditional, law-abiding, and respectful of social norms, under persecution from an extremist foe which has actually subverted the mainstream of American leftism. And that large percentage of the American population will spend the next period of time realizing the degree to which they are under assault, and then deciding how they wish to respond.

As for me and my house, we will do our very best to love each other, to love our neighbors, to grow our businesses, and to build community in the places that we live. We will defend ourselves against slanderous accusations. We will fight like mad for the causes we believe in. And we will try to live our lives above reproach.

But in engaging those who would prefer we be squashed, silenced, and ruined, we will not seek to squash, silence, or ruin them. And it is in that final commitment, that we may just be sowing the seeds of our own destruction.

You certainly are; as with their Muslim allies-of-convenience, they view your rationality, your decency, your humanity, and your forbearance as weaknesses to be exploited. To adapt another phrase: we don’t have to like it. We just have to win it. It may be a crying shame. It’s also just the way it is.

I’d take issue with his assertion that Christianity is “asleep at the wheel,” though. A dismaying percentage of mainstream congregations and their leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, are actively lurching Left, and have been for a long time now. Christianity is another bedrock Western institution that has been successfully infiltrated and co-opted by the Left for the purpose of destroying it. It’s possible that it may be restored to its former glory and influence. But the war will have to be won first—and that will require unstinting effort, free of reservation or restraint, using tactics every bit as ugly as the hateful villains we’re fighting.

Share

What are the rules?

Schlichter takes a stab at enumerating ’em, but there really ain’t but one.

Now, the elite insists that the alleged and disputed actions of Brett Kavanaugh as a drunk teen forever bar him from a seat on the Supreme Court. Okay, but then how does the disqualification rule apply to other situations? Let’s take Tex Kennedy. Beto O’Rourke drove drunk as a 26 year old, got busted after nearly killing some people and tried to ditch the scene. Let’s put aside whether he’s lying to the voters about absconding and focus on the glug glug vroom vroom part.

Does an adult DUI disqualify him from the Senate? If not, why not? Why are his undisputed actions less disqualifying than Kavanaugh’s alleged one? If true, both represent, at best, huge misjudgments. Both subordinated the safety and rights of others to the malefactor’s personal desires. Both involved alcohol, but one involved a minor and the other an adult. Why aren’t both disqualified?

Can someone explain the rule to me that makes both Kavanaugh irredeemable and Beto – pardon the expression – the toast of Texas Democrats?

What’s the rule?

Here’s what I think. I think there actually are no rules anymore. I think the elite is so terrified it is losing its power that it is tossing out the foundations of the society it is supposed to organize and manage, that is, the rules. I think our elite actually does not believe in rules, that their attempts at enforcing the rules are merely a grift designed to jam up Normals and provide a way to keep them in line.

Of course it is. Which brings us around to the One Rule: anything, anything at all, that Democrat Socialists or Leftists do=GOOD. Anything, anything at all, that Repubicans or non-Leftists do—even if it’s THE SAME DAMNED THING THE LEFT JUST DID—is BAD. No more, it’s just that simple.

Share

Notable quotes

I’ve seen some of the D-Right guys here and there disparaging Thomas Sowell as—well, not quite a cuck, maybe, but definitely one of the useless Conservative Old Guard. I dunno, I’ve always liked the guy myself, and still do. He’s sharp as they come, and definitely has a way with words. To wit:

21. “It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to.”

20. “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear. People with careers as ethnic leaders usually tell their followers what they want to hear.”

19. “‘We are a nation of immigrants,’ we are constantly reminded. We are also a nation of people with ten fingers and ten toes. Does that mean that anyone who has ten fingers and ten toes should be welcomed and given American citizenship?”

18. “It is amazing how many people think that the government’s role is to give them what they want by overriding what other people want.”

Hawkins has collected thirty of ’em for this article, my own favorite being this one:

15. “Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.”

They’re all damned good, although the Tweet that leads things off is kinda depressing. Here’s another short piece, noting his retirement a couple years ago, which includes a link to an archive of his excellent work. Long may you wave, Dr Sowell, and happy belated birthday to you.

Share

Dead letter

It’s broken. We can argue about the reasons why, perhaps; my own belief is that the fault lies not in the document but in our own failure to uphold its promise. Either way, the fact remains: it’s broken.

Wickard .v. Filburn was a raw theft of that power from the states by the Federal Government. It should have been met with the immediate refusal by the States to acquiesce, if necessary backed by the Governors calling up their National Guard contingencies as there never was and still does not exist today jurisdiction in the Supreme Court on the matter. The substance of this case was that Filburn was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The entire cycle of life of said wheat was contained within the boundaries of one state. The Government claimed that because he grew it he wouldn’t have to buy as much wheat on the market, that wheat was traded both nationally and internationally in the marketplace and thus his lack of need to make a purchase through his entirely intrastate actions meant it had jurisdiction. In short the Supreme Court claimed that there was no limit on any act of the Federal government, ever, since any action or inaction by a citizen always results in some change in one’s economic activity. The mere act of taking a crap leads to “interstate commerce” under this standard and thus the Federal Government can regulate where, how and when you may do so or even tax same; you might buy toilet paper, if you use water to flush or wash your hands you might cause your local government to consume chlorine shipped across a state line to sanitize said water, etc.

The Court ripped up the entire Constitution with this decision — and thus far, since 1942, for more than 75 years, it has gotten away with it.

Then there are decisions where the litigants lied before the court. Miller, the seminal empowering decision for federal gun control, was one such instance. Not only was Miller unrepresented (he was broke and nobody showed up to argue his side of the case) but the US Government directly lied to the court both orally and in written form about the lack of military application of the weapon Miller was arrested for possessing (a short-barrel shotgun), claiming it had no legitimate military or militia purpose despite having previously purchased a weapon of almost-exactly the same design, form and function by the thousands for use in trench warfare during WWI.

Roe .v. Wade was also a deliberate lie. The claim was that Roe was raped. We know this was a lie because Roe later disclosed same. While that was not the foundation of the decision it clearly played into the sentiment on the court and it was not a mistake it was a lie.

Perjury is supposed to be one of the highest offenses in any civilized nation because in every single case it perverts justice, yet in neither of those cases was any subsequent notice given to same nor were the judgments vacated. Congress could address this but has refused to even discuss it. There are dozens of similar instances and in exactly zero of those events has a litigant ever faced justice for having done so nor has any Supreme Court decision been summarily tossed on that basis even when the lie is later admitted by the litigants or facutally proved, as was the case in both Roe and Miller.

We have a framework for not only our government but for changing how it works. The problem is that you can no longer find it in the many linear feet of law and regulation directly contrary to the limits on power in the Constitution and nobody — utterly nobody — will do a damn thing about it.

No, a “Convention of States” will not address this.

Why not?

Because the highest law in the land already addresses all of it and said law is routinely and outrageously ignored without one scintilla of consequence attaching to any government agency or employee who does so — ever — even when they perjure themselves while under oath.

There is utterly no reason to believe, until and unless that highest law of the land is enforced, which will only happen when the people demand it be enforced, that any such event will mean anything as whatever such a “Convention” produces will also be ignored unless it is backed up with a credible threat of force.

Why do we need a “Convention” to enforce what already exists?

