Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Biology matters

Boys will be boys. Or girls. Or, y’know, whatever.

I’ve written before about how transgenderism destroys Title IX sports opportunities for girls and how this absurdly anti-science and anti-women stance will destroy women’s sports.

Shouldn’t even BE any “women’s sports.” Not anymore. Liberals worked very hard, for a very long time, to advance the ridiculous, reality-twisting idea that there is literally no difference between men and women. If that stupidity now clashes with their childish obssession with “fairness,” too damned bad for them. They should be forced to enjoy the fruits of their victory. They distilled this bitter cup of contradiction and folly themselves; now, let them drain it to its very last dregs.

Regarding hormones, men do not suddenly have more testosterone in puberty. To the contrary, boys, even in the intrauterine environment, are washed in different hormone concentrations than girls. They grow more quickly than girls. They’re different in babyhood. It happens again in toddlerhood. It happens finally, forcing secondary sex characteristics in puberty.

This is science. And then, these boys, who would be average athletes if they were to run, swim, wrestle, etc. against other boys, demolish the field because of their formidable, and unfair, biological advantages. The girls running against the boys know the difference.

Being a woman is not simply a matter of estrogen and progesterone. A woman’s hormones vary dramatically depending on her life cycle. For example, a woman’s testosterone elevates when she is pregnant. It also goes up proportionally against estrogen and progesterone during menopause. A female’s hormonal system is extraordinarily complex and ever changing. She can add more testosterone and growth hormone and even steroids to this mix but her bone density and structure, her brain, her lung capacity, muscle density, and on and on don’t magically change into a male’s.

Biological males cannot be women. Period. They can manipulate their hormones. They can receive breast implants. They can castrate themselves and mutilate their penises. None of these superficial changes can unwind the DNA helix.

All good, all true. But then things go a little sideways:

The solution to the dilemmas of the gender dysphoric child wanting to compete as the opposite sex is simple, but not easy: let them compete, but do not let them win. They have biological advantages over their female compatriots. A girl “transitioning” to boy and on testosterone, also should be allowed to compete but not win. Every race, match, etc. should automatically go to her competitor. Why? Because she is hormonally enhanced. A boy competing against a girl is hormonally enhanced. It’s not fair.

So what? What on earth could possibly be the point of allowing someone to “compete”…but not win? Doesn’t that sort of, I dunno, nullify the whole concept of competition?

No. HELL no. The very existence of “women’s sports” is discriminatory, segregationist, and sexist. It promotes inequality. Every athlete, regardless of gender or anything else, must compete on equal terms, on a truly level playing field, with no favoritism or distinction made according to gender identity. Only then will we achieve true equality. And that’s the most important thing of all, right?

Gender is a construct—a hateful, anachronistic holdover from a less enlightened era. Our betters have told us so, and we must accept their wisdom. So let us all embrace the new age of Progressivist enlightenment. Let us all finally take that last step into Liberal Utopia. Stop your whining about the “unfairness” of it all, girls; get out there on the field and take your lumps. This is the world the Left wanted, the one your feminist forebears made for you. Now you get to live in it too. Don’t let mere biology keep us all shackled to the old oppressive patriarchy and its restrictions, its degradation and denial of your boundless capability. Spread your wings and SOAR!

Remember to fly right on past all those chickens on your way up, and pay them no mind. They’re only coming home to roost, that’s all.

Share

HATE CRIME!

No hoax, this one.

Smollett has shown that the most absurd narratives imaginable will continue to gain credence because they fill a deep psychological, cultural—and, yes, careerist—need for millions in the country to believe that hate crimes are epidemic, that they are the currency of the Right, and that they can only be addressed by more government scrutiny of a particular class of victimizers such as the Duke Lacrosse team, the Covington kids, or Smollett’s mythic red-hatted Trump racists.

(A cynic might have advised Smollett to have first checked that the anticipated surveillance cameras under which he staged the attack were pointing in the right direction, and that he should have ensured his “Empire”hirelings did not buy their sundry assault gear—masks, hats, etc.—all at the same store or at least not on film, and that Smollett himself should have not written them a traceable check for their services, and that he should have written into his script antifreeze dousing instead of household bleach that freezes at about 5 degrees.)

In 2019 America, the number of those likely victimized far outnumbers the shrinking pool of likely victimizers. The rewards and publicity for being a concocted victim of a frenzied Trump supporter far outweigh the possible downside of fabricating the entire incident. As we saw with the Kavanaugh and Covington fiascoes, if a crime could or should be true, then it more or less is.

His farce is yet another example that it is now largely permissible to slur and smear millions of purported Trump supporters, as either defined by their stereotyped race and gender or their red hats (with or without a logo). As pundits and talking heads nearly wept on screen in their worries about future potential hate crimes that might now not be taken seriously, they abjectly ignored the real hate crime that had just occurred. In truth, Smollett had done his best to ignite some sort of popular racially driven vendetta against conservative white male voters, previously known as “clingers,” “crazies,” “deplorables,” and “irredeemables” who, our elites warn, smell up Walmart, gross America out with toothless smiles, and should be swapped out for new immigrants.

Given that the Smollett myth followed so closely after the Covington kids fiction, we can surmise that Smollett counted on two popular reactions: the left-wing public was still thirsty for more “proof” of MAGA white hatred, even if poorly scripted and logically implausible; and, second, Smollett was not much worried about any serious consequences if he should be caught once again in a made-up hate crime.

To paraphrase CNN anchorwoman Brooke Baldwin, who in careerist fashion immediately sought to gin up popular outrage over the Smollett “hate crime” attack: “This is America, 2019.”

The sad part is, even though nobody talks about it much anymore, “fake but accurate” is still a going thing, it seems. The sadder part is, she’s right: this IS America, 2019. But not in the way she thinks.

Share

Fake Noose!

Annnnd that’s a wrap.

CHICAGO — “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett has been charged with one count of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office said Wednesday evening.

Smollett is due in court in Chicago at 1:30 p.m. Thursday. Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said CPD detectives will make contact with Smollett’s legal team to “negotiate a reasonable surrender for his arrest.”

Aww, why not have a SWAT team kick in his door in the predawn hours, with assistance from about 130 Fibbies and a tank or three, as with that deadly-dangerous menace to the public weal Stone? Ehh, guess not. Meanwhile, this bimbelina flaps her arms hoping the truth will go away:

“Activists Masquerading as Journalists”: Why the Right-Wing Media Is So Furious About the Jussie Smollett Affair
A rush to judgment was endemic on the left. But the Smollett episode also exposes a complementary phenomenon on the right, specifically an ever-simmering resentment at being labeled the party of bigotry, or racial grievance, or discrimination, which many conservatives reject as a form of discrimination itself.

That’s because it, y’know, IS a “form of discrimination”—raw racist bigotry and hatred, actually, with no fakery whatsoever required—and the “ever-simmering resentment” is ENTIRELY justified.

Smollett LIED. His LIE was immediately and unanimously swallowed, spread, and endorsed by “liberals” eager to bash Trump, his supporters, and white males generally—for not just this phony “hate crime” in particular, but for their countless supposed atrocities throughout history. After a long, long list of similar fabrications aimed at smearing white males as irredeemable racists, rapists, brutal misogynists, plunderers, and opressors, now this woman scolds us for “seizing on” a bit of “awkwardness”: dismissing Righties for being “incensed” at decades of abuse, then trying to conjure out of thin air a vague moral equivalence between those who fomented the LIE and those who she claims were angered by it.

Hate to bust your bubble and all, sweetie, but I really don’t know anybody who was truly angry over this. Mostly, we’re amused. See, we don’t expect anything more from you lying, self-dramatizing shitlib assholes. By now we know from a whole hell of a lot of prior experience how to spot one of these bumbling vaudeville routines early on; we were just biding our time until this fish story fell apart just like all the others, and now that it did we think it’s fucking hilarious. No, we’re not “angry,” promise. We’re laughing at you. We’ll be right here waiting to bust a gut when the next epic FAIL from one of your hapless dolts rolls around, too. We know it won’t be long in coming.

Of course, there is a serious side to all this, along with some larger issues in train. Walsh connects the dots:

To make sense of the recent spate of hysteria on the Left, it helps to understand how their minds work—or, as they like say, connect the dots. The shortest route between an isolated instance (Jussie Smollett, John Wayne) and a knee-jerk cry of racism, sexism or some other pet -ism is from one neuron to the one directly adjacent to it in a progressive’s brain. Every event, even ones faked or misleadingly reported, must have both a political cause and a coercive resolution: the Narrative demands it. Amplified by social media, it’s driving us all mad.

Any random weather event can trigger cries of the apocalypse from the likes of Al Gore or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A putative but wholly implausible attack during the sub-zero arctic chill of a Chicago late night instantly is seized upon as proof of America’s incorrigible (and thus de-legitimizing) racial prejudice. A wrongly interpreted word, or gesture, or smile, even the use of a personal pronoun, is cause for alarm, insults, or legal action. J’accuse! has become the national motto as the Twitter tumbrels roll. Heads dutifully roll into the baskets as the Madame Defarges of the media click their knitting needles and fashion the next installment of the Narrative tapestry.