Lots more emphasis throughout, which I didn’t transcribe more of because…well, there’s a LOT of it, okay? Denninger tends to do that, and I ain’t saying he’s wrong to, mind. Probably best just to click on over and read all of it.

Share

The toughest question of all

The only one that matters, when you get right down to it.

As Capitol Hill Republicans attempt for — what, the eighth? ninth? — time in the past two decades to jam through an amnesty that their voters have explicitly, loudly and repeatedly said they do not want, it’s worth asking a question that is rarely raised:

Does the United States — population 320 million and rising — need more people? If so, why?

And if so, why these particular people? Why illiterate, primitive Muslims who loathe Western Civ and consider its “decadence” an abomination before their warped “god”? Why unskilled, impoverished Mexican peasants with nothing useful to offer our society, possessing a demonstrated willingness to violate our immigration laws in order to come here and soak up resources, contributing nothing useful to our country?

Has any American ever spent a single moment of his or her day thinking, “Gee, I wish we had more drug mules, low-level cartel dupes, MS 13 killers, unemployable low-IQ indigents who don’t speak English and refuse to learn it, and sundry rapists, thieves, alcoholics, ISIS terrorists, murderers, welfare cheats, and surly unassimilables to liven up the place”? Other than among libtards pushing a barely-concealed political agenda and bought-and-paid-for CoC Republicans—for whom the “wretched refuse” are useful props and cheap labor respectively—where is the demand for such people?

To most ears, the question sounds blasphemous, which illustrates the rottenness of our immigration debate. Actually, “debate” is far too generous. One side has made sure that there is no debate. Good people want more immigration, and bad people object or raise questions. An inherently political issue has been effectively rendered religious, with the righteous on one side, sinners on the other.

Just as they always do, on this and every issue.

So again: Why do we need more people? For the extra traffic congestion? More crowded classrooms? Longer emergency room and Transportation Security Administration lines? Higher greenhouse-gas emissions?

We know how more immigration benefits big business and the Democratic Party. No one has yet convincingly explained how it benefits the American people as a whole. That’s the foremost consideration that should drive our immigration debate, and that’s what should determine our immigration policy.

And in a country with a sane and self-respecting population, it would. Surprising that this was published in the God Damned WaPo. I didn’t bother with the comments, I must admit; I’m pretty sure I already know what they’re like. New category, too: Immivasion. Shoulda done it a long time ago, I guess.

Share

Do the math

You ain’t getting ’em, gun-grabbers.

The foregoing math on the roughly 20 million semi-auto rifles is not the full extent of the problem for the gun grabbers. Additionally, there are at least 50 million centerfire handguns that would be suitable for resistance warfare. (And another 3 million being made or imported each year.) There are also perhaps 40 million scoped centerfire deer rifles in private hands. The vast majority of those have no traceable paper trail. Fully capable of 500+ yard engagement, these rifles could be employed to out-range the tyrants and their minions.

Then there are the estimated 1.5 million unregistered machineguns now in the country.  Except for a 30-day amnesty in 1968 that generated only about 65,000 registrations, they have been contraband since 1934. Their number is particularly difficult to accurately estimate, since some semi-autos such as the M1 Carbine, HK91/93/94 series, and AR-15 are fairly easy to convert to selective fire. Similarly, nearly all “open bolt” semi-auto designs are easy to convert to full auto. Large numbers of conversion parts sets have been sold, with little recordkeeping. Some guns can be converted simply by removing sear springs or filing their sears. Just a trickle of unregistered full autos are seized or surrendered each year. This begs the question: If Federal officials have been unable to round up un-papered machineguns after 84 years, then how do they expect to ever confiscate semi-autos, which are 15 times more commonplace?

As evidenced by the 1990s wars in the Balkans, when times get inimical, contraband guns get pulled out of walls and put into use. We can expect to see the same, here.

Now, to get back to the simple mathematics, here are some ratios to ponder:

  • NRA members (5.2 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 63-to-1 ratio
  • Military veterans (20.4 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 249-to-1 ratio
  • Unregistered machineguns (1.5 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 18-to-1 ratio
  • Privately owned semi-auto rifles (40 million) to Door Kickers (82,863) = 485-to-1 ratio


The mathematics that I’ve cited don’t bode well for the gun-grabbing collectivists.

He has a lot more, and I do mean a LOT. It all adds up to total nightmare for fever-dreaming totalitarians, who really ought to find themselves better uses for their time.

(Via MisHum)

Share

What if…

Wonder if VDH’s cuckster colleagues at NRO are reading his stuff? Because I can think of at least three right off the top of my head who ought to be forced—at gunpoint, if necessary—to read this one. Twice.

There are lots of possible counterfactuals to think about had Hillary Clinton won the presidency as all the experts had predicted.

The U.S. embassy would have stayed in Tel Aviv. “Strategic patience” would likely still govern the North Korea dilemma. Fracking would be curtailed. The — rather than “our” — miners really would be put out of work. Coal certainly would not have been “beautiful.” The economy probably would be slogging along at below 2 percent GDP growth.

China would be delighted, as would Iran. But most important, there would be no collusion narrative — neither one concerning a defeated Donald Trump nor another implicating a victorious Hillary Clinton. In triumph, progressives couldn’t have cared less whether Russians supposedly had tried to help a now irrelevant Trump; and they certainly would have prevented any investigation of the winning Clinton 2016 campaign.

In sum, Hillary’s supposedly sure victory, not fear of breaking the law, prompted most of the current 2016 scandals, and her embittering defeat means they are not being addressed as scandals.

For example, why would FBI director James Comey have been so foolish as to ask for a FISA warrant request without fully informing the judge of the compromising details of the Steele–Fusion GPS dossier? Or why would Attorney General Loretta Lynch have been so reckless as to meet with Bill Clinton in a stealthy jet rendezvous on an Arizona tarmac when her department was concurrently investigating his spouse?

But those are precisely the wrong questions, given the Washington careerist mind. The right one is “Why not?” — in the context of the overwhelming likelihood that Hillary Clinton would not only be elected president but also would follow the well-known Clintonian habit of punishing both enemies and neutrals while rewarding friends, the more obsequious, the better.

It goes on from there, a perfect reminder of the bullet we dodged by electing Trump and packing Her Herness off to bitter, booze-soaked irrelevance. Hanson’s conclusion:

The Podesta brothers would still be A-list Washington operators. During a Clinton administration, Devin Nunes, who would likely still be seeking the truth behind the illegality in the 2016 campaign, might have been under FISA-ordered surveillance himself, or would have shared the deep-state fate of the jailed videomaker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, or might have become one of the victims of Lois Lerner’s residual henchmen at the IRS.

The coffers of the Clinton Foundation certainly would be expanding exponentially. Robert Mueller might have been brought back in now and then for his sober and judicious work in finding no wrongdoing in the Uranium One deal.

And Donald Trump? He would be mocked and ridiculed as he barked at the moon that his wires had been tapped in Trump Tower — as the truth became insanity, and insanity the truth.

You’ll surely want to read all of it, even though it means swallowing the bitter pill of clicking over to NRO to do so. As I said, certain prissy-Right types ought to be forced to.

(Via KT)

Share

The collapse that wasn’t

Culper insists on the mot juste.