Connecting the dots means never having to accept an apology. All grievances must continue to be redressed, long after they have ceased to exist. But the Left cannot let them go, and use them as battering rams in their war on Western civilization. How different the fate of race relations in the aftermath of the Civil War and emancipation would have been had not the Democratic Party spent the next 100 years trying to overturn Grant’s victory. Indeed, Grant’s presidency, which was largely dedicated to ensuring and enforcing the rights of African American citizens in the teeth of implacable opposition from the Democrats, has been slagged off by left-leaning historians and only now is getting the reassessment it so richly deserves. And still the Democrats have the gall to raise the issue of reparations for slavery.

Wielding the simpleton’s version of Occam’s Razor, the dotty Left has a ready explanation for every social and political event. Donald Trump was not elected because the Electoral College gave him a majority of its votes, but because his voters were racists, sexists, white supremacists—Hillary’s whole “basket of deplorables.” For two years, they have been salivating for the conclusions of the Mueller investigation into the non-crime of “collusion” as payback for the lost election. They even went so far as to try and stage a soft coup involving the Justice Department, the FBI, and the Clinton campaign. When the final history of this fiasco is written, who will be surprised if all roads lead to Rod Rosenstein—the man who wrote the memo that got James Comey fired, and who then appointed Mueller at Comey’s urging in order to investigate…the firing of James Comey, among other things.

Sometimes the dots form a perfect circle of jerks.

And then, like Mardi Gras necklaces, someone pulls the string and down the beads come, pinballing off the walls of Twitter and Facebook and rattling around on the floor, propelling everybody headlong into the next imaginary crisis, the next hallucinatory outrage, the next manufactured frenzy over something or nothing at all. Facing the cliffs of their own lunacy, they howl in rage like King Lear, unable to bring reason to bear where emotion rules.

I included Mike’s link to the John Wayne thing above because it’s truly hilarious—perhaps the most sidesplitting example of Loony Left hysterics yet, after a couple of years that have yielded a bumper crop of ’em. One can only stand back in awe at how they manage to outdo themselves time after time after time.

Injustice update! It just ain’t fair.

The year is 2019. You’d think we’d be living in a progressive paradise by now, with energy-efficient trains crisscrossing the idyllic countryside, everyone being accepted for who they are—gay, bi, straight, or polygamous—and all people having equal access to free government breadlines.

But no. In the actual year 2019 that Trump has created, gay people are still being forced to attack themselves in the streets. Gay people, especially black gay people, have been so brainwashed by the messaging of Trump’s America that they are now hiring people to oppress them right out in the open.

This isn’t some third-world country where this is happening. This isn’t in some dystopian young adult fiction, where I get most of my political ideas. It’s here. It’s now. Every day, a gay person somewhere in this country hires a couple of Nigerian guys to make it look like he’s hated and oppressed.

We need to take a good, hard look in the mirror, America, and ask ourselves if this is who we want to be. We have allowed an evil movement of Trump supporters to take over our nation so effectively that we’re now paying people to dress up like them and beat us up. This won’t stand any longer. The time has come to say, “No more!”

May I suggest one of your nice urban riots—complete with arson, vandalism, looting, and assault against random innocent passersby? Y’know, your usual response to not getting your way.

Share

The talentless, prospering

Tucker unleashes another good rip. This one is a long ‘un indeed—a thorough takedown of execrable NeverTrumpTard tough guys Max Boot and Bill Kristol—but it’s a delicious read nonetheless. From the Kristol portion:

Under ordinary circumstances, Bill Kristol would be famous for being wrong. Kristol still goes on television regularly, but it’s not to apologize for the many demonstrably untrue things he’s said about the Middle East, or even to talk about foreign policy. Instead, Kristol goes on TV to attack Donald Trump.

Trump’s election seemed to undo Bill Kristol entirely. He lost his job at The Weekly Standard after more than 20 years, forced out by owners who were panicked about declining readership. He seemed to spend most of his time on Twitter ranting about Trump.

Before long he was ranting about the people who elected Trump. At an American Enterprise Institute panel event in February 2017, Kristol made the case for why immigrants are more impressive than native-born Americans. “Basically if you are in free society, a capitalist society, after two, three, four generations of hard work, everyone becomes kind of decadent, lazy, spoiled, whatever.” Most Americans, Kristol said, “grew up as spoiled kids and so forth.”

In February 2018, Kristol tweeted that he would “take in a heartbeat a group of newly naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings” who supported Trump.

Then, just to bookend Kristol’s Leftward transmogrification:


Once again, we go to Ace for the coup de grace: “True Conservatism never smelled so grifty.” And once again, I can only add: OUCH. Do tell us again all about exactly what Muh True Conservative Principles!™ might require from us, guys.

Share

Twitter twisters

Y’all know I ain’t a Twitter guy, and ain’t ever gonna be. Their obvious bias against us RightwingNaziDeathbeasts aside, I just don’t have much use for the damned thing, and can’t see why anybody slightly to the right of Stalin would subject themselves to the bannings, censorship, and general abuse they endure there. That said, though, I do sometimes run across good Twitter jibes and ripostes out there, and am happy to repost ’em here for y’all’s enjoyment when I do. For instance:


That’s good stuff right there, folks. As for True Conservative™ Trump-hater SE Cupp and her highly-cuckish Tweet—nicely ground into a fine powder and scattered to the four winds by Seton Motley above—Ace has a choice headline for her once-fine ass: “S.E. Cupp Isn’t Cute Enough Anymore to Get Away With Being This Dumb.” What can one say but: OUCH.

But wait—did I mention that the more things change, the more they stay the same just a moment ago? Why, yes. Yes, I certainly did.

Editors’ note: Jussie Smollett is now yet another hoax victim in the ongoing and endless narrative of the Unholy Alliance’s fake and self-made ‘hate-crimes.’ The leftist establishment media, doing its faithful Unholy Alliance duty, uncritically embraced and sensationalized Smollett’s elaborate “hate crime” story — of him being a victim of assault of white supremacist, homophobic Trump supporters. But, again, it turns out to be all untrue. In light of this new, but very expected, development, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to this escalating phenomenon of fake “hate crimes” that very conveniently serve the Unholy Alliance’s agenda.

We are therefore reprinting, below, Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s article, The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t, from the November 18, 2016 issue of The Daily Caller, which reveals how totalitarian movements portray themselves in order to gain power.

The ‘Hate-Crime’ Victims Of Trump Who Weren’t.
The deranged fantasy world of the totalitarian cry-bully.

To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. 

In between my ellipses is a long but no-way-no-how comprehensive list of fake “hate crimes” perpetrated by lying Lefty frauds. You’d think they’d learn eventually, after enough of these things have blown up in their faces. Sadly, though—pathetically, even—that looks like yet another of those things that, the more they change, the more they remain the same.

Update! Somebody put together a database of hate-crime hoaxes—page, after page, after page of ’em.

Share

Green Nude Eel

Robert Spencer sounds a cautionary note about Sandy’s Folly.

Democratic socialist wunderkind Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has been receiving torrents of ridicule for the “Green New Deal” program she unveiled with great fanfare and media adulation on Thursday, and it’s well deserved. But conservatives may come to find that laughter catching in their throats: as stupid as it is, and as disastrous as it would obviously be if it were implemented, many powerful figures on the Left aren’t laughing. And it’s not in the least impossible that they’ll bring that disaster upon the nation by trying to implement it.

Is she better equipped to be a bartender (which she was not long ago) than a member of the House of Representatives? Of course. But that won’t stop her rise. The Left ridiculed Donald Trump and called him stupid all through 2016, and he was elected president. What Ocasio-Cortez has on her side is the fact that powerful people on the Left take her seriously.

For all its talk (in the FAQs provided by Ocasio-Cortez’s office) of becoming able within the next few years “to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes” and providing “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work,” the most arresting passage in the entire Green New Deal plan is this: Nearly every major Democratic presidential contender says they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee.

Those Democrat leaders aren’t laughing Ocasio-Cortez out of the room for announcing a plan that includes the intention to “upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” They’re nodding their heads and signing on. They don’t think it will make them look just as dimwitted as Ocasio-Cortez to endorse a plan that calls for constructing “high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Those railway bridges connecting California with Hawaii, Australia, and Japan are going to be, like, awesome.

The Green New Deal as Ocasio-Cortez has presented it will never be implemented in full, because the United States would go bankrupt and a new civil war would break out before all of its recommendations could be put into place. But that won’t stop Democrats from moving in the direction of a unitary socialist state in which all means of production are in the hands of the government – for the good of the climate and the people, of course.

He’s certainly right about that. As I’ve said for years now: they won’t stop. They will have to BE stopped. Count on it…and don’t count AOC out just yet, either. As Spencer concludes:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her fanatical, totalitarian vision are likely to afflict the United States and threaten our freedom for the foreseeable future. Yes, the Green New Deal deserves ridicule, but those who are laughing should also pause to recognize what is coming.

Yep. Anyone living in a nation that elected Barrack Obama—twice—really can’t afford to be overconfident about what might lie in wait a bit further on down the road.

Share

The “Green New Dream (or whatever)”: bats in the belfry

One of the big problems with AOC’s Folly I haven’t seen much mention of so far is that it is by no means all about Climate Change (formerly Global Warming, formerly Global Cooling, formerly “the weather”). It’s actually a naked, headlong dive into straight-up communism. David Mastio provides a list of 55 promises tucked away in the Red Trojan Horse that have nothing to do with its purported rationale, winding up thusly:

Of course, we all want public transit to be clean and folks to have access to healthy, affordable food, but you can’t wave a magic wand to make it happen with a congressional resolution.

Claiming to solve one giant mess of a global problem like climate change with a revolutionary plan for change that doesn’t take into account basic economics, civil rights and democracy is dishonest.

Claiming to be able to solve that problem and every other problem you can think of at the same time is certifiable. 

Well, I mean, yeah. So how is this latest foray into La-La Land distinguishable from any other crackpot “solution” they’ve ever come up with? This ain’t just obstinate stupidity we’re dealing with here, it’s bug-fuck-nuttery. The real head-scratcher isn’t why insane people propose to do insane things. It’s why so many saner sorts don’t seem able to recognize cray-cray when they see it.

(Via Insty)

Update! Bluff, called?

So, given that legislation is not just supposed to be a campaign stunt but an actual practical code you intend to make into actual law, Mitch McConnell has announced he will schedule a vote on the “Green New Dream (or whatever)” bill and give Democrats the chance to express their support as actual legislators rather than as mere MSNBC/CNN bloviators.

I mean, yes, it’s a nonbinding resolution, but do they want this resolution resolved, or not?

Meanwhile, Congressman Ed Markey, the same Democrat who co-sponsored and jointly announced the “New Green Dream (or whatever)” with Alexandria Donkey-Chompers, now claims that scheduling a vote on it is a “Republican trick” which will “sabotage” the effort to have a “national conversation.”

Um: You know what’s usually a great time for a national conversation, Dummy? When Congress is preparing to vote on a piece of transformative socialist legislation.

Or did you not actually want that at all?

Y’know, I’m beginning to seriously wonder about that myself. What DID they hope to accomplish with this preposterous goatfuck, anyway? They can’t be deluded enough to really think any part of it is remotely achievable, right? Seriously y’all, they CAN’T. And even if any of these absurdities WERE workable, they would undo or damage one hell of a lot of established liberal pet projects and cherished schemes:

Unlike the Green New Deal, however, the mobilization required by the (WW2, which the GND is being likened to in both moral and practical terms) did not require rebuilding our entire energy infrastructure, retrofitting every existing building for energy efficiency, or trading our existing vehicle fleet for electric cars, more mass transit, and high-speed trains.

Achieving the Green New Deal’s objectives in ten years—or in 20 or 40—is clearly impossible. Even if hundreds of thousands of windmills, tens of millions of solar panels, and hundreds of millions of car batteries could be fabricated, the grid cannot operate on 100% intermittent and variable power—or even 50%.

One aspect of covering the landscape with hundreds of thousands of square miles of windmills and solar panels is that to do so would require suspending federal, state, and local environmental statutes, permitting procedures, and land use plans. Forget about the Endangered Species Act’s habitat protections and prohibitions on killing endangered birds and bats. The Clean Water Act’s wetlands protections will have to be overlooked. Environmental impact statements that now take years to prepare, years to move through the permitting process, and more years to litigate, are out the window. Wind and solar projects will have to be permitted in days.

One reporter at the press conference asked how the Green New Deal was going to turn out more successfully than the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, which narrowly passed the House in 2009 but then died in the Senate after widespread public opposition became apparent. Sen. Markey replied (at about 21:45 of the press conference video) that, “The difference between 2009 and 10 and today is the movement that has now been built, OK? We did not have that movement in 2009 and 10. This is now a voting issue across the country. The green generation has risen up….We now have the troops, we now have the money, we’re ready to fight.”   

You might have the troops—maybe. You do NOT have the money—there ain’t enough money in the entire damned world—and your biggest problem might turn out to be who you’re really fighting, and why. Because it all too obviously ain’t climate change; it’s US—the American people. And despite all your progress over many decades in subjugating and enslaving us, I don’t think there are as many of us so cowed and docile yet that we’re willing to just meekly roll over and let you take away our personal transportation, our jobs, our economic prospects, the electricity required to keep our homes comfortable and our refrigerators running, and our right to decide for ourselves what we’re going to have for dinner.

Share

Fake News is real!

And as always, it only ever cuts just the one way.

The Daily Beast on Wednesday falsely attributed quotes to the El Paso district attorney, even though no one from the DA’s office had communicated with them, according to a spokeswoman from the office.

In the story, The Daily Beast’s Pilar Melendez reported that El Paso District Attorney Jaime Esparza told the media outlet that he would not be pressing charges against an assailant who attacked the media during President Trump’s rally in El Paso, Texas, Monday night.

During the disturbance, BBC cameraman Ron Skeans was “violently pushed and shoved by a member of the crowd,” a BBC spokesman said.

“F— the media,” the man shouted before he was ushered out of the venue.

The Daily Beast initially reported that the Esparza told them that he would not be pressing charges against the assailant.

A Twitter mob predictably erupted in OUTRAGE! over this dastardly assault on “journalism” by a typical MAGA fascist thug—an assault which amounted to nothing less than a direct threat to all liberty, justice, and the inviolable sanctity of The People’s Right To Know…whatever the Enemedia decides to tell them, thankyouverymuch.

According to the Daily Beast’s initial report, Esparza said: “We are looking into the situation and the released video of the incident but we are not pressing charges at this time. If there are any changes to our course of action, we will inform the public.”

Just one leeeeetle problem, though.

But when PJ Media contacted the El Paso District Attorney’s Office for a comment on the story, a spokeswoman said Esparza did not talk to The Daily Beast at all, and that their information was inaccurate.

Duran told PJ Media that she is the person who releases statements on behalf of the district attorney and she had not spoken to anyone.

Ooops. The DA, by the way, happens to be a Democrat, leaving one to judge for oneself what the likelihood of her declining to vigorously prosecute a “journalist”-assaulting, MAGA-hat-wearing, Trump-loving fiend in (barely) human shape might be.

The Daily Beast has since changed its story to reflect what Duran told PJ Media: Trump Supporter Who Attacked BBC Cameraman at Rally May Not Be Charged: El Paso DA

They changed the article to say:

“We have not reviewed any material from law enforcement for charges at this time,” a district attorney spokesperson said on Tuesday. “No charges will be filed until we do.”

The Daily Beast did not respond to PJ Media’s request for a comment, but did add a correction at the bottom of the article saying, “This article has been updated regarding information from the District Attorney’s office regarding the status on possible charges.”

Well, that’s certainly big of them. Although it might have been more honest to say something along the lines of “This article has been updated to reflect the fact that we made the whole damned thing up.”

Egg spattered all over lying-lib “journalist” faces is always a pure delight, of course. But the story also seems to confirm that it isn’t open season, no bag limit on Enemedia “journalists” quite yet, more’s the pity.

Share

A terrible, no good, very bad week

For the Democrat-Socialists, that is. Which means a most excellent week for the rest of us.

If you are of the mind that President Trump is to blame for everything wrong and wacky in our politics, then last week was a very bad week for you.

The evidence begins with Trump’s very good State of the Union speech, where he was alternately conciliatory toward Democrats and ruthless in contrasting his policies with theirs. Reckless in their rhetoric and resistance, Dems make themselves vulnerable to charges that they support open borders, socialism and infanticide.

It doesn’t help that a lasting image of the speech was the women-in-white brigade scowling throughout, rising enthusiastically only to celebrate the president’s recognition of them.

For more proof that Trump is not the root of all madness, consider the spectacles Dems created in two states.

He may not be the root of it, but he damned sure drove ’em far enough around the bend so they can no longer conceal it. The good Rabbi Fisher calls ’em “bat crazy,” which as far as I’m concerned is being too polite to them by half with the omission of that one crucial expletive. “Bug-fuck nuts” works for me too, of course, although I understand that one being a bridge WAY too far for a man of the cloth and all.

f you have been walking quietly through the week, keeping this thought to yourself because you dare not express it to your clients, patients, customers, kids in northeast liberal-arts colleges’ social-sciences programs, or your coworkers, here is your validation: Yes, indeed — the whole lot of them are absolutely bat crazy. Smile at them as Nick Sandmann of Covington Catholic wisely did. But know quietly that you are correct in your political assessment, which — go figure! — makes you politically correct! They all are crazy.

I. Women in White Straitjackets
My first question:Who paid for the straitjackets? Did you and I get stuck paying for that one, too?