I hate using the words “civil war” and “collapse”, because they’re not specific. Whenever I read the words “societal collapse” or “economic collapse”, I wonder: collapse to what level? 100% collapse? 50% collapse? (Even a 25% collapse in employment and living standards is going to cause significant problems.) One could argue that we’re witnessing a societal collapse right now — a collapse of established, normative sociopolitical behavior and attitudes. It might be more accurate and specific to say that we’ve entered into a period of societal decline, but it only goes to show just how vague the word “collapse” actually is. The collapse of the Roman Empire lasted for centuries, and we only know that because we can read the history. I wonder if those living in any given 50 year period of that collapse understood that collapse was occurring. The same can be said of civil war. Will states be fighting each other in the Second Civil War? Is the North invading the South again? Will we be battling for control over Washington D.C.? What, exactly, is meant by the term civil war?

Now, you may be thinking, Well, that’s just a semantic game. Everyone knows what a civil war is. This may work for a cursory understanding of where we’re headed, but in intelligence we deal with specifics. The commander needs to know the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the situation. You don’t prepare for a civil war, you don’t prepare for an electromagnetic pulse, you don’t prepare for economic collapse. You prepare for the effects of these events. And if we’re not deliberate with our understanding of these threats and their second- and third-order effects, then we’re not truly prepared.

Predicting the future is hard, especially when we define our terms and arrange our expectations in reference to definitions and historical conditions that no longer apply, something we humans are wont to do.

Sam is right: we’re well into the collapse of what Normals think of as our traditional cultural arrangement and organization. The social contract as Americans once knew it is long gone, and it ain’t coming back. Not when half of us are obnoxiously determined to inflict authoritarian tyranny on the half resistant to such, it ain’t. As I keep saying, there is no bridging this gap; the two positions are incompatible, irreconcilable, and not amenable to negotiation or compromise. One side must prevail, and one side must capitulate. It’s a pretty sorry pass all right, but it’s where we are.

Update! Zman puts up some interesting thoughts on civil war as social war:

Continue reading “The collapse that wasn’t”

Share

Dope, inside

More on the Broward Cowards. Much more…and worse.

I spent about 18 months in 2012, 2013 and 2014 investigating Broward and Miami-Dade school policies and how those policies transfer to law enforcement practices. My interest was initially accidental. I discovered an untold story of massive scale and consequence as a result of initial research into Trayvon Martin and his High School life.

What I stumbled upon was a Broward County law enforcement system in a state of conflict. The Broward County School Board and District Superintendent, entered into a political agreement with Broward County Law enforcement officials to stop arresting students for crimes. The motive was simple. The school system administrators wanted to “improve their statistics” and gain state and federal grant money for improvements therein. So police officials, the very highest officials of law enforcement (Sheriff and Police Chiefs), entered into a plan.

As soon as Miami-Dade began to receive the benefits (political and financial) from the scheme, Broward County joined on. The approach in Broward was identical as the approach in Miami-Dade. It’s important to remember, this was not an arbitrary change – this was a well-planned fundamental shift in the entire dynamic of how teenagers would be treated when they engaged in criminal conduct.

The primary problem was the policy conflicted with laws; and over time the policy began to create outcomes where illegal behavior by students was essentially unchecked by law enforcement. Initially the police were excusing misdemeanor behaviors. However, it didn’t take long until felonies, even violent felonies (armed robberies, assaults and worse) were being excused. The need to continue lowering the arrests year-over-year meant that increasingly more severe unlawful behavior had to be ignored. Over time even the most severe of unlawful conduct was being filtered by responding police.

We found out about it, when six cops blew the whistle on severe criminal conduct they were being instructed to hide. The sheriff and police Chiefs were telling street cops and school cops to ignore ever worsening criminal conduct. The police were in a bind.  They were encountering evidence of criminal conduct and yet they had to hide the conduct. There were examples of burglary and robbery where the police had to hide the recovered evidence in order to let the kids get away without reports.

The police would take the stolen merchandise and intentionally falsify police records to record stolen merchandise *as if* they just found it on the side of the road. They put drugs and stolen merchandise in bags, and sent it to storage rooms in the police department. Never assigning the recovery to criminal conduct. Stolen merchandise was just sitting in storage rooms gathering dust.

They couldn’t get the stuff back to the victim because that would mean the police would have to explain how they took custody of it. So they just hid it. To prove this was happening one of the officers told me where to look, and who the victim was.

At first I didn’t believe them. However, after getting information from detectives, cross referencing police reports, and looking at the “found merchandise”, I realized they were telling the truth. A massive internal investigation took place and the results were buried. Participating in the cover-up were people in the media who were connected to the entire political apparatus. The sheriff and police chief could always deny the violent acts (assaults, rapes, beatings etc.) were being ignored; that’s why the good guys in the police dept gave the evidence of the stolen merchandise. That physical evidence couldn’t be ignored and proved the scheme.

From 2012 though 2018 it only got worse. In Broward and Miami-Dade it is almost impossible for a student to get arrested. The staff within the upper levels of LEO keep track of arrests and when a certain number is reached all else is excused.

Well it didn’t take long for criminal gangs in Broward and Miami-Dade to realize the benefit of using students for their criminal activities. After all, the kids would be let go… so organized crime became easier to get away with if they enlisted high-school kids. As criminals became more adept at the timing within the offices of the officials, they timed their biggest crimes to happen after the monthly maximum arrest quota was made.

The most serious of armed robberies etc. were timed for later in the month or quarter. The really serious crimes were timed in the latter phases of the data collection periods. This way the student criminals were almost guaranteed to get away with it. Now. You can see how that entire process gets worse over time. Present corruption (the need to hide the policy) expands in direct relationship to the corruption before it.  This is where the School Police come into play.

Understanding the risk behind the scheme, it became increasingly important to put the best corrupt cops in the schools. *BEST* as in *SMARTEST*. Those SRO’s became the ones who were best at hiding the unlawful conduct. Again, over time, the most corrupt police officers within the system became the police inside the schools. These officers were those who are best skilled at identifying the political objectives and instructions.

Those “School Cops” also have special privileges.  It’s a great gig.  They get free “on campus” housing close to the schools they are assigned to etc.  They’re crooked as hell and the criminal kids how just how to play them. It’s a game. Also an open secret. A lot of it came out during an earlier *internal affairs* investigation. Unfortunately the behavior never changed because the politics never changed. It’s still going on. For years this has been happening and no-one cared. Crimes happen; students excused; victims ignored; etc. The Broward County School and Law Enforcement system is designed to flow exactly this way. It’s politics.

Only then a Parkland school shooting happened. For Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel this had to be an “oh shit” moment; but not for the reasons the media initially thought.

To adapt the old lady’s famous statement to fit this stinking, toxic shitpit of a scandal: it’s corruption all the way down. It’s also the reason we’ll never, ever give up our guns, no matter how fervently they shriek, wheedle, moan and try to deflect attention away from the real failure here.

During Wednesday’s horrible fiasco of a “Town Hall”, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel spelled it out:

What I’m asking the law makers to give police all over this country is more power.

I was sufficiently struck by the above to write it down – because it was clear even then that Sheriff Israel is an incompetent deployer of the power he already has. The scale of his department’s appalling failure in the Parkland massacre gets worse almost hourly. 

I said on Tucker’s show that the state had failed at every level – school district, county, federal. But Sheriff Israel’s performance is especially egregious. An honorable man would surely have tendered his resignation. On the other hand, sitting on stage, watching his voters jeer Dana Loesch and call her a “murderer”, the sleazy creep can be forgiven for concluding that with constituents this eager to be misdirected why not string along? Their fury should have been aimed at him – and he should have spent his hour on stage ducked behind a podium demonstrating the policy-compliant incident-long Broward County crouch.

I observed on TV that, given the situation with “refugees” in Germany and Scandinavia and so on, it was more likely that Europeans would rediscover their inclination toward self-defense than that Americans would surrender it. Any foreigners wanting to know why claims to leave it to an all-powerful state don’t resonate with half of America need look no further than Scott Israel.

Actually, it resonates with us quite powerfully—as an object lesson on the peril inextricably entwined with trading liberty for (false) security, as Progressivist would-be dictators demand.

Cry all you want, shitlibs. You aren’t getting them, not even one. That’s flat, and final. If you want them, you’re going to have to come and take them. Once more: we’re willing to die defending ourselves against you. Are you willing to die for your dreams of tyranny? Think hard—and then make your move, you whining, lying, gutless pussies. If you dare.

Our response to the phony, one-way “debate” over “gun control” has now been purified in the crucible of the Founders’ “long chain of abuses” to one very simple statement, a lone middle finger waved in defiance of the gun-grabbers: go fuck yourselves. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

Share

Civil War v2.0 realities

A little speculation.

To begin with, it would not look like the first American Civil War, which was essentially a war between two regions of the country with different economic interests. The divide created two separate countries, both initially contiguous, intact, and relatively homogeneous. The lines of demarcation now are only somewhat regional, and tend to correspond to differences between urban and rural populations, as well as differences of race and class. A second American Civil War would be much more similar to the Spanish Civil War, with the leftists dominating the cities and conservatives controlling the countryside. Conflicts of this nature, with enemies mixed geographically, are a formula for spontaneous mass bloodletting.

Seems reasonable enough to me. Instead of set-piece clashes between large armies fielded in the old Napoleonic fashion*, Civil War v2.0 is way more likely to be fought with guerilla-style, hit-and-run tactics—quick, small-scale bloodlettings, raids, or sniper attacks followed immediately by a hasty, surreptitious retreat: the very embodiment of what is now referred to in military circles as Fourth Generation Warfare, or 4GW. Such an open-ended conflict could and very probably would drag on for a long time indeed; with resounding, decisive victory a practical near-impossibility almost by definition, such a war would end up a long, bitter, and brutal slog, ended not by victory or conquest but by sheer exhaustion.

The federal government, naturally, would attempt to intervene, but on which side and with what ultimate intent being difficult to predict. In Bracken’s Enemies trilogy, as well as Max Velocity’s excellent Patriot Dawn and many others, federal intervention in a Civil War/rebellion provides the State its justification for instituting true tyrannical oppression, taken to its practical limits, at last…which still winds up being largely ineffective except in the limited geographical areas it controls.

All of which is certainly chilling enough. This, though, might well be the most chilling observation of all:

Some dimensions of a future civil war would be, I think, largely unprecedented. When lesser countries have imploded in violence in recent times, they have done so with most of the world around them still intact. There were other nations to offer aid, assistance and intervention, welcome or unwelcome. There were places for refugees to go. The collapse of the world’s remaining superpower would take much of the world down with it. A global economic crisis would be inevitable. The withdrawal of American forces from bases across the world to fight at home would also create a power vacuum that others, even under economic strain, would be tempted to exploit. Whichever side gained control of our nuclear arsenal, our status as a nuclear power would probably persuade other nations not to interfere in our conflict militarily, but the collapse of trade alone would produce crippling effects that would be hard to overestimate. Many components for products our manufacturing sector makes are globally sourced. Add to this the breakdown of our transportation system, dependent on oil and transecting one new front line after another. The internet would fail. It is a frail enough now. Financial systems would fail. What happens if the banks find half their assets suddenly in hostile territory? All Federal government functions, including Social Security, would fail, many of them losing their very legitimacy to one side or the other. Food production, heavily dependent on diesel fuel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention a steady supply of genetically engineered seeds, would slump alarmingly. In short, most things we depend on are now held together by a network of delicate and complex connections. Without those connections, would you have a job? If so, in what medium of exchange could your employers manage to pay you? What would there be for you to buy? Does your town, your county, or even your state have the ability to marshal its resources into a viable economy? How many people in those entities could deal with anything worse than a weather disaster, in which they count on the fact that help is coming soon?

The odds of civil war here, no matter how low-intensity or limited in terms of scale, inflicting chaos on other parts of the world seem to me to be pretty high. The question is whether such a looming threat, which would come to toxic fruition pretty quickly, would motivate some sort of direct intervention—necessarily involving foreign boots on American ground, of course—on the part of those other nations. Assuming any of them were even capable of any such intervention in the first place, of course, which is by no means a given. It’s safe to assume that the UN would regard the opportunity to take over and administer the US itself as heaven-sent, a dream come true—a chance to demonstrate both its might and its indispensability for all the world to see.

At first they would, anyway. They’d learn different pretty damned quick.

From an economic perspective, I think it is fair to say that the left would have a bigger problem than the right. Cities cannot feed themselves under any conditions, and what food could be grown on America’s resource-starved farms would be gobbled up by people nearer and dearer to the farmers. Leftists would have to both secure vast territories around their urban strongholds and relearn from scratch the generations-lost art of food production. Liberal enclaves stranded in the hinterland would simply be untenable. We, on the other hand, would be critically short of new Hollywood movies. Without a steady supply of the works of Meryl Streep and Matt Damon, millions of conservatives would instantly drop dead from boredom – that is, according to Meryl Streep.

And if there could possibly be a reason to actually wish for another Civil War, right there it is. A pretty powerful one it is too, I must admit.

Read the rest of it. WRSA holds that it’s “More than a bit optimistic,” and recommends perusing Bracken’s several comments too, which begin with this interesting thought:

A civil war will not be intentionally started by left or right. It will be an unavoidable downstream consequence of a disruption of our modern technological infrastructure. The disruption could be triggered by many vectors, but the consequences will all be the same. Once the lights go out in a major U.S. city, even for a week, chaos will ensue, and every supermarket will be looted to bare shelves. The Genie will then be out of the bottle, and it won’t be put back in.

This, too, seems right enough to me. Matt then links to one of his several WRSA posts on the topic, starting off with this preface:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain. 

Yep. As I keep saying myself, nobody but nobody among decent, well-meaning people ought to be seriously wishing for such a thing, and I very much doubt any significant number are. But the Left, incredibly, seems absolutely determined to force this horror on us, one way or another. Unless they somehow are brought to senses they don’t appear to possess in any measure, sooner or later they will leave Americans desirous of nothing more than their right to be left alone with no choice but to defend themselves. Again I say it: Lefty should be very, very careful what he wishes for…lest he wind up getting it.

The scenario wherein a tech or infrastructure disaster sparks such a conflict is even more alarming, the more so for being the more likely case. As Matt says, once urban grocery store shelves have been stripped, people trapped in the big cities will start to get hungry, with no recourse other than dispersing en masse into the surrounding countryside to forage for food. They won’t be content to just sit back and starve. And the folks they’ll be looking to loot aren’t very likely to just sit passively back and let themselves be looted, either.