The various and sundry (and, after their recent Democrat Hawaii and Puerto Rico junkets, sun-dried) Democrat Congresswomen all showed up to the President’s State of the Union (SOTU) address wearing matching custom-tailored white straitjackets. Each outfit surely cost more than one or two thousand dollars, for custom fitting and professional tailoring. A D.C. hack would not accept anything less with your money. With some 90 Democrat women in Congress, they cost between $45,000 and $200,000 plus tax. Who paid? Yes, socialism is great until you run out of other people’s money. Will those outfits soon be donated to Christian charities and to Jewish Gemachs for the poor to be clothed? Don’t hold your breaths.

Heh. “Straitjackets.” Don’t know why on earth that one didn’t occur to me, but I like it.

Share

Suck up or die

And you thought the Virginia clusterfuck was bad.

  • The movie actor Liam Neeson, who I remember as a fine brooding Ethan Frome, explained to an interviewer how he’d worked up the anger for a film role he’s just recently performed. He’d recalled his feelings from an incident forty years ago, when a lady close to him was raped by a black man. The enraged young Neeson had gone out, presumably in London, looking for a random black man with the intent to kill him. Fortunately he calmed down before committing any violence. He’s spent the last few days apologizing and protesting that he’s not racist.
  • January 28th in a New York Times op-ed, Daniel Pollack-Pelzner who teaches English at liberal-arts Linfield College in Oregon told us that Mary Poppins is problematic—I’m sure that’s the right word, “problematic”—because in the classic movie version Mary deliberately blackens her face with soot. (Because she’s followed a chimney sweep up a chimney, but hey…) And in the original Mary Poppins books by Pamela Travers, 1930s to 1950s, characters use language about black people that we’d consider offensive in 2019, although nobody would have thought so in 1940 or 1950.
  • Gucci has been marketing an $890 black knitted top whose neck you can roll halfway up to your face, where is has an opening for your mouth, the opening featuring a red knitted surround that looks like big lips. This has caused outrage. [Gucci ‘deeply apologizes’ and removes from the shelves its $890 balaclava knit top after thousands on Twitter branded it ‘blackface for millennials’, Daily Mail, February 7, 2019] Gucci’s withdrawn the item and issued gushing apologies, affirming that— if I can get through the quote without throwing up all over my microphone —”We are fully committed to increasing diversity throughout our organization and turning this incident into a powerful learning moment for the Gucci team and beyond.”
  • Adidas brought out a new line of sneakers expressly in celebration of Black History Month. Unfortunately the sneakers are totally white. Twitterstorm! Adidas has now withdrawn the sneakers.

My first question, contemplating this nonsense: Are there  enough grown-ups in the Democratic Party to fend off the party’s radicals?

Strike that! My second question: are there enough grown-ups in the United States to avert our apparently remorseless slide down into babbling infantilism?

And look at the implicit anti-whiteness on display in these stories. The merest, most trivial slight is taken to be outrageously offensive to the fragile sensibilities of blacks, even if from decades ago, while viciously anti-white comments go unremarked—will, in fact, get you a job on the New York Times editorial board, as it did for Sarah Jeong. 

Well, yeah, but that’s diff’runt, because white people suck.

The place of white people in this drama: grovel, apologize, grovel, apologize, and plead pitifully: “I’m not racist!”

The astonishing thing to me is that so many whites have put up with this silly nonsense for so long.

Can’t blame ’em, really; they know they’re liable to get themselves lynched by the Diversity Mob if they complain about their whipping-boy status—figuratively for now, maybe, but eventually literally too. Best to just keep their heads down, keep their mouths shut, and keep on paying the bills for everything.

Share

Green No Deal

The Democrat-Socialist end-game.

It is not hyperbole to contend that GND is likely the most ridiculous and un-American plan that’s ever been presented by an elected official to voters. Not merely because it would necessitate a communist strongman to institute, but also because the societal costs are unfathomable. The risible historic analogies Markey and Ocasio-Cortez rely on, the building of the interstate highway system or moon landing, are nothing but trifling projects compared to a plan that overhauls modernity by voluntarily destroying massive amounts of wealth and technology. That is the GND.

While some of the specifics need to be ironed out, the plan’s authors assure us that this “massive transformation of our society” needs some “clear goals and a timeline.” The timeline is ten years. Here are some of the goals:

  • Ban affordable energy. GND calls for the elimination of all fossil fuel energy production, the lifeblood of American industry and life, which includes not only all oil but also natural gas — one of the cheapest sources of American energy, and one of the reasons the United States has been able to lead the world in carbon-emissions reduction.
  • Eliminate nuclear energy. The GND also calls for eliminating all nuclear power, one of the only productive and somewhat affordable “clean” energy sources available to us, in 11 years. This move would purge around 20 percent of American energy generation so you can rely on intermittent wind for your energy needs.
  • Eliminate 99 percent of cars. To be fair, under the GND, everyone will need to retrofit their cars with Flintstones-style foot holes or pedals for cycling. The authors state that the GND would like to replace every “combustion-engine vehicle” — trucks, airplanes, boats, and 99 percent of cars — within ten years. Charging stations for electric vehicles will be built “everywhere,” though how power plants will provide the energy needed to charge them is a mystery.
  • Gut and rebuild every building in America. Markey and Cortez want to “retrofit every building in America” with “state of the art energy efficiency.” I repeat, “every building in America.” That includes every home, factory, and apartment building, which will all need, for starters, to have their entire working heating and cooling systems ripped out and replaced with…well, with whatever technology Democrats are going (to) invent in their committee hearings, I guess.
  • Eliminate air travel. GND calls for building out “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.” Good luck Hawaii! California’s high-speed boondoggle is already in $100 billion dollars of debt, and looks to be one of the state’s biggest fiscal disasters ever. Amtrak runs billions of dollars in the red (though, as we’ll see, trains that run on fossil fuels will also be phased out). Imagine growing that business model out to every state in America?

And that’s just for openers. The trainwreck of lunacy only picks up steam from there: free houses, free food, guaranteed income for anyone “unable OR UNWILLING to work,” and the elimination of…no, really, folks…cows. Any ONE of these proposals ought to be enough to forever sink any political party putting such utter codswallop forth for serious consideration. But all of this—along with post-birth abortion, unrestricted illegal immigration, persecution of Christians and embrace of Muslim terrorist, promotion of gender dysphoria and mutiliation for children, among much else—are now cornerstones of the Democrat-Socialist agenda.

It’s nothing short of astounding, is what it is.

Update! Watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

The “Green New Deal” is not green at all. If anything it’s a raw, red deal. It calls for a government takeover of our wage, and of our energy, housing, health care and transportation sectors. It has more in common with Mao’s Cultural Revolution than it does FDR’s New Deal, which lifted millions out of the Great Depression.

Uhh, well, actually, NO. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
 
After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.
 
“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”
 
In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.
 
“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Policies which the Democrat-Socialists still cling to and revere, and will re-implement in a hot minute whenever they’re given the power to do so, without a moment’s regard for the damage done and the misery inflicted. My slight digression aside:

The demand for justice on the basis of climate change is upside down. The energy revolution did not cause the oppression of the frontline and vulnerable communities. Quite the opposite, it was at the core of the democratization of technology as Thomas Edison’s invention of the light bulb was not limited to the few but became universal to every household.

The moderately priced car created by Henry Ford helped create the middle class and later provided the near-universal mobility that enabled people to live in the suburbs and commute to work. While the oil industry was broken up to create greater competition, these energy driven inventions were at the center of transforming American life for everyone.

The very premise that America is the carbon fiend that needs to mobilize to this degree on its own is faulty as well. Carbon emissions from America have been declining, down 2.7 percent in 2016. Since 2011, carbon emissions from large power plants in the U.S. have declined by nearly 20 percent.

This plan is really a nifty piece of marketing to use the environment as a Trojan horse to justify socialism in America. 

Well, y’know, DUH. The chilling fact remains: this is who the Democrat-Socialists are. This kind of thinly-veiled power grab is what they do. Always, and forever. Full stop, end of story.

Share

Tough crowd

Been there, done that.

A popular country music star who was being continually disrespected during a performance Saturday in southern Texas has become the latest target of the far-left’s rage over the allegedly racially insensitive remarks he angrily said before he ended his performance early and stepped off stage.

Footage from the Pharr Events Center performance obtained by TMZ shows country singer Aaron Lewis sitting with his guitar at the front of the stage, patiently smoking a cigarette as he waits for the crowd to stop talking. After about 20 seconds, he finally speaks up.

“I’m only going to wait for so long, and then I’m going to say good night,” he says. “I don’t understand what you’re not getting. I know I have a microphone, so you can hear me. You’re not going to hear the song unless it’s this quiet. Do you get it?”

They didn’t get it. The crowd continued blabbering, and one audience member in particular loudly requested that Lewis recite one of his songs in Spanish.

I’m sorry, I don’t know how to speak Spanish. I’m American,” he replies, spurring loud cheering from some segments of the audience and loud jeering from others.

After roughly two more minutes of the crowd running its mouth, a fed-up Lewis steps up from his stool, unstraps his guitar and announces that he’s had enough.