Either way, Civil War v2.0 ain’t something anybody ought to be looking forward to with anything other than dread. Then again though, as unavoidable as it’s beginning to appear, maybe Grant had the right of the whole thing after all when he said, “If we have to fight I wish we could do it all at once and then make friends.”

* Ironically, the Civil War—and most especially the new weapons used to fight it—is generally regarded as having rendered Napoleon’s tactics obsolete—or more accurately, to have revealed them as such.

Share

Ask yourselves why we hate you

Explain all you want, but they still won’t get it. They can’t afford to.

So we arrive at a new theory: the media, when it tries to involve itself in Middle American political races, always manages to make things worse for the candidate that they support. The anti-media candidate, meanwhile, gains a new gust of momentum, courtesy of the public’s downright hatred for those mobs of carpetbagging weasels trampling over their yard signs and smirking at their values. People who didn’t care about the election one way or another all of a sudden vote for the guy getting vilified by the snobby people, because they see themselves in him. Populism is an instinct. That’s why the mainstream media is the most effective weapon patriotic Americans have to destroy the mainstream media.

The people of Montana, having heard the news and heard the tape, sided with the Republican who bodyslammed the liberal reporter. The bodyslam made him more appealing to the voters. Said Bozeman’s James Baker: ”A lot of reporters get aggressive. And I guess, after the heat of a long campaign, people can lose tempers. But obviously I don’t endorse it, but I think that in some cases it’s understandable even if it isn’t forgivable.” Said Kalispell’s Vaughn Warriner: “And now the night before the election, what do they do? They bring some outsider in, barges in, causes a scene, and make Gianforte look bad, when it was his fault in the first place.”

Ben Jacobs’ MSNBC “Chris Hayes” appearance did nothing to sway the good people of Montana to his cause. The good people of Montana simply hated him so much that they elected the guy who violently threw him to the ground.

In Georgia, the Democrats spent record-breaking amounts of money to try to elect some lightweight named Jon Ossoff to Congress in a special election for Tom Price’s seat, but it backfired. A Republican named Karen Handel beat him with 51.9 percent of the vote even though she got less than 20 percent in the primary. The voters didn’t care much about her either way. They simply hated Jon Ossoff, who, it turns out, didn’t even live in the district he was running in.

This is President Donald Trump’s America, where the Fake News is on the run but too ignorant to realize it, where reporters like Dave Weigel, who post blatantly false information, finally have to apologize for it and be held accountable to the American people forced to imbibe their errors and fabrications.

So why don’t people believe the media now when they tell us that a Republican candidate is a bad person? Because we already know the media has no values.

The media is for killing babies, covering up for Clintons, starting nation-building wars in countries they’d never deign to fight in, and advertising pornographic gun violence in movies even as they fight to disarm the lawful citizenry. They undress women on their stupid reality shows and patronize women on their braindead daytime talk shows. And now, as we find, the truly bad people in the workplace aren’t the conservative Republicans they tell us to hate. The bad people are Matt Lauer. Harvey Weinstein. Democrats so high on their own moral self-satisfaction that they forget to practice any morality whatsoever. They are the ones who hurt and abuse others more vulnerable than them. They are the ones who have turned against God or whatever conception of basic human decency guides the lot of us. So their moral posturing rings false.

They thought we’d all just humbly sit back and endure their abusive disdain forever; after all, it’s what Conservative Inc Republicrats have always done. But after decades of being lectured, nagged, and insulted—scorned as ignorant, bigoted, hate-filled fools too stupid to be trusted to act in our own best interests, which they’ve always been happy to define for us—from their ivory-tower enclaves in NYC and LA, normal Americans are fed up.

And not just with the Democrat Socialist/Media combine, either; they also finally kicked Conservative Inc to the curb in favor of a cantankerous political novice finally willing to punch back twice as hard on their behalf, to borrow a phrase. After years and years of false Republicrat promises meant to obscure a total unwillingness to defend them and their values, the Normals at long last said to hell with all you, and to hell with all this and rejected business as usual in favor of long-overdue disruption of the tired old charade.

But as much justified anger as there is at both Uniparty wings, it’s perhaps the liberal Praetorian Media that inspires the deepest wrath, and rightly so. No matter which flavor of empty-suit hand-puppet occupies the Oval Office, Old Media is always right there—to prop up a Democrat Socialist with relentless propagandizing, and to keep any Republicrat placeholder keenly aware of his proper role by attacking him unceasingly, dishonestly, and hypocritically, by any means necessary. Their influence isn’t what it once was, to be sure, and continues to dwindle; their old kingmaker/gatekeeper role has been seriously undercut by an earthquake, sudden but long a-building, that they seem to have missed completely. But among the old guard politicians they still do hold some sway.

Maybe even worse for them, both in terms of their dwindling influence and the low regard Normals have for them, is that on the rare occasions when an Old Media “journalist” dares to venture out into the heartland to report on its incomprehensibly bizarre, barely-human inhabitants, the condescension fairly drips from them, and their confusion, discomfort, and wonderment at this alien landscape is palpable. The “journalists” assume that the subhuman hayseeds are so awed by their celebrity as to be blind to the contempt they feel for them, and I’m sure plenty of them are. But not all; at this point, I’d guess not even close to most. The Normals harbor a pretty deep contempt for the “journalists” too, and for far better reasons, although being polite folks they’re way more careful about letting it show.

Trump has lashed Old Media remorselessly and to great effect with the “Fake News” crop, and the Normals know he’s speaking nothing but the plain truth. Far from being alarmed or put off by it, Normals are enjoying seeing the liars called out, after having waited and wished for it for a long, long time. To compound the misery of the “journalists,” the past week’s blundering has rendered their sniveling outrage over Trump’s richly-merited scourging of them completely ludicrous:

This week alone, four big scoops were run by major news organizations — written by top reporters and presumably churned through layers of scrupulous editing — that turned out to be completely wrong: Reuters, Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, and others reported that the special counsel’s office had subpoenaed Donald Trump’s records from Deutsche Bank. They weren’t. ABC reported that Trump had directed Michael Flynn to make contact with Russian officials before the election. He didn’t (as far as we know). The New York Times ran a story that showed K.T. McFarland had acknowledged collusion. She didn’t. Then CNN topped off the week by falsely reporting that the Trump campaign had been offered access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails before they were published.

Forget your routine bias, these were four bombshells disseminated to millions of Americans by breathless anchors, pundits, and analysts, all of them feeding frenzied expectations about collusion that have now been internalized as indisputable truths by many. All four pieces, incidentally, are useless without their central faulty claims. Yet there they sit. And these are only four of dozens of other stories that have fizzled over the year.

If we are to accept the special pleadings of journalists we have to believe these were all honest mistakes. They may be. But a person might then ask, why is it that every one of the dozens of honest mistakes are prejudiced in the very same way? Why hasn’t there been a single major honest mistake that diminishes the Trump-Russia collusion story? Why is there never an honest mistake that indicts Democrats?