“Thank you very much. Have a great night,” he says before stepping off stage.

Nothing particularly unusual about all that, of course. Stuff like that happens all the time, and as a performer you’re gonna face rude, indifferent, or downright hostile audiences now and again, with limited options for dealing effectively with them and somehow salvaging the night. It’s the aftermath that stands out here as…uhh, problematic.

While some on social media responded to the footage by praising Lewis for maintaining a calm composure in the face of such shameless insolence, the left pounced on him for his alleged racism.

Sigh. Of course they did. This response is unintentionally hilarious:


Whatever languages you might speak, honey, English clearly ain’t one of ’em. Oh, and fuck you too. Very, very much.

Share

Give ’em an inch

And they will ALWAYS take a mile. And then keep right on going, until they’re stopped.

Virginia Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran proposed a measure last week that would not only allow abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the state, but would also permit a woman to decide whether she wants to “abort” her baby as she is dilating and about to give birth.

Virginia Democrat Delegate Kathy Tran proposed a measure last week that would not only allow abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy in the state, but would also permit a woman to decide whether she wants to “abort” her baby as she is dilating and about to give birth.

Does it get worse? It’s liberals, Jake; why bother asking?

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam came under fire Wednesday after he waded into the fight over a controversial abortion bill that one sponsor said could allow women to terminate a pregnancy up until the moment before birth — with critics saying Northam indicated a child could be killed after birth.

Northam, a former pediatric neurologist, was asked about those comments and said he couldn’t speak for Tran, but said that third-trimester abortions are done with “the consent of obviously the mother, with consent of the physician, multiple physicians by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.”

“So in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

The intent of his comments was not clear. But some conservative commentators and lawmakers took his remarks to mean he was discussing the possibility of letting a newborn die — even “infanticide.”

Obligatory disclaimer, for the bazillionth time: I am NOT a blanket, strict, diehard anti-abortion in-all-cases-and circumstances-guy. But this…this…

This is no less than an abomination.

Horrifying. But remember, these baby-murdering ghouls—literally, now—are the “humane,” “compassionate” ones. If you don’t believe it, just ask them.

Share

Letter to Sandmann

Dov Fisher puts it in writing.

Dear Nick,

It now is some ten days since you unintentionally became famous, and you blessedly no longer are the news outside Covington. But I write to tell you that you are not forgotten for many of us whom you made proud. That includes me, an Orthodox Rabbi.

Obama once said that, if he had had a son, it would have been a boy like Trayvon Martin. Nicholas, I do not doubt that. Not for a moment. I would rather set the boys of CovCath as role models.

There is no way on G-d’s earth that anyone could have prepared you for the Crazy America that exists outside Covington. I know Covington very well; I lived a year in Kentucky and spent time in Covington every few weeks. Covington is a beautiful small city. I would bring my kids to see the Carroll Chimes Bell Tower and Clock depicting the Pied Piper of Hamelin in Mainstrasse Village. Nick, the “big shots” in New York City (where I used to live) and in Los Angeles (near where I now live) look down on Kentucky. They think you guys are a bunch of small-town redneck hicks. That is how they myopically view the whole gorgeous state of Kentucky. But that is because they do not know what they do not know. Covington is a beautiful city with beautiful people in a beautiful state. In Manhattan, by contrast, the intellectuals need to have four door locks on their apartment entrances that they have to lock and unlock, one-two-three-four, just to get in and out, because they are afraid of break-ins and being mugged. They have special “police locks” that not only get bolted into their front doors but into the floor, because crooks still break through the other three door locks. It’s like living in “Fauda.” When they travel on their overcrowded, over-priced, always-late, often broken down subways, they keep their eyes shut or focused on the floor because they are taught never to look anyone in the eye since he might be crazy and kill them if he thinks they are looking at him. By contrast, in Covington everyone is friendly and trusting. In Kentucky, people greet strangers openly and welcome outsiders warmly. It is safe to look at people in the eye in Covington. So it turns out that people in Covington are a lot smarter, and New Yorkers are a lot stupider, than either group thinks. In Covington, a country boy can survive.

New Yorkers in the Left Media cannot understand why CovCath boys like you would smile in the faces of people like that lying phony Native American “Vietnam Vet.” That is because in New York they never would have smiled at him in the first place, figuring he might have a knife or a tomahawk, so they would have run away from him. The Left Media do not understand a culture where you actually look people in the eye, smile their way, and stand your ground.

New Yorkers are trained for situations like that — to start running away: maybe he has a knife, maybe a gun, maybe a hatchet. But you are from Covington, so you proudly stood your ground. You did not back away. You demonstrated the best of the Covington Catholic education you have gotten by standing your ground and just smiling at him. That smile said: “I am here in peace. I am not going to be incited into escalating your menacing confrontation. So you can go on beating that stupid drum of yours all day, Ringo, but I am not going to back off, nor will I be drawn into a fight. Because I am here to support life and the rights of the unborn.”

Besides, how could you even know what or who he is? An Indian? But he does not even look like Elizabeth Warren.

Umm, ouch. Read the whole thing; the good rabbi has done truly outstanding work here. His point about Obama’s ersatz “son,” the martyred Saint Trayvon of Dindu, is especially apt. Y’all know I only rarely transcribe links in the pieces I excerpt here, as an incentive to click on through to check out the original article if nothing else. But I felt that one was important enough as a useful reminder to include it.

Share

Short, sweet

A succinct old-school fisking from a venerable OG blogger.

Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface. “Fact: The photograph shows coal miners’ faces covered in soot. The context of the photograph is not the issue.”

It’s not an issue because — let me repeat myself — you’re a pathetic attention-seeing idiot who doesn’t care about facts.

“At the downtown Phoenix restaurant, my concern that the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored.”

Your concern deserved to be ignored because — let’s be clear here — it’s a really stupid concern, born of a deep desire to feel important and offended and powerful.

“The operators of that downtown restaurant can choose to take the photograph down, leave it up or create a title card with an intention statement. No matter their decision, I think the photograph should be taken down — sacrificing one image for the greater good.”

Making you feel more powerful isn’t “the greater good.” In fact, empowering people who are, let’s be clear again, pathetic attention-seeking idiots who don’t care about the facts and are desperate to find something to be offended about, is horribly destructive to society.

And while we’re at it, your desire to ignore the “context” ignores these men’s lives, their sacrifice, and their suffering to superimpose your own pathetic, attention-seeking idiocy, erasing their lived experience in support of your own momentary striving for importance. It’s patronizing and, dare I say, privileged cultural appropriation. Apologize at once.

Click on through to see who our mystery OG is. Although when I mention that, in comparison with his usual familiar style, this post is an extended polemic, you’ll probably be able to guess easily enough. And when I add that whenever this fellow lets it rip, it damned sure rips, you’ll know right away.

As for apologizing: since all we’d get is another of those smarmy “sorry if you were offended” non-apologies, I’m willing to forego it as a pointless waste of time.

Share

Goodbye Gillette

Looks like I picked the wrong right time to start sniffing glue stop shaving.

GilletteGoodbye.jpg


I decided a month or so ago to grow another beard because A) I was bored; B) I hate shaving anyway, and do this now and then for a brief while; and C) the young ‘un, having seen me pretty much exclusively with one configuration of facial hair or other for the first five or so years of her life, always seems to like it when I grow one, and I hadn’t in a good while. Plus: D) it’s cold outside.

But with Gillette’s ill-considered and insulting SJW outburst against masculinity, my timing seems to have been unusually propitious this time around. So after threatening it for years and years and never following through, this is now my goal, and I am no longer joking:

billy-gibbons-and-the-bfgs.jpg

What the hell, a feller could do a lot worse than emulating Billy Gibbons, I figure, for all kinds of reasons.

The sad thing is, Gillette really DOES make the best razors, and always has. Their Fusion Pro, the one I’m holding in the pic, is no more nor less than the absolute best shaving gear I’ve ever had the privilege of using, although the blades for it are hellishly expensive. Schick (shudder) is just cheap copycat junk; don’t bother even bringing those Big Bag 0′ Bic nightmares up at all to me; and after trying several electrics over the years, well, sadly…no. So I fear my coerced Gillette boycott is gonna sting a lot more than the Red Lobster one ever will, or could.

But whatcha gonna do? Sooner or later, we gotta decide we’re just not gonna play docilely along anymore when Lefty decides to step on our faces. Refusing to fork over any more of our hard-earned when shitlib-run corporations sniffily insult us is certainly small potatoes when it comes to vengeance, I admit. But you gotta start somewhere.

Since I mentioned Billy above, this is a fine time for a little ZZ action.



My kid loves this song even more than she does beards on Daddy, and quite rightly so. I’m raising her right on 70s classic rock and such-like, among other styles and genres, and the Little Ol’ Band From Texas is among her very favorites. Every time we play this video at home we do the crazy-legs dance during the guitar solo’s second pass. And then we just laaauuuugh and laugh.

Axis of Irritants update! Schlichter says: retoxify masculinity.

Much as I advocate global warming, I am a strong proponent of toxic masculinity. It’s also known as “masculinity.”

Risk-taking.

Ferociousness.

Independence.

These are the qualities the SJWs want to wring out of us. Why? Because these are the qualities they cannot overcome. They want us weak, passive and obedient. That’s how they get power. Some bloated Trigglypuff screaming about the male gaze can’t force us to do anything. Sure, a lot of them have weight on us, but if we laugh at them and simply say “No” to their demands, they’re stuck. Are they going to go get a rifle and make us? 

Nope. They have to talk us into surrendering, or really, pester us into surrendering. Which means talking us out of the uppity, aggressive, no-damns-given masculinity that is the last obstacle to their fussy, naggy domination.

Don’t be fooled by the “toxic” qualifier – all masculinity is toxic to these human weebles. What they call “toxic” is really the essence of freedom. It’s toxic all right, but to their goals, not ours. Masculinity means freedom from them and the puffy, non-binary utopia they dreamed up because that’s the only world in which such losers could be anything more than a sorry punchline.

Actually, the “masculinity” they decry as “toxic”—rape, bullying, thuggishness, hoggishness, discourtesy, taking unfair advantage of the helpless—isn’t masculinity at all, but its opposite. All those things are reflections of weakness, in truth, and real men neither tolerate nor indulge them. They’re not representative of true masculinity, but of that which true men resist, oppose, and defy. But there’s another way of looking at the Gillette ad:

Although the message aligns with current ideas of “toxic masculinity” and the concept of “rape culture” in which progressive feminists argue men are taught they can do, say, and get away with whatever they want, I saw a different message. The ad is telling a story of respectful, confident, moral young men taught self-respect and self-restraint from their fathers.

The image of a father teaching his son how to shave has become an iconic portrayal of the unique bonding between a father and son and the importance of that relationship on a young man’s development. The ad wants the audience of men to reflect on their behavior and consider the influence they have on their sons. The problem is, the cultural perspective behind the ad caused the very issues it is trying to address.

While the progressive scoffs at this line of reasoning and has for a very long time, the truth is everything they lecture us about proper male behavior today, they aggressively shamed out of society a generation ago. This is simply what happens when the father’s authority in family life is denounced, shamed, and cut out altogether.

To make men better, the reasoning goes, you must shame away all remnants of the barbaric masculine past. It is assumed that our grandfathers’ generation represented the worst of sexism and violence, and society has slowly moved forward since. They don’t seem to realize the men they want for their sons today belong to the exact generation they worked so hard to erase.

Men do not become more compassionate and responsible citizens by renouncing their masculinity and embracing feminism. The culture of obscenity, meaningless sex, and perpetual adolescence is the result of failing to develop masculinity within men. The excesses, abuses, harassment, and violence we see as a social concern are the consequences of young men lost and left to their own devices.

Boys are not lost because of toxic masculinity; they are lost because their fathers have been taken away from them and they cannot figure out how to fill that void with anything but rage and shame.

Agree with this assessment or not, I can’t really see how boys having “two mommies” is going to fix things. Certainly, all these decades of seeing men and fathers mocked as hapless, ineffectual, stupid, incompetent buffoons on TV hasn’t done anyone any good.

Masculinity isn’t a sickness update! This one is locked up behind WSJ’s Iron Curtain, unfortunately, so Glenn’s excerpt is all I can give ya.

In my practice as a psychotherapist, I’ve seen an increase of depression in young men who feel emasculated in a society that is hostile to masculinity. New guidelines from the American Psychological Association defining “traditional masculinity” as a pathological state are likely only to make matters worse.

True, over the past half-century ideas about femininity and masculinity have evolved, sometimes for the better. But the APA guidelines demonize masculinity rather than embracing its positive aspects. In a press release, the APA asserts flatly that “traditional masculinity—marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression—is, on the whole, harmful.” The APA claims that masculinity is to blame for the oppression and abuse of women.

The report encourages clinicians to evaluate masculinity as an evil to be tamed, rather than a force to be integrated. “Although the majority of young men may not identify with explicit sexist beliefs,” it states, “for some men, sexism may become deeply engrained in their construction of masculinity.” The association urges therapists to help men “identify how they have been harmed by discrimination against those who are gender nonconforming”—an ideological claim transformed into a clinical treatment recommendation.

The truth is that masculine traits such as aggression, competitiveness and protective vigilance not only can be positive, but also have a biological basis. Boys and men produce far more testosterone, which is associated biologically and behaviorally with increased aggression and competitiveness. They also produce more vasopressin, a hormone originating in the brain that makes men aggressively protective of their loved ones.

The same goes for feminine traits such as nurturing and emotional sensitivity. Women produce more oxytocin when they nurture their children than men, and the hormone affects men and women differently. Oxytocin makes women more sensitive and empathic, while men become more playfully, tactually stimulating with their children, encouraging resilience. These differences between men and women complement each other, allowing a couple to nurture and challenge their offspring.

Modern society is also too often derisive toward women who embrace their biological tendencies, labeling them abnormal or unhealthy. Women who choose to stay home with their children can feel harshly judged, contributing to postpartum conflict, anxiety and depression.

What’s unhealthy isn’t masculinity or femininity but the demeaning of masculine men and feminine women. The first of the new APA guidelines urges psychologists “to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms,” as if biology had nothing to do with it. Another guideline explicitly scoffs at “binary notions of gender identity as tied to biology.”

From a mental-health perspective, it can be beneficial for women to embrace masculine traits and for men to express feminine ones. Every person will have some mix of the two. But that doesn’t change the reality that women tend to be feminine and men tend to be masculine. Why can’t the APA acknowledge biology while seeing femininity and masculinity on a spectrum?

Two possibilities spring to mind: 1) the APA is now fully-converged Leftist organization, and since the attack on masculinity is part and parcel of the Left’s ongoing FUD campaign to destroy the traditional American notions of family and gender, they’re just participating in it as one would expect, or 2) they’re a bunch of fucking quacks going along with the dominant PC ethos as a sort of defensive-crouch atonement for their many years of officially defining homosexuality as psychological deviance and disorder, for which the Left has never really forgiven them.

Share

Gonna need another wall

Portland shows us the way to liberal Utopia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous is the only way that anything works in Portland.

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

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

The escape from Portland has begun.

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

Share

TRUMP MUST BE IMPEACHED NOW!

Unfit for office.

In the fall of 1968, Donald J. Trump received a timely diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels that led to his medical exemption from the military during Vietnam. For 50 years, the details of how the exemption came about, and who made the diagnosis, have remained a mystery, with Mr. Trump himself saying during the presidential campaign that he could not recall who had signed off on the medical documentation.

This is it? This variation on the old “chickenhawk” canard is really all they have left now? Walsh says:

Etc., etc. As part of their ongoing proctological examination of Trump and his family (including its deceased members), the Times and other Democrat media outlets have thrown all prior journalistic standards to the wind and will now report rumor and hearsay uncritically, just as long as they help in furthering the Narrative of Trump’s unsuitability for office. In the quoted passage above, I have highlighted in bold the weasel words that indicate there is no proof of the thesis being outlined in the story itself, but also that the reader is expected to draw the politically correct conclusion — that Trump’s deferment for bone spurs was the result of a favor from a doctor who may have owed Trump’s father a favor himself. That Dr. Braunstein, like Fred Trump, is dead is a feature, not a bug.

Well, I guess we can now look forward to seeing Mueller sink his fangs into this too, as part of his open-ended, neverending investigation of “Russian collusion” in the 2016 election. Hopefully, the Democrat-Marxists will include it as part of their articles of impeachment also, if only to underline once and for all what a complete farce our national political circus has become. This part of the NYT’s squalid hit piece is especially annoying to me:

The fact that a candidate seeking the presidency received military deferments or otherwise avoided fighting in Vietnam is not unusual. Voters have shown themselves willing to look past such controversies, electing George W. Bush, who served stateside in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam era, and Bill Clinton, who wrote to an Army R.O.T.C. officer in 1969 thanking him for “saving me from the draft.”

As I wrote here years and years ago: Bush did not “avoid” Vietnam by “serving stateside” in the ANG. For one thing, he had been trained to fly an aircraft—the F102 Delta Dagger—that was being phased out of service before his training period was even done. For another, serving in the Air Guard was by no means a ticket out of the Vietnam War; many AG units fought there, including Bush’s. For yet another, Bush actually tried to enlist in a special program for deployment there but was turned down on the grounds that his training wasn’t complete and he didn’t have the 500 hours flight time required. Thus:

The point of this discussion is that the military record of George W. Bush deserves a fair treatment. Bush has been criticized for avoiding service in Vietnam, though the evidence proves that the Texas Air National Guard and its F-102 pilots where serving in Vietnam while Bush was in training. Bush has been criticized for using his family influence to obtain his assignment, but the evidence shows that he successfully completed every aspect of the more than two years of training required of him. Bush has been criticized for pursuing a safe and plush position as a fighter pilot, but the evidence indicates the F-102 was a demanding aircraft whose pilots regularly risked their lives. Bush has also been criticized for deserting the Guard before his enlistment was complete, but the evidence shows he was honorably discharged eight months early because his position was being phased out.

This is not to say that there exist no points of contention in Bush’s record worthy of criticism. There are indeed some irregularities from April 1972 to May 1973 that indicate he may not have completed his responsibilities as a National Guardsman. However, these allegations have been fully investigated in the past and were found to lack credibility. Both the New York Times and the Boston Globe investigated Bush’s military service and concluded that “Bush logged numerous hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called ‘weekend warriors.'”

So, just another pantload of the usual lying-liberal bullshit, then. Clinton, on the other hand, remains the same old draft-dodging scumbag he always was. Sorry for the digression and all, but like I said, it still annoys me. And since they’re still using the same sleazy tactics they were back then—and still succeeding with them—it’s still relevant.

Share

Disconnected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that doesn’t make both sides equally wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

More estrogen, stat!

Yeah, this is a perfectly normal, stable, mentally-healthy person here.

It’s an amazing time to be alive, full of wonder and terror and confusion all mixed together in a soup of “what could possibly happen next?”  that keeps us all on our toes. Today’s dose of insanity comes from a viral video of a transgender man who had a testosterone-fueled meltdown because someone called him “sir” in a GameStop in Albuquerque, New Mexico (video below). The minimum-wage employee who took the brunt of the all-male rage-a-thon should win Employee of the Year for trying his hardest to diffuse the situation.

It’s interesting that his first outburst is at a woman standing off camera who calls him “sir,” as if a woman, who can clearly see for herself what she is looking at, should have to cater to a man’s particular fantasy and properly “gender” him according to his wishes and not according to her own eyeballs. This is the kind of insanity the left wants to foist on biological women in the locker room. Can you imagine encountering him when you’re half-dressed and scared? Yikes.

The employee is going to be under fire if I know anything about the outraged tranny mob, so buckle up for a smear campaign to get him excused from his position and rendered unemployable anywhere else. This is despite the fact that he apologized to this tantrum-throwing man several times and began calling him “ma’am,” as requested. If you’re a six-foot-tall 200-pound man who likes to be called “she,” shouldn’t you have some compassion for others around you who have no idea? For all the guy behind the counter knew, maybe it likes to be called “xe” or “they.” How is anyone supposed to know? (And it is more than a little humorous that he pulled out the “I’ll show you a sir” line when it suited him to be a tough guy.)

The other problem here is the idea that one person can force others to comply with his personal fantasies. This man, who wants to be seen as a woman, is living in his own fantasy where he demands that others not involved in the same fantasy take part in it. This is not what a free society looks like. Mister Roid Rage (as I’ve taken to calling him in my head) has a right to live how he pleases and dress how he pleases but he does not have the right to force free people around him to take part in his internal delusions. If he wants to be around people who will look past the obvious and call him “her,” then he should go to drag bars. But if he’s shopping in the real world, he should expect that normies are gonna normie and call a man a man, not to belittle, but because that’s the reality.

Actually, I suspect it’s more likely that they really weren’t sure WHAT the hell this guy was supposed to be, and blurted “sir” more or less reflexively, without much forethought or intent at all. They were in the presence of a damned big weird-ass dude in a dress, speaking in a deep, masculine voice. He was agitated, confrontational; it was obvious at a glance that this wasn’t somebody any normal person would want to have any interaction with at all. In fact, he was precisely the sort of unbalanced whackjob almost all of us would go a good bit out of our way to get away from—the kind of unnerving Bedlamite any city-dweller knows not to make eye contact with at all, ever. Have a look and tell me different:




Far as I’m concerned, this toxic, dangerous freak shouldn’t even be allowed to run around loose and unsupervised. Guess that opinion makes me “transgenderphobic” or something, I dunno. Don’t care, either.

As for the ongoing campaign to force demented, hair-triggered freaks like this down everyone’s throats as perfectly normal or natural, just slightly “different,” it’s all part of a Soviet-instigated project to undermine and weaken the US by sowing FUD and chaos in direct challenge not only to traditional American values and norms, but to the accepted definition of certain words and concepts—a project now being faithfully carried on and even expanded by our own homegrown Marxists. If that sounds far-fetched, even paranoid, to you, I’ll refer you yet again to Eric Raymond’s two seminal essays on the topic.

And if it STILL puts your credence to the test, consider this: how many Leftards do you think will hail this lunatic as a “hero” for xims’ “courage” in standing so firmly against bigotry, oppression, and hate?

Yeah, there ya go.

On the other hand, just for contrariness’s sake, if ever there was someone who could really use a stiff daily jolt of estrogen to keep him relatively docile and dial back the rampant testicle-juice aggro somewhat, it’s probably the guy in the video. I’d bet the locals who have to deal with him on anything like a regular basis would be quite willing to have their taxes pay for it, too.

Share

The personal EVERYTHING is political

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

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

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

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

Share

Easy-peasy

All this confusion and angst over such a simple, obvious fact.

Two Princeton groups recently held an event celebrating menstruation where students were told that menstrual periods are not limited solely to women, and that people other than women can menstruate. However, the groups refused to comment or expand on this argument. Princeton feminist groups contacted by The College Fix also declined to discuss the issue.

At the recent “Menstruation Celebration,” hosted by Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice and Princeton Students for Gender Equality, the organizations were “urging people to stop referring to menstruation as a women’s issue, since transgender and non-binary people get periods as well.”

Menstruation, a monthly biological event in which the uterus sheds its lining if there is no embryo present, is widely understood by biologists and scientists to be a phenomenon that affects only females.

“Widely understood”? It is to laugh. Since the definition of “female” can be reduced to “homogametic (ie, two X chromosomes), ovaries, fallopian tubes, and a uterus,” then mentally-ill people such as “transgenders” and “nonbinaries” who possess those characteristics are, BY DEFINITION AND ACCORDING TO SCIENCE, female, and their fantasies, desires, and/or delusions be damned. The only—ONLY—exceptions would be true hermaphrodites, which are quite rare.

Why, oh why, do libtards hate Teh Science™ so?

Then we lapse into some real hilarity:

Neither Princeton Students for Reproductive Justice nor Princeton Students for Gender Equality responded to repeated requests for comment from The College Fix on the position that individuals other than women can menstruate. The Fix also asked the groups whether or not other topics commonly seen as “women’s issues,” such as abortion, should no longer be referred to as such.

Princeton is home to a wide array of women’s and feminist groups. The College Fix reached out to several of these organizations to see if they had differing opinions on menstruation being strictly a women’s issue. All eight organizations failed to comment, including the Princeton Association of Black Women, Princeton for Women in Politics, the Graduate Women of Color Caucus, Women’s Political Caucus, Wym’on Stage, and SpeakOut.

Well, naturally. You microaggressed ’em, dude. That always sends ’em screaming off to their safe spaces to curl up into a fetal ball and tremble for a few hours.

The umbrella organization for these feminist groups, the Princeton Women*s Center, has lately promoted LGBT ideology in its programming and events. This past October, the Women*s Center began coordinating two “Queering the Color Line” events each month to create “an affirming space for LGBTQIA Students of Color to meet and share a meal.”.

Explaining why the Women*s Center uses an asterisk rather than an apostrophe in its name, the organization writes on its website: “When you come upon an asterisk in your reading, you recognize it as a [sic] indication that there’s something more to learn. We use the asterisk to suggest that we are much more than our name implies: the Center is not just for women nor is it just about women. We welcome and engage persons of all genders here, including genderqueer, nonconforming, transgender folks, and cisgender men.”

Like I always say, you just can’t parody these goofballs anymore. Lucky for those of us who still occasionally try, though, they’re doing it themselves.

Share

Dem JOOOZ!

An oldie but goodie from Derb, wherein he reviews a treatise by Kevin McDonald making the standard-issue, Mark-1 Mod-0 complaint about the Jews controlling everything, and destroying it all for their own Jew reasons.

The Culture of Critique includes many good things. There is a spirited defense of the scientific method, for example. One of the sub-themes of the book is that Jews are awfully good at creating pseudosciences—elaborate, plausible, and intellectually very challenging systems that do not, in fact, have any truth content—and that this peculiar talent must be connected somehow with the custom, persisted in through long pre-Enlightenment centuries, of immersing young men in the study of a vast body of argumentative writing, with status in the community—and marriage options, and breeding opportunities—awarded to those who have best mastered this mass of meaningless esoterica. (This is not an original observation, and the author does not claim it as such. In fact he quotes historian Paul Johnson to the same effect, and earlier comments along these lines were made by Arthur Koestler and Karl Popper.) MacDonald is very scathing about these circular and self-referential thought-systems, especially in the case of psychoanalysis and the “pathologization of Gentile culture” promoted by the Frankfurt School. Here he was precisely on my wavelength, and I found myself cheering him on. Whatever you may think of MacDonald and his theories, there is no doubt he believes himself to be doing careful objective science. The same could, of course, be said of Sheldon, Rhine, Kinsey, et al.

It is good to be reminded, too, with forceful supporting data, that the 1924 restrictions on immigration to the U.S. were not driven by any belief on the part of the restrictionists in their own racial superiority but by a desire to stabilize the nation’s ethnic balance, which is by no means the same thing. (In fact, as MacDonald points out, one of the worries of the restrictionists was that more clever and energetic races like the Japanese would, if allowed to enter, have negative effects on social harmony.) MacDonald’s chapter on “Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy” is a detailed survey of a topic I have not seen discussed elsewhere. If the Jews learned anything from the 20th century, it was surely the peril inherent in being the only identifiable minority in a society that is otherwise ethnically homogeneous. That thoughtful Jewish-Americans should seek to avoid this fate is understandable. That their agitation was the main determinant of postwar U.S. immigration policy seems to me more doubtful. And if it is true, we must believe that 97 percent of the U.S. population ended up dancing to the tune of the other three percent. If that is true, the only thing to say is the one Shakespeare’s Bianca would have said: “The more fool they.”

Similarly with MacDonald’s discussion of Jewish involvement in the Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Empire and the many horrors that ensued. This was until recently another taboo topic, though the aged Alexander Solzhenitsyn, presumably feeling he has nothing much to lose, has recently taken a crack at it. I believe MacDonald was driven by necessity here. Having posited that Jews are out to “destroy” (this is his own word) Gentile society, he was open to the riposte that if, after 2,000 years of trying, the Jews had failed to accomplish this objective in even one instance, Gentiles don’t actually have much to worry about. So: the Jews destroyed Russia. Though MacDonald’s discussion of this topic is interesting and illuminating, it left me unconvinced. As he says, “The issue of the Jewish identification of Bolsheviks who were Jews by birth is complex.” Paul Johnson gives only 15-20 percent of the delegates at early Party congresses as Jewish. If the other 80-85 percent were permitting themselves to be manipulated by such a small minority, then we are back with Bianca.

The aspect of Macdonald’s thesis that I find least digestible is his underlying assumption that group conflict is a zero-sum game rooted in an evolutionary tussle over finite resources. This is not even true on an international scale, as the growing wealth of the whole world during this past few decades has shown. On the scale of a single nation, it is absurd. These Jewish-inspired pseudoscientific phenomena that The Culture of Critique is concerned with—Boasian anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Frankfurt School, and so on—were they a net negative for America? Yes, I agree with MacDonald, they were. Now conduct the following thought experiment. Suppose the great post-1881 immigration of Ashkenazi Jews had never occurred. Suppose the Jewish population of the U.S. in 2003 were not the two to four percent (depending on your definitions) that it is, but the 0.3 percent it was at the start of the Civil War. Would anything have been lost? Would America be richer or poorer? Would our cultural and intellectual life be busier or duller?

It seems incontrovertible to me that a great deal would have been lost: entrepreneurs, jurists, philanthropists, entertainers, publishers, and legions upon legions of scholars: not mere psychoanalysts and “critical theorists,” but physicists, mathematicians, medical research- ers, historians, economists—even, as MacDonald notes honestly in his new preface, evolutionary psychologists! The first American song whose words I knew was “White Christmas,” written by a first-generation Ashkenazi Jewish immigrant. The first boss I ever had in this country was a Jew who had served honorably in the U.S. Marine Corps. Perhaps it is true, as MacDonald claims, that “most of those prosecuted for spying for the Soviet Union [i.e., in the 1940s and 1950s] were Jews.” It is also true, however, that much of the secret research they betrayed to their country’s enemies was the work of Jewish scientists. The Rosenbergs sold the Bomb to the Soviets; but without Jewish physicists, there would have been no Bomb to sell. Last spring I attended a conference of mathematicians attempting to crack a particularly intractable problem in analytic number theory. A high proportion of the 200-some attendees were Jews, including at least two from Israel. Sowers of discord there have certainly been, but on balance I cannot see how anyone could deny that this country is enormously better off for the contributions of Jews. Similarly for every other nation that has liberated the energies and intelligence of Jewish citizens. Was Hungary better off, or worse off, after the 1867 Ausgleich? Was Spain better off, or worse off, before the 1492 expulsions? “To ask the question is to answer it.”

Now, Kevin MacDonald might argue that he, as a social scientist, is not obliged to provide any such balance in his works, any more than a clinical pathologist writing about disease should be expected to include an acknowledgment that most of his readers will be healthy for most of their lives. I agree. A scientist, even a social scientist, need not present any facts other than those he has uncovered by diligent inquiry in his particular narrow field. He is under no obligation, as a scientist, to soothe the feelings of those whose sensibilities might be offended by his discoveries. Given the highly combustible nature of MacDonald’s material, however, it wouldn’t have hurt to point out the huge, indisputably net-positive, contributions of Jews to America, right at the beginning of his book and again at the end. MacDonald has in any case been fairly free in CofC with his own opinions on such matters as U.S. support for Israel, immigration policy, and so on. He is entitled to those opinions, but having included them in this book, his claim to dwell only in the aery realm of cold scientific objectivity does not sound very convincing.

This is, after all, in the dictionary definition of the term, an anti-Semitic book. Its entire argument is that the Jews, collectively, are up to no good. This may of course be true, and MacDonald is entitled to say that the issue of whether his results are anti-Semitic is nugatory, from a social-science point of view, by comparison with the issue of their truth content. I agree with that, too: but given the well-known history of this topic, it seems singularly obtuse of MacDonald not to try to calm the troubled waters his work is bound to stir up. 

Of course he’s obtuse: he’s just another Jew-hating crank grinding away on that same old worn-out wheel—a guy who sees a big hooked nose and a yarmulka lurking behind every problem or setback. It’s exactly the same sort of easy, comforting deflection practiced by the dismaying number of black Americans eager to blame Whitey (or the Chinks, or the Mexicans, et al) for all their woes. People who really, truly believe that all the world’s problems can be laid at the feet of a sinister cabal of Dem JOOOZ! are intellectually lazy at best, and should probably get out more.

(Via Zman)

Share

Coulter cucks out

Aesop rips her high, wide, and deep.

Poor Ann Coulter. After another epic pointless rant about how President Trump is “gutless” and “cares nothing about a wall”, then the “gutless” President bends Congress over, refuses to sign a stop-gap spending bill without funding for a wall, and squeezes a $5B last-minute concession out of the House of Representatives.
 
Y’know, like presidents who are serious about something do.
 
It must suck to be nothing but a shrill harpie with no clue about how the government actually works, and then go on the biggest bitchfest of this administration, to the delight of only the liberal Trump-hating media (but I repeat myself), and then be shown to be 180 degrees out from reality in less than 48 hours.
 
If only President Trump had vowed to shut down the government over this issue, berated the Democrat leadership about it publicly, on camera, and finally wrung concessions out of the legislative branch, and outgoing House Speaker Quisling.
 
And then there’s the small matter of whose job it is to get a wall built.
 
Ann Coulter, former law clerk in the Eighth Circuit, and Michigan Law School grad, yet total constitutional blithering idiot:

“Article I, Sec. 7: All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur on Amendments, as on other bills.”

ZOMG! It’s almost as if there were some sort of separation of powers, or some such shit. WhoTF knew???

Maybe Ann was sick the day they covered the US Constitution in law school…?

If Ann Coulter voted for Trump because she thought he could seize the government, and rule as Caesar, god-like, from the Oval Office, or thought he was going to pay for the wall out of petty cash and poker winnings himself, she’s a world-class fucktard.

Meanwhile, find me her scathing rejoinders to Paul Quisling Ryan and Bitch McConjob’s dithering on a wall, non-stop, any time in the last two years.

Go ahead, post them all.

I’ll wait.

Wait, what?
Nothing?
You’re sure about that?
How can that be…?

Wow, it’s almost like she’s the one who claims to be conservative, but can’t seem to get her foot out of her mouth when there’s a whole do-nothing GOP Congress who voted for wall funding twelve times – until they had a president who’d actually build a wall.
And then all took early retirement rather than facing the wrath of the voters.

Yeah, seems to be a lot of that sort of thing going around these days. His point ahout Trump having no real power as President to build the wall—since the power of the purse is a function of the House, as explicitly spelled out in the fucking Constitution—is well-taken, seeing as how I’ve said so myself here I don’t even know how many times. That bit about Trump seizing power and ruling as a Caesar, though, is one with which I must quibble a mite; sad to say, things are getting to the point where I almost wish he’d do just that.

As for Coulter, out of all the sad cases of NeverTrumpTard derangement currently extant out there, hers just might be the most disappointing. Her bare-knuckles bashing of libtard fuckwittery and dementia in years past was always amusing, at least. But Aesop is right: she’s aligned herself firmly with the conserve-nothing “conservative” class, and it would seem whatever usefulness she might once have had has now come to a screeching, smoking halt.

Share

Reality bites bitten

Wahddya, some kinda science denier or something?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh.

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

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

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




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

Share

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

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

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

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 Š Mike Hendrix