Easy: because they AREN’T “honest mistakes.” Their “mistakes” only ever cut one way—which all by itself militates against their being “mistakes,” and certainly not “honest” ones—and of late they capitulate and issue a “correction” of sorts only after having been dragged kicking and screaming to it: burying a mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded admission of semi- or non-specific “problems” near the bottom of page C37 (for those few newspapers still able to publish that many pages), after several days of complaints from people fully aware of what they’re up to. More from Limbaugh:

Therefore what Mueller is doing is not the investigation of a crime. What Mueller is doing is pursuing an impeachment. There is no two ways about it now. I didn’t have any doubt about it last week, but this perspective on this. So this brings us back to CNN. There is no evidence. You know what else? If we’re gonna suppose that there was collusion, that the Russians hacked or whatever — and that’s all it is — let me tell you what you get when there is no evidence of Russian hackery, when there is no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in this mythical hackery.

You know what you get? You get fake news. You get Brian Ross lying in a report about General Flynn’s plea bargain. Brian Ross lied through his teeth when he said that Trump, as a candidate, made Flynn call the Russians. Reuters and Bloomberg published a false report about a subpoena for Trump’s financial dealings with a German bank. That didn’t happen. CNN lies about Donald Trump Jr. getting early notice of emails posted on WikiLeaks with the encryption key to open the file.

That didn’t happen! Donald Trump Jr. got nothing in advance of anything that was made public. And then Dave Weigel of the Washington Post posted a phony photo of the Trump rally in Pensacola on Friday before people were even let in, pictures of empty seats. Weigel wanted people to believe that nobody cared about the Trump rally (be sure to hit the link; Trump’s response busting the deceitful moron is absolutely hilarious—M). That’s what you get. You get lying, fake news when there isn’t any collusion and when there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

I got a quick question for CNN and all the rest of you Drive-By Media types. You’re telling us these mistakes you’re making are honest. Yeah, you’re just trying so hard to be good journalists. Let me ask you: How many totally lying, erroneous, false, damaging, defamatory stories about Barack Obama ran in eight years? Hmm? How many times in your quest to be over-the-top fair and to get it right did you run defamatory stories that did damage to Barack Obama? Answer: Zero.

Which is just another little thing that gives their game away. Add in that it ain’t just one Fake News outlet making these “mistakes,” but several—ALL in the same direction, mind—and you can no longer deny that the Liberal Media is participating in our political process not as honest, at least reasonably impartial reporters of news as they claim, but as active advocates promoting one side over another. Not and be taken seriously, you can’t.

Anybody—ANYBODY—who still thinks after all this that they can rely on Establishment Media for useful information on the news of the day—presented fairly, offering coverage of all viewpoints, untainted by a concealed agenda—is nothing but a damned fool. Period fucking dot.

“Honest mistakes”? Don’t make me laugh. Those “mistakes,” and their slow, reluctant “corrections,” are all part of the larger attempt to overturn the last election, that’s all. The keg of gasoline here around which they’re waving matches all unawares, though, is the whole idea of the peaceful transfer of power. Once a source of great pride in this country, taken as a given even after a hotly contested election, it’s the bedrock of our system’s stability. But now it is being recklessly endangered, by the very fools likely to be most badly burned by the resultant conflagration.

Jesus famously said, “forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.” Same with these feckless fucktards—they truly know not what they do. Only they’re not seeking God’s forgiveness—He in His boundless wisdom not really being directly involved and all—and the people they WILL need to beg absolution from aren’t likely to be in a forgiving mood.

I’ve reiterated my long-held belief that if there is to be a second Civil War in this country, it will be gun confiscation that sparks it. But I’m beginning to think that there’s another possibility that just might suffice as well: a successful soft coup finally achieved by the Left and its propaganda wing that removes Trump from office on one or another of these Pecksniffian pretexts of theirs. Should they somehow contrive to pull it off at last, an uprising of some sort is far from inconceivable. A vast number of normal Americans are now fully awake to the nature and intentions of the forces arrayed against them, and the final confirmation of the removal of Normals’ right to a say in how they’re governed just might be the spark that sets off an explosion.

I would guess that it would begin as nonviolent protest both in Mordor on the Potomac and all over the country, but the potential for escalation to real violence would be pretty high right from go. If Antifa/BLM/Occupy/miscellaneous other thugs of the hard Left show up to deal out some of their trademark mob beatings, with the cops again quietly ordered by Democrat-Socialist city and state officials to stand idly by and let it happen…well, there’s really no telling where it all might lead.

But one thing I’m fairly certain of is that it would signal the start of open season on “journalists,” with no bag limit. Which I would have to consider a feature, not a bug. Tar, feathers, torches, and pitchforks would end up being the most trifling of their concerns, a best-case scenario.

In light of which, although I know it amounts to whistling in a hurricane and all, I’ll repeat my sage advice to them yet again: best be careful what you wish for there, Proggies. I’ll let Schlichter lay out the bottom line:

These are the same people who constructed, out of whole cloth, the narrative that we are somehow morally obligated to give up a red state Senate seat because Gloria Allred dragged out some sad-faced woman with a story and a yearbook. Except the yearbook was tampered with – just like the Roy Moore Truthers said. No, our glorious press didn’t uncover that lie. But then, the press didn’t want to.

What about the Washington Post and its alleged “scrupulous reporting?” Turns out it’s likely that this whole thing is a Jeb!boy hit job. No shock – the corrupt establishment has been working with the corrupt press to claw back the power we relieved them of since we rejected Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit. The Fredocons and liberal journalists want respect, but they deserve only contempt – and woke conservatives are delivering.

Say, who’s ahead on embarrassing corrections regarding the Russiafail fake scandal this week? WaPo? CNN? The Times? Because all we see are giant headlines about how this is the end for Trump, followed a few hours or days later by sheepish, page B-26 corrections and then hilarious tweets from Trump rubbing it in.

Mr. President, please never stop tweeting.

Seconded, with all my heart and soul. It’s not as if those fastidious Fauntleroys most distressed over the boorish unseemliness of it all were ever in his corner anyhow. Trump got to the Oval Office without heeding those dweebs; it would be an error most grievous to start paying attention to their agitated squeaking now. The payoff:

Here’s a lesson for our would-be moral instructors. See, the thing with moral authority is that you don’t get any more after you set fire to what you have. And our media/political/Hollywood elite’s moral authority is a raging inferno.

Well, now it’s time for America’s Normals to instruct you elitist jerks: We just don’t care what you say anymore.

Nope, not even a little bit. And if you devious, deluded lackwits DO somehow manage to gin up a way to get what you think you want and remove Trump from office…well, that’s when your REAL heartaches begin. For real, and for keeps.

You have been warned.

Share

So much for “moderates”

A completely brilliant piece from Daniel, wherein he perfectly crystallizes, analyzes, and explains an idea I’ve been groping around for for years now, but never could quite put my finger on.

The thing that must be understood is that moderates do not disavow radicals. Rather they bridge the gap between the radicals and the larger society, justifying their ends, and eventually their means, while pretending to disavow them. Radicals reject any dialogue. Moderates emphasize dialogue.

Moderates will verbally reject the means with which an end is pursued. Accordingly they will reject terrorism. They may even claim to reject the ends, such as an ideological dictatorship, but they will, in good fellowship, ask you to accept their premise which inevitably leads to the acceptance of both the ends and the means.

For example, moderates on the left and in Islam will ask you to accept that terrorism is caused by American foreign policy. Once you have accepted this premise, then you have partially justified terrorism and paved the way for accepting an “Arab Spring” that eliminates the consequences of American foreign policy by properly Arabizing and Islamizing the governments of the region.

Likewise, if you accept the premise that Israel’s presence in its ’67 territories is driving terrorism, then you have signed on to everything from BDS to the destruction of the Jewish State.

If you concede that crime and violence are driven by class and racial inequities, then you accept that the only way to end this “class war” is massive taxation and wealth redistribution through government intervention that addresses the root cause.

That is not the way it seems to most people. And that is why the “moderate” strategy works so well.

Once you have accepted the moderate definition of the root cause, you will inevitably be forced to accept the radical remedy. This is true across a spectrum of lower level policies. For example, accept that homosexuality is genetic and gay rights become the inevitable and inescapable outcome. That is how the root cause defines the outcome. And this is how moderates achieve radical goals.

The real threat is always the subversion of the moderates. The challenge then becomes the need to expose the false facade of the moderates. This leads to a push-pull struggle. The moderates cry that they are being unfairly victimized by hateful people. There are shouts of red-baiting and McCarthyism, profiling and bigotry. Their critics are paranoid and unhinged. The moderates even assert that there is something ugly and “Un-American” about asking them to account for their agenda.

And this is really the core argument made by the two allied subversive ideologies. It is “ugly” to expose their views, to quote them, to bring them to the surface. It is intolerant. It’s not the way that respectable people should behave. And the moderates, who pose as respectable people precisely to play on the weakness of the middle class for being respectable, understand that this is the ultimate weapon.

Respectable people do not accuse the friendly Imam on the block of belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood or promoting Jihadist texts. They do not accuse the cheerful teacher in the school whom everyone likes of pushing anti-American views on her students. That is not respectable behavior.

And moderates, who pretend to be respectable, excel at pushing the respectable shame button.

It doesn’t matter if it’s true. It’s ugly to discuss it. That is respectability simplified. It’s much better to talk about how much we have in common, to speak about how we can unite and make the world a better place. And the moderates have plenty of ideas in that regard. All of them involve accepting their premise of what the world’s problems are and how they can be improved by a series of proposals that would culminate with mass tyranny and murder.

Funny how it always seems to come down to that, ain’t it?

No kidding, folks, Greenfield really hit it out of the park with this one. In fact, it’s one of his best essays ever, I think. And that’s saying something.

Share

How they do it

Bogged down in pedantry and minutiae is a feature here, not a bug. In fact, it’s the whole point.

Senator Sessions will be testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee at 2:30 p.m. today. The event has not received as much fanfare as COMEY DAY did, but it will be watched by many who are hoping for a smoking gun or gotcha moment that will land President Trump and all his people in jail immediately.

We know one of the issues on which the committee will be focused will be Sessions’ two meetings with THE RUSSIANS and the mysterious, new third meeting in April of 2016. It’s important to get the facts straight before the inquisition committee meets so you are able to discern what is spin and lies and what is truth.

No it isn’t. What’s important is to realize they do nothing BUT spin and lie, and the truth is irrelevant.

Let’s talk about what the meeting with THE RUSSIANS in Senator Sessions’ office (“the second meeting”) actually means. Senator Jeff Sessions met with Ambassador Kislyak in September in his Senate office. That’s because he was a senator who sat on the Armed Services Committee, as well as the Budget, Environment and Public Works, and Judiciary Committees.

Sessions also met with the ambassador for the Ukraine prior to meeting with Kislyak; in fact, he met with 30 different ambassadors over an eight-month period.Senators regularly meet with ambassadors. Here is a picture of a meeting with Democrats Reed, McCaskill, and Landrieu and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. The media and the Democrats would have you believe Sessions’ meeting with an ambassador is out of the ordinary and exotic. It’s not; it’s part of his job.

Now I’m sure Liz thinks she’s doing important work here, unveiling the skullduggery and fraud integral to this whole manufactured circus. I’m even willing to consider the notion that maybe, in some very minor way that won’t matter one iota in two weeks’ time, she actually is.

But…well…dammit, NO. What she’s doing, in my view, is dancing to their tune. The Democrat Socialists/Deep Staters have been doing this sort of thing for years, and the Vichy GOPe has been going along with it far too willingly and far too long now for me to just assume they’re all merely stupid. We’ve seen this shitshow before, plenty of times. We all ought to know by now how it ends, and we certainly ought to know what the real motive behind this latest iteration is.

Trump ought to fire Mueller immediately—without a single word offering any explanation to anybody at all, preferably via Twitter. He ought to fire the shadowy Deep State troll who hired him, Rosenwhateverthefuck, too. He should probably instruct his employees at Justice to begin an investigation of Comey’s criminal leaks, and he also ought to see to it that Loretta Lynch is brought to justice for her collusion with the Clintons.

Yes, he can do all that. He probably doesn’t much want to, but if he intends to do any really effective draining of any swamps, he may have to. I would have probably picked the EPA or the State Department first before all this, but now Justice is looking more and more like a great place to start.

This whole “investigation” is nothing more than a sham based on a lie. It is a pretense, a fishing expedition to see if Trump’s enemies can either find, exaggerate, gin up, or stitch from whole cloth any excuse at all to either impeach Trump (extremely unlikely), hound him from office (again: unlikely), or simply tangle him up so thoroughly he can’t get anything done.

I don’t think that’s particularly likely either, since he’s been quietly beavering away and doesn’t seem much bothered by any of this nonsense so far. Seriously, consider: he’s removed us from the idiotic Paris “accords.” He’s put the Muslim nations in the Middle East on notice, in very clear terms, that they have some swamp-draining of their own to do, and they need to get to it. With a single Tweet (HORRORS!) he reduced London’s silky-smooth, too-glib, false-flag, jihad-supporting mayor to incoherent spluttering and a public endorsement of the repulsive notion that regular terrorist attacks are something big-city residents will just have to “get used to.” He’s cutting regulations like a fiend, as I mentioned the other day. A new coal mine has opened in Pennsylvania, the first one in decades.

No, he hasn’t repealed Obamacare; that’s a legislative matter, outside his proper purview, and not something he can do a whole lot about beyond advocating and lobbying hard for it—which he has done. His attempt to expand Obama’s travel restrictions on seven Muslim terror-sponsoring states has so far been stymied by politicized courts, for thoroughly specious reasons, and he needs to find a way around that, and get on with it.

But he has the entire Deep State apparatus trembling with rage and fear; he has the Democrat Socialists and their rabid, dysfunctional, America-hating constituency foaming at the mouth and revealing their true repellent nature every single day, to the disgust of real Americans who can finally see them for just what they are. He’s also exposed the Vichy GOPe collaborators for the double-dealing, fork-tongued frauds they’ve gotten away with being for so long.

With all that going on, I refuse to be distracted by a bunch of trumped-up hooraw about who Sessions did or did not talk to, when and where and what might have been said. Yes, the Russians tried to influence our elections; they’ve been doing it for decades, and they always will do it…and we do it too, all over the world. But there is absolutely no evidence at all that a single fucking vote was bought, stolen, hacked, erased, bribed into existence, or changed because of their efforts. NONE.

The whole bullshit Russia story was cooked up by Hillary and her team within a day of her humiliating defeat, to try to rationalize why she got her ass beat like a big bass drum. It has staggered on, zombie-like, because the Democrat Socialists and their constituency refuse to accept the results of the election, and will do anything at all to hang onto their illegitimate power. If there’s any election-stealing going on here, it’s them that’s doing it, right now. And they’re doing it brazenly, in broad daylight. And they’re doing it without the least apparent concern over what real Americans’ reaction might be should they somehow pull it off.

They’d better be damned careful what they wish for. Because the fact is, it isn’t just Trump they hate, and it’s not just him they’re trying to defy, disenfranchise, and dislodge. It’s US—the people who elected him to do exactly the things he’s been trying to do, whose agenda we endorsed by making him President. Ultimately, it’s our outlandish uppityness in imagining that we maybe ought to have some small say in how we’re governed that they’re trying to dispense with here.

Why, the AUDACITY!

I keep saying: it’s a coup they’re attempting here, nothing less. And while Trump is the legal target, it’s aimed at us every bit as much as him. They are violently opposed to the result of the last election; rather than accept it, they intend to overturn it.

But like I also keep saying: careful what you wish for, assholes. Because should you get it, you’ll very likely wind up getting a whole lot else shortly thereafter. And I feel extremely confident in asserting that you won’t like it nearly as much. I expect it will involve torches, pitchforks, tar, feathers, and rails for riding off to a midnight splash in the Potomac. It will probably move on to ropes and lampposts shortly thereafter. I doubt heads on pikes and drawing and quartering are entirely out of the question.

This far. No farther.

Share

How to avoid getting shot by the cops

Seems simple enough to me. But then, I’m not a rioting, looting #(Only)Black(Criminal)LivesMatter thug.

Break out your pencils, gentle readers, it’s time for a pop quiz. What do Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Walter Scott, Laquan McDonald, and Paul O’Neal have in common? Yes, they are all black men who died under controversial circumstances at the hands of the police, but you get only partial credit if your answer was limited to those facts. To get full credit, you must have included the point that they all would be alive today had they merely followed the lawful directions of the police officers who were trying to arrest or detain them.

Whatever the misdeeds of any of the police officers involved in these incidents, it remains a fact that even in those instances where the officers were charged with crimes, the officers had legal cause to detain the men who later died in the encounters. It was the decisions made by those men that set the fatal chain of events in motion. Yes, police officers are obligated to follow the law, but so is everyone else. When the police catch you dirty, the only wise choice – and the only legal one – is to put your hands up and do as you’re told. If Terence Crutcher and Keith Scott had done that, just like all the others mentioned above, instead of being martyrs to a discredited movement, they’d be unknown but alive today.

That’s about the size of it, yeah. You can whine about having to knuckle under to “fascist” cops all you like, but when the rubber meets the road, you’re gonna be a lot better off to stop when they say stop, freeze when they say freeze, and just generally do what they tell you when they tell you to do it, especially if you’re in a dicey neighborhood caught fair and square doing something you know you shouldn’t be. It might be “fair” or it mightn’t, but it’s certainly the way it is. And if you’re too stupid to know that, you just might end up getting shot. And shouldn’t be counting on a whole lot of sympathy from me when you do.

It all serves to remind me of this great and eternally relevant poster:


confused-statist-1.jpg
Or, if you like, my own version, from a post a while back. Careful what you wish for, libtards—lest you get it, both barrels, right full in the face.

Share

Surviving the riots

We all know there will be plenty of repeats of what happened here in Charlotte this week, particularly once Trump vanquishes Sick Hillary and sends the Clinton Crime Syndicate staggering off into the sunset for good. Vox posts a practical guide to escaping them intact, from Peter Grant.

You need to have a plan, at the first sign of such troubles, to get away from the riots before they get out of control. Make arrangements with family and friends, have bug-out bags and vehicles and plans in place (including sufficient fuel to get out of trouble without having to stop at a gas station, because they’ll be magnets for looters). Don’t wait until it’s too late. Far better to get clear of potential trouble, then return if the trouble doesn’t materialize, rather than wait until you’re sure there’s trouble, but not leave yourself enough space and time to get away from it.

That’s likely to be difficult once riots become established. A standard police tactic is to isolate the violence, establishing a perimeter to prevent it spreading. Police will wait at that perimeter until they can see the unrest ebbing, then move inward once again to re-establish control. That works for them, and helps to minimize casualties caused by them (and the political fallout from such casualties)…but it won’t help you if you’re trapped inside that perimeter. The rioters will be all around you, and you won’t be able to avoid them. That’s not a good place to be.

It sure ain’t. Vox follows up with a personal experience:

Peter is right about how easy it is to be taken by surprise, though. We were in Rome walking through the streets in a nearly empty quarter one day when we heard a dull roar. It was hard to tell what it was, or exactly from what direction it was coming. I was curious, since it could have been anything from immigrants to ultras, so my friend and I had the women and children stay back while we went to see what was going on. It kept getting louder, but there was nothing to see until we turned a corner to encounter a large mass of several hundred dark-skinned people who looked like Bangladeshis or Sri Lankans. They were loudly demonstrating against deportations or the lack of work permits or something, and while it wasn’t even remotely dangerous, I won’t forget the shock of suddenly encountering such a loud and overpowering mass of humanity without much in the way of warning besides that dull roar.

And I can attest that having a handgun wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. Frankly, a belt-fed .50 caliber might not have been enough without a minefield.

God might sort ’em out eventually, but you’re not likely to be able to kill ’em all yourself.

Share

Take heart, Part the Second

It ain’t over, folks. In fact, it ain’t even started.

Presidential races tighten up toward Election Day. The same people who brought you the inevitable President Jeb Bush are now bringing you the certainty of a Clinton coronation. But the election race begins the day after Labor Day, when Americans (at least the undecided ones) get down to the serious task of choosing who they’ll support for president.

Still — the polls, the polls! The mainstream media says the polls show this race is all over — everywhere. Shut ‘er down, no point in even holding the vote. You’d think America was North Korea, where the elections find the front-runner taking in 99.9879 percent of the vote.

But, you want polls? Let’s look at actual polls. The big, scary polls showing Clinton ahead by 10 or 12 points tend to get the most attention. But as of Friday, Clinton was ahead of Trump by only 6 points in the RealClearPolitics average of recent polls. Some of the latest polls put the two neck and neck. And it’s still August.

Still, Clinton isn’t running against Trump. She’s running against Trump, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who will each be on the ballot in all or nearly all of the states. When you factor in those two (hey, wait, what about “surging” Desperation Party candidate Ewan McGonigle?—M), neither of whom have a chance of winning, Clinton is ahead of Trump by only 4.5 points.

Yes, all this drama for a 4.5-point lead in August.

Of course, there’s still cause for concern, given that’s still probably within the margin of Democrat Socialist fraud. But there’s plenty more bracing cold water thrown in the face of unreasoning panic here, of which this one is maybe my favorite:

People also seem to forget that the only debates that have occurred have been in TV studios between Trump and Clinton surrogates, or between Trump surrogates and journalists. One of the keys to Trump’s victory in the primaries was his strong performance in the debates, where he relegated Jeb Bush from a giant to a lilliputian who, each debate — as Trump pointed out — was positioned further and further to the edge of the stage. Until, of course, he was off it entirely.

Yep. As I said, there’s plenty more, and you should definitely read it…and buck up. It all becomes clear when you recognize the “Trump can’t win” crowd’s stratagem for what it is: a desperate voter-suppression manipulation perpetrated in full-throated unison by both wings of the ruling-elite Uniparty.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix