Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Occam’s Razor cuts surpassing fine

Deep, too.

Perhaps more ominously, this post from the Carlos Slim Journal, demanding Trump be dragged from office and hanged in Lafayette Park suggests the Left’s war on civilization is just getting started. Most people will focus on the rank hypocrisy and dishonesty, but the real focus should be the warning. The Left organized a wide scale conspiracy to rig the last election. The FBI and DOJ are currently running a wide scale conspiracy to hide their ongoing efforts to remove Trump from office and stonewall Congress.

As much as our side jokes around about Pinochet, it is the Left that may be plotting a coup in order to install an authoritarian government. Just look at the organized effort to ban people from the financial system. David Horowitz has just been un-personed by MasterCard and Visa. In the modern age, if you want to wage a civil war, gaining control of the banking system is the first step. Then you take over the internet. Without money or a means to reach a mass audience, fighting back in a civilized way is impossible.

That last bit is important. Most people are willing to fight the good fight until it means coloring outside the lines. That’s the water’s edge for most of the people the Left sees as their enemy. It’s why the Left is always trying to provoke or invent a backlash. It provides them with cover to scare the normies and use any means necessary to “defend our democracy!” As is always the case, the Left seeks to turn civilization’s virtues into vices they can exploit to undermine society. Your reasonableness is their best weapon.

The thing to understand with the Left is that they are reactionary. Team Obama came up with the scheme to rig the last election and when this became apparent to Team Clinton, they reacted by howling about “Russian hacking.” In other words, they immediately began to project their own hated activities onto others. Remember that it was the Left that started the Fake News idea, only to have people point out that the lefty news organs were nothing but fake news. The same was true of the AstroTurf chants over the Tea Party.

What all of this most likely means is that the Democrats are quietly working on their plans to impeach Trump as soon as they gain control of the House this fall. They have upped Pelosi’s Thorazine dosage so she does not blab about it during interviews, but the Left can’t help but get ahead of themselves, hence the NYTimes post. The plan is to impeach Trump in 2019 and then count on the NeverTrump loons in the GOP to join in and force the Senate to remove him. Given the nature of the GOP, this is a good bet.

This is a bit of a meandering post, but the basic point is that it is a mistake to take the Left’s chanting at face value. It’s not just that they lie. Ideologues always lie. It’s that they are psychologically incapable of concealing their actions. Again, that old self-hatred gets the better of them and they start dropping hints via projection. For two years now, the Left has been trying to convince us that Trump is a dictator, who plots with foreign agents to “harm our democracy.”  That should be read as a warning about what comes next.

That’s what puts the Left’s howling about a civil war in perspective. They have been waging a civil war on the rest of us for a couple of years. They have normalized the idea of using public companies to strip people of their right to participate in public debate. They have normalized the idea of stripping people of employment due to their politics. They are now proscribing people because they hold the wrong opinions. Banning people from breathing is next. The only thing missing is a coup and a dictator.

If they can manage to pull off the coup, they’ll find the dictator easily enough; the Democrat Socialist ranks are chock-full of eager aspirants.

Our current contretemps is what brought Occam’s famous Razor to my mind: at what point does the Razor—the simplest explanation is usually the correct one—demand acknowledgment that events and/or situations that might once have easily been dismissed as “conspiracy theories” have become the only way of making sense of them?

As for Z’s “good bet” impeachment assertion, I can’t really disagree with it, much though I might wish to. Rudy Giuliani, bless his stout heart, had something blunt to say about the response to a phonus-balonus impeachment coup that the DC Swamp critters really, really need to think carefully about, but won’t:

In an interview with Sky News Rudy Giuliani claimed there was “no reason” for an impeachment and called Mr Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen “a liar”.

“You could only impeach [Trump] for political reasons and the American people would revolt against that,” he said.

Absolutely, positively true and correct. And all specifically because the Democrat-Socialist Party and the whiny bitches of the Progbrat Left refuse to accept the results of any election they don’t win; having become so accustomed to their longstanding lock on power, the loss of it has driven them bugfuck nuts. The Deep State GOPe, along for the ride as usual, doesn’t intend to let their also-ran consolation prize of perks, privilege, and payola go without a fight, either.

In sum, the Swamp critters want their status-quo business-as-usual back. If they want it badly enough to risk an actual mass uprising by better than half the damned country against them to get it, let them continue on this path and they will almost certainly get themselves one. We’ll just see how much they like it.

Share

Socialism gets RESULTS!

Y’know, the same old ones it always does.

Higher Minimum Wages Blamed for Closure of Iconic NYC Coffee Shop Where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Worked
On Monday, Ocasio-Cortez paid what is probably her final visit to her former employer—because the Coffee Shop is closing later this year—and posted a sweet, nostalgic note about it on Twitter.

What Ocasio-Cortez failed to note is that the Coffee Shop is shutting its doors for the last time, at least in part, because of New York City’s rising minimum wage.

“The times have changed in our industry,” Coffee Shop owner Charles Milite told the New York Post last month. “The rents are very high and now the minimum wage is going up and we have a huge number of employees.”

In other words, one of the very progressive policies that Ocasio-Cortez is riding towards a seat in Congress—she has called for a $15 federal minimum wage, up from $7.25 currently—has had very real consequences for people she probably knows fairly well. Unlike Ocasio-Cortez, it’s a safe bet that most of the roughly 150 people who work at the Coffee Shop won’t land a job in public office when they lose their current jobs in October.

Will that make the progressive darling rethink her stance on the minimum wage? 

Of course it won’t. It just HAS to be capitalism’s fault somehow—and just never you mind that we haven’t had anything remotely resembling capitalism in this country for at least fifty years, if not a lot longer than that. To twist an old movie tagline a bit: socialism means never having to learn a goddamned thing.

The Devil’s own update! Related? You bet it is.

The minions of the Left will never stop in their efforts to undermine the Republic. They will try everything — historical revisionism, bald-face lies, blatant slander, racial discord, judicial usurpation of presidential authority, political witch hunts, voter fraud, illegal immigration, climate change, green energy, media disinformation, open borders, transnational globalism — to impose a vision on the world that in every attempt, without exception, has led inexorably to tyranny, state-sanctioned murder, economic collapse and human misery.

The lessons of history have no meaning for them. They regard themselves as uniquely exempt from the past, as if they will triumph where their predecessors have miscarried and aborted. This is why the Left cannot be treated with or engaged in reasonable discourse. No counter-argument, no matter how factual, how meticulously researched, how rational or sensible, can ever hope to gain purchase on minds steeped in ideological prejudice or influence hearts shadowed by moral darkness.

Its mandate is Luciferian, as Saul Alinsky in the dedication to his influential and seditious manual Rules for Radicals has made clear. His Lucifer is not Milton’s. It is Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro and other such be-slimed specimens of humanity — not a fallen angel but a risen devil. It is George Soros and Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, “Prada socialists” who would bring a great nation to ruin. It should not be permitted to operate unhindered under the rubric of democratic freedom. If it cannot realize its diabolical mission by revolutionary violence, its intent is to erode a democratic polity from within.

This was well understood by the cultural Marxist Antonio Gramsci who, realizing that economic Marxism and the labor theory of value were a dead letter as an engine for revolution, advocated the long march through the institutions, subverting a nation through the gradual infiltration and ultimate annexation of its institutional and cultural foundations: the schools, the media, the judiciary, the entertainment industry, and the political establishment.

Regrettably, the Left has largely succeeded.

THAT’S gotta be the understatemen of the century.

This is why it is a catastrophic error to regard the Left and its outriders — Liberals, Progressivists — as comprising a legitimate political movement. It is not. It is a force for evil wherever it trains its ideological weaponry and needs to be institutionally quashed. It is the very antithesis of what we once understood as classical liberalism, under whose tolerant protection it will undo every good that liberalism ever accomplished. John Locke and John Stuart Mill will have been superseded by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Maximilien Robespierre.

We cannot temporize with a totalitarian dispensation and hope to arrive at a modus vivendi with it. Lucifer is cagey and will use our good intentions against us. He will deceive and eventually corrupt us. The Luciferian enterprise must be put to rest, not by fashionable lament and verbal hand-wringing but by determined political, legislative and institutional action. 

It’d be nice to think that that program might work, but it won’t. It’s becoming clearer with every passing Leftard outrage against decency, freedom, and civilization itself that it’s going to take killing them—a LOT of them—if we’re ever to be truly rid of the scourge they represent.

SOS update! Again: related? Oh HELL yeah. In fact, it’s more than just related; it’s the same damned story. It always is.

As Brazilian troops move toward the Venezuelan border to sort that hell out, and Argentina of all places takes Venezuela to the World Court for crimes against humanity, and the U.S. sends out the USNS Comfort to aid thousands of Venezuela’s starving, sick refugees desperately huddled in Colombia, there’s obviously a whirlwind coming that that socialist regime is overdue to reap.

Economically, they’ve just committed suicide, with dictator Nicolás Maduro’s socialist solution for the country’s economic meltdown a simple matter of lopping five zeros off the virtually worthless currency, as if that will fix the five-digit-going-on-a-million-percent inflation, devaluing it 95%, pegging it to a made up crypto-currency that’s even skeezier than bitcoin, known as the “petro,” and raising the minimum wage 6,000%, a move that will shut down pretty much every private business left in Venezuela, given that businesses cannot raise prices.

We are looking at complete mayhem.  Even the Castro dynasty in Cuba, which rules through collective economic ruin, hasn’t achieved anything on the scale of this lunacy.  The Castros only squandered a leading global sugar industry, not the world’s largest oil reserves.  It’s as if the Maduro regime is at war with economics itself: the regime doesn’t like what the economic forces are telling it about its bad socialist decisions, so it shuts down the economy altogether, and that’s the solution.

They’re not at war with economics; they’re at war with reality. Again: as always.

Share

AT LAST: Russia-collusion/election-rigging smoking gun FOUND!

And it’s pointed directly at the head of the Grand Wizard of the Coup Cucks Clan himself.

In his online appeal for money after being fired this week, disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok credited an unlikely source to vouch for his victim status: The Weekly Standard.

At one time a leading conservative magazine, the Standard declared last month that Strzok’s plight was merely an “overwrought tale of bias” and the case against him is “just sound and fury.” The article brushed off Strzok’s actions as “several bad judgment calls” and blasted Congressional Republicans for continuing a criminal investigation into the now-unemployed G-man.

Strzok is following only 32 people on his newly-verified Twitter account. Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of the Standard, is one of them.

So, what’s with the fanboying between the Standard—an allegedly serious publication dedicated to advancing conservative principles—and a corrupt government bureaucrat who embodies everything the conservative movement fought against for decades?

Julie Kelly has done some excellent journalistic work here—REAL journalism, not the kind we’re all too accustomed to. I’ll quote from it extensively here, because…because…well, because I just can’t help myself, dammit.

I found an article in the Standards archives this week that might explain why. On July 24, 2016, just days before Strzok helped launch a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Kristol gave Strzok and the Obama Justice Department a big assist from the anti-Trump Right by posting a flawed and questionably-sourced article. “Putin’s Party” is compelling evidence that Kristol and the Standard were far from mere sideline observers as the Trump-Russia collusion scam took shape in the summer of 2016.

At the very least, the timing of the article suggests there was careful coordination between the central players—including the Hillary Clinton campaign—and Bill Kristol to derail Trump’s candidacy just weeks before the election. But the article’s content also serves to raise alarming questions about the claims by many Republicans that “conservatives” had no knowledge of or involvement with the Christopher Steele dossier.

Kristol’s article hits on every single one of the Simpson-Steele talking points: Trump forced the GOP to water-down language on the Ukraine in the party’s platform (it didn’t happen); the Russians were behind Wikileaks’ release of the DNC’s hacked emails (unproven); Trump encouraged foreign powers to interfere in the election (he didn’t); and Trump would not honor U.S. commitments to NATO (an overblown assessment of Trump’s NATO criticism nearly all the Republican candidates made). He listed a handful of unknown Trump campaign associates who would soon become household names, including campaign manager Paul Manafort; national security advisor, Lt. General Michael Flynn; and foreign policy aide Carter Page. (Strzok and the FBI formally opened their investigation into the three men—and campaign aide George Papadopoulos—on July 31, 2016.)

The content of Kristol’s piece closely mirrored reporting by other news outlets at the same time. (Lee Smith wrote about how the Fusion-planted media echo chamber evolved before the election.) But despite the flimsiness of the accusations, Kristol took his advocacy a step further.

Did he ever. Which oughta be enough to send you off with a quickness to peruse the rest of it. Bottom line:

Unfortunately, there are still some conservatives who trust Kristol and the Standard fairly to report on the Trump presidency and Republican Congress. It’s important that the public fully understands what role Kristol and his publication played—and continue to play—in fueling the biggest political corruption scandal in American history.

Kristol asks a lot of questions on Twitter. It’s time for him to answer some now.

Meh, why bother? He’ll only lie about his key role in the most damning and damaging political scandal in American history. Hats off to Kelly anyway, for her truly great work in digging up this whole bait-shop’s worth of worms.

Share

Relentless

At what point do we draw a line under this and call it what it truly is: government-endrosed and -abetted harrassment and persecution of a member of a hated religion to deny his Contitutionally-protected (supposedly) right to freely practice and express his beliefs?

In June, the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, issuing a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the commission had compared his decision to religious arguments in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.

Now, the commission is again going after Phillips for declining to create a custom cake — this time a cake celebrating transgenderism. On Tuesday night, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian law firm that represented Phillips before the Supreme Court and helped him gain an important 7-2 victory, filed a federal lawsuit against the commission to forestall action against Phillips.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner declared in a statement. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

On the very day the Supreme Court decided to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop (June 26, 2017), a caller asked the bakery to make a cake with a pink inside and a blue outside, celebrating a gender transition from male to female. The shop politely declined, but Phillips believes that the same lawyer, on other occasions, requested that he create other custom cakes with messages that violate his faith — a cake celebrating Satan and a cake with Satanic symbols. The lawyer, a man identifying as a woman, goes by the name Autumn Scardina.

Shortly after the Supreme Court gave Jack Phillips his win, denouncing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for “religious hostility,” the state began to investigate Phillips again, finding probable cause that he had discriminated against the transgender lawyer who Phillips believes placed the call.

In other words, the horribly-misnomered Colorado “Civil Rights” Commission—a mangling of language so staggering in its grotesquerie as to shatter credulity—is nothing more than the exclusive plaything of a single obssessive psychotic freak.

That’s your tax dollars at work, Colorodans. Which means that now, it’s your move.

To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

All well and good, I guess. But it couldn’t be more clear at this point that when it comes to getting these odious fascists off our backs and out of our lives, the only thing that’s ever going to do the trick is to start killing them in job lots. At the very least, this Autumn Scardina creature in particular should be doxxed, terrorized, robbed of his/her/its livelihood, surrounded by screaming, fist-waving protesters every minute of his/her/its day, and generally hounded until he/she/it breaks down into a blubbering, trembling pile of disagreggated protoplasm.

And in case anybody out there persists in making the mistake of thinking this is about cakes in any way, shape or form:

While the commission — and some liberal Supreme Court justices — argued that Phillips had discriminated against the same-sex couple in 2012 based on their sexual orientation, he constantly argued that he merely wished to opt out of creating a cake to celebrate an event he did not consider a true wedding. This was not the first time Phillips had turned town such cake orders, either. He has always refused to bake any Halloween-themed cakes, which are consistently in demand every October.

Furthermore, when Craig and Mullins requested their cake, Phillips offered to sell them anything else in the store, but they refused. Phillips was not engaging in discrimination against them — he was refusing to bake a cake that would convey a message he disagreed with.

Ironically, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission actually defended another baker who refused to bake a cake that would convey a message. In 2015, the commission declined to take up an appeal involving Azucar Bakery, which refused to bake Bible-shaped cakes with messages against homosexuality. The bakery’s owner, Marjorie Silva, said she refused to bake the cakes because the writing and imagery were “hateful and offensive.”

The very same commission that defended Silva’s free speech rights trampled on Phillips’ free speech rights. This was one major reason why the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips. (The Court was also persuaded by the commission’s outrageously offensive comparison between Phillips’ religious refusal to bake the cake and a defense of Nazism, which was particularly egregious because Phillips’ father fought in World War II and liberated a concentration camp.)

If all the freak actually wanted was a goddamned cake to “celebrate” his/her/its dementia and depravity, he/she/it could have gone to who even knows how many other bakeries and gotten one easily enough, up to and including the above-mentioned Silva’s shop. No, this self-loathing abomination’s true goal is the suppression of the right to practice one’s religion freely and in peace. Bottom line:

“The most common misconception amongst people generally and people who care about religious freedom is that you can win a case and then walk away,” Tedesco, the ADF lawyer, explained. “We always tell our friends that our opposition doesn’t rest. I don’t think there’s any better example of that principle than this same commission taking up essentially the same case against the same man.”

“The Left and progressively-minded commissions like this will never rest,” Tedesco warned. “It’s just a matter of eternal vigilance.”

“If we tire out, if we become weary in defending these things, we will ultimately lose these freedoms for the next generation,” he added, ominously.

Taking this and every other God-given freedom away from those who desire only to be left alone is precisely the goal of Leftist swine, and they will never tire or relent in pursuit of it. They will rise from their own noxious ashes again and again and again, as many times as it takes, until they get what they want.

Repeat after me: they will not stop. They will have to BE stopped. Lawyers and lawsuits won’t do it. Angry op-eds won’t do it. Listening to Rush Limbaugh every day won’t do it. Voting certainly won’t do it. Nothing short of actual physical confrontation and violence will.

Well, so be it then. Kill ’em all. Let God sort ’em out. Try as I might, I can no longer see any way this restart of the long-stalled Darwinian-selection process doesn’t begin soon. As dismal as I once considered the prospect, I can no longer honestly say I give a damn. Let them reap what they’ve sown; may they have joy of their foolish, fascist choice.

Share

Strozk out!

Good riddance. And about damned time.

In tweets celebrating news that FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired from the FBI Monday, President Donald Trump called for the reopening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, declaring the original investigation led by Strzok a “total fraud.”

Which it most certainy was; it has that in common with Mueller’s Klown Kar Koup shitshow.

Strzok was one of the lead agents in the criminal investigation into whether former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton violated federal law by storing classified information on a private email server. The FBI under Comey declined to prosecute Clinton for any possible violations of the Espionage Act. In Comey’s statement, he said Clinton had acted with “extreme carelessness.”

Usually described in the accompanying indictment (absent here), by investigators with actual integrity (also absent here), as “negligence.” To wit:

An earlier draft of Comey’s statement used stronger language, saying Clinton had been “grossly negligent” — a term that would have carried legal meaning under the Espionage Act. In July 2018 congressional testimony, Strzok admitted that metadata shows that Comey’s statement was edited in June 2016 on his computer, but he claimed he cannot remember making the edit.

Uh huh. But Comey’s initial (and temporary) lapse into honesty wasn’t going to help Hillary avoid being frogmarched off to prison like she should have been, so adjustments had to be made—and were.

It’s beginning to look as if claims of monstrous collusion between Russian officials and U.S. political operatives were true. But it wasn’t Donald Trump who was guilty of Russian collusion. It was Hillary Clinton and U.S. intelligence officials who worked with Russians and others to entrap Trump.

That’s the stunning conclusion of a RealClear Investigations report by Lee Smith, who looked in-depth at the controversial June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between officials of then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign staff and a Russian lawyer known to have ties with high-level officials in Vladimir Putin’s government.

The media have spun a tale of Trump selling his soul to the Russians for campaign dirt to use against Hillary, beginning with the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting.

But “a growing body of evidence…indicates that the meeting may have been a setup — part of a broad effort to tarnish the Trump campaign involving Hillary Clinton operatives employed by Kremlin-linked figures and Department of Justice officials,” wrote Smith.

Which it most certainly was. Read all of this last link; it’s so chock-a-block full of good, thorough reporting and right-on truth it’ll make quite a refreshing contrast to the stinking codswallop Fake News Media keeps right on desperately shoveling.

Share

The Tyranny Party

Tell me again all about how Trump’s the “authoritarian,” libtards.

One of the nice things about a core curriculum—sadly disappearing from most of higher education—is that it forces you to read books you would otherwise have skipped. Although this can be painful in the moment, it often pays off in unexpected ways.

Sigmund Freud is not a writer I would have picked up had he not been assigned. But I’m glad he was. The older I get, and the more of the Left I see, the more useful becomes Freud’s concept of “projection,” an unconscious defense mechanism that protects the ego from guilt or anxiety. It has amazing explanatory power and can help one make sense of a trove of recent books by left-wing writers, and one disgruntled former conservative, that blame Donald Trump for “authoritarianism” in American politics.

What, according to the authors reviewed here, is authoritarianism? They all attempt definitions, which are more or less similar. We may therefore take one as representative. The authoritarian, say Harvard government professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in How Democracies Die,

1) Rejects, in words or action, the democratic rules of the game,
2) denies the legitimacy of opponents,
3) tolerates or encourages violence, or
4) indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

Gee, none of THAT sounds familiar at all, does it? Final analysis:

The most certain way a once-stable republic gives way to tyranny is when the republican spirit of its people is eliminated or undermined. All such regimes decisively depend for their success and longevity on a foundation of virtue in the people. How’s that going in our time? None of these books has anything at all to say about the family, the bedrock of representative republicanism. Only Mounk treats religion at any length, and then mainly to lambaste figures and societies to his right for being insufficiently deferential to Islam. Nor do these writers even mention the government-driven erosion of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “mediating institutions,” another bedrock of American democracy. All of these goods—and more—have been under persistent left-wing attack for at least two generations. The health of democracy seems not to have improved during that period. The connection seems obvious enough but these authors glide right past.

In any event, it’s rich to read the Left fret about the end of “democracy” when they have spent so much conscious effort undermining its necessary preconditions. They have done so, I think, for two reasons. First, they long ago came to equate liberty with license. Philosophically, once nature was discarded as the standard by which to guide and judge human life, the satisfaction of appetites became the only conceivable end. Hence in matters of personal morality, the contemporary Left is a curious combination of libertine and censor. Any physical—especially sexual or pharmaceutical—act that does not draw blood or pick a pocket is permitted. There are no mores that are simply necessary to society or to personal well-being. If you’re not directly harming someone else, then no one has any business even passing judgment on what you do. But you deserve to be crushed for thinking or saying the wrong thing—especially for passing judgment! Witness the recent massive freak-out over Penn Law professor Amy Wax’s praise of the once-commonplace concept of “bourgeois norms.” How dare she!

The second is that the Left has internalized, mostly without realizing it, the classical case that the only truly legitimate regime is the rule of the wise. For them, it comes dressed up in its modern guise as Hegelian historicism, but either way, it’s ironic that in today’s cisgender Euro-bashing fiesta, their whole political philosophy rests on two quintessentially dead white male arguments. But, hey—they believe they are the wise. Not those dumb rednecks. When the pieces start to fit together in your mind, you begin to realize why the modern Left wants to make America more like those South American countries with a pale upper class, a darker lower class—and no middle of any shade. Because they get to be in charge. Uppity low-income, middling-I.Q. whites are troublemakers. They think they deserve a say. Trump gives those nettlesome, red-hat-wearing proles a voice. What else do you need to know to grasp that Trump is bad?

The greatest factor in hastening the end of American-style democracy over the past 125 years (at least) has been increasing government centralization and administrative rule. To answer the question posed by Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein’s edited volume: it already did happen here! The project all along has been, and still is, to end politics. That is, to foreclose as illegitimate public debate and disagreement on issues allegedly settled by science and administered via expertise. As our personal freedom to abuse our bodies, sate our appetites, and neglect our duties ever expands, our actual freedom to govern ourselves and determine our collective future radically contracts. The people writing these ostensible democratic laments are all in the intellectual lineage of those who brought us to this point. Their aim is to complete the project. Trump’s aim—however inchoate or implicit—is to reverse it. Who’s the real anti-democrat?

It’s Michael Anton, so there’s plenty more between my excerpt blocks, all of which you’ll want to read.

Share

Playing with matches

Little sparks can sometimes grow into huge conflagrations.

Since the election, the Left has been dreaming up scenarios in which the results of the election are overturned. For a long time they were sure Trump would be impeached, but that seems to have faded. Last year my left-wing office manager was deep into the impeachment scenarios. Now the talk is of revolution, which probably fits better with their conception of themselves as the heroic resistance. They imagine Trump as a strong man, against whom they must resist until the system cracks, and then the revolution begins.

On the other hand, there are limits to everything. As the outrages from the Left stack up, the average white person in American grows more angry. Talk to anyone sympathetic to this line of thinking and they will tell you they have grown far less tolerant of their remaining liberal friends. I know I’ve lost touch with quite a few former friends, because I will not tolerate their nonsense. I have friends who just a few years ago thought Ben Shapiro was edgy and now think the alt-right is too soft. There is a reaction brewing in the country.

The question is what would it take to move people from yelling at their televisions over the latest liberal outrage to marching in the streets. This is never easy to know. Sometimes, the smallest spark sets off the biggest fire. The reaction to Alex Jones getting purged from the internet has been surprising, given that he is not a serious person. I got questions from people, who never heard of him until yesterday, angry over his banishment. My guess is the percentage of people thinking fondly of Pinochet is at an all-time high right now.

As far as the spark, a move against Trump is good bet. The glue that keeps things from flying apart right now is middle-class white people, who still have faith in the political system. These are the middle American radicals Sam Francis wrote about 30 years ago during the Reagan moment. They will tolerate just about anything, as long as they think they can fight the other side within the system. An effort to remove Trump or even silence his advocates, could be a spark that gets these people into the streets.

It is tempting to think this will all blow over. I was in the camp until recently. Now, I just don’t see how it will ever be possible to make peace with the Left. They hate us and will use any means necessary. The lack of code is the critical part. How does one make peace with someone that will never abide by the rules? Whether this results in revolution, counter revolution or civil war is hard to know, but the number of people thinking the gap cannot be bridged is growing every day. Now we wait for the Cossak’s wink.

The gap CAN’T be bridged, as I’ve said for a long, long time now. The conflict is between people who want total, unquestioned control (“We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives“) and people who insist on their right to be left alone—between people who believe in the Founding vision of limited government and people who want no limits on government whatsoever. How can anyone possibly imagine that those positions are reconcilable? As I’ve asked before: if you’d prefer to see Constitutional government reinstated yet also favor “compromise” with the Left, exactly which parts of the Constitution are you willing to see thrown out?

As for Alex Jones, I kinda don’t get the high dudgeon over his “deplatforming.” YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al have been doing the exact same thing to both strident Dissident Right types and far milder and more innocuous “conservatives” for a long while now without nearly this much ballyhoo over it. Now all of a sudden people are willing to draw a stark line around a nut like Jones? Not saying they shouldn’t, mind; if it had been done long ago, maybe we wouldn’t be where we are now. It just seems kind of weird to me that Alex Jones ends up being the Bridge Too Far, that’s all.

But it’s easy enough to explain. The Left has stayed frenziedly on the attack for so long now that people are fed up with them. Seeing as how they still show no sign at all of being willing to dial back on the cray-cray one little bit—on the contrary, they’re doubling down each and every day, seemingly incapable of perceiving the mainstream’s rapidly eroding forbearance not as the warning it is but as further incitement—it almost doesn’t matter WHO it was they went after this time.

And then the spark ignites the dry tinder, it blazes up and out of control, and everydamnedbody winds up getting burned.

Share

Culture war?

Nope. Call it culture vandalism, culture takeover, or…what this guy does, which is more apt than just about anything else.

Liberals, similar to but reputedly more reasonable than progs, always notice the single MAGA hat in a crowd but never the destructive prog behavior raging all around them. And it’s liberals who write the columns and tweets next day, dripping venom about the hateful normals. Yet any objective, disinterested observer would notice that it’s progressives who regularly run out of control in angry, violent spasms of incivility and ugliness.

This isn’t “culture war.”  Culture has nothing to do with it. It’s war on normality by Brownshirts, incited or paid for by the likes of George Soros and Tom Steyer. It has now graduated from street-fighting to trying to take down the U.S. government.

I will never understand these people’s hatred of America. They are unreachable by reason. 

Nobody should be squandering any effort on the attempt. As I keep saying: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.

Get woke update! Schlichter gets down to the nut-cuttin’:

Some of you need to cease the denial and accept the harsh reality that the left hates you. It’s a fact, as much as the liberal gaslight gang and the conserva-sissy weakhearts deny it. You can tell that leftists hate you by the way that leftists tell you that they hate you.

Leftists don’t get to pull this garbage and just get away with it. Cut the nonsense about “outrage mobs.” Regardless of the principles of True Conservatism™, it’s perfectly okay under actual conservative principles to protest the liberal elite’s public embrace of outright race-based hatred. Hell, it’s mandatory. And this imbroglio is a perfect weapon for us, because it perfectly encapsulates our enemy’s hateful view of us in a way every midterm voter between the coasts is going to understand. We need to wield it like a sledgehammer in anticipation of the upcoming election.

You soft boys can pivot back to your “We’re better than that” pose and go AWOL, again, like you always do. But I say the Sarah Jeong/NYT love affair is a suppository, and I say we start curing the hemorrhoid that is liberalism by giving the left a double dose good and hard right up the progressive tract.

We need to accept the harsh reality that a substantial number of our fellow citizens hate our guts. All the simpering blabber about civility, all the clichés about unity, are all just comforting lies. A bunch of them hate us. They hate us. Hate. And we need to stop pretending the truth right in front of us is not right in front of us.

What do we do? We fight. This is not going to be a single skirmish. This is a campaign, a long and difficult one with the objective of destroying the ideological cancer metastasizing through America’s body politic. Step One: We must ruthlessly attack any manifestation of their hate using all the political and cultural tools at our disposal. We need to make liberal racism painful, so they are incentivized to abandon it. We’re not here to win moral victories. We’re here to win victory victories.

He has suggestions for actions that need taking in the right-now so as to be prepared for all the ugly eventualities, and he’s right about all of it.

Settling things update! Francis mulls it over:

I shall say this: ordinary private citizens are now being hunted and attacked by other private citizens for differing with them politically. Members of the latter group call their targets “Nazis” and attack them physically when they believe they can get away with it. A recent case of this has caused me to wonder, like the author of the linked piece, when actual fatalities will occur.

There have been cases, earlier in American history, of violence over political disputes. We fought a rather large war over one such dispute. It says something about such conflicts that the Civil War did not resolve the question it was fought over, namely whether the states remain sovereign: i.e., whether a state has the right to withdraw from the United States as defined by its Constitution.

It’s untrue that “violence never settles anything.” But it’s appallingly true that violence cannot settle any abstract question. It certainly can’t settle a question over rights.

Probably not. But it would settle the question of how long Normals will allow themselves to be used as punching bags for the Violent Left quite nicely. And it’s looking more and more as if it’s the ONLY way the problem of ever-escalating Lefty violence will be resolved.

Share

“Democratic socialism” and equality before the law

Incompatible and contradictory.

Observing the media hijinks and economic moronity of Democrat hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is prepared to increase taxation to unsustainable levels to pay for the socialist dream – “universal health care, tuition free higher education, and the 100 percent use of renewable energy, among other programs” – I could not help but reflect that infinity can be measured only by the extent of human stupidity.

Ocasio-Cortez, a lightweight even on the Bernie Sanders scale, is merely the latest in a long line of what we call today “democratic socialists” or “social justice warriors.” They are oblivious to the proven fact that socialism never works, that it has failed wherever it has been tried, that a centralized state and a command economy inevitably lead to rampant inefficiency, reduced incentive to compete and innovate, diminished production, economic stagnation, and ultimately to one or another version of the police state, whether the “velvet totalitarianism” that John Furedy speaks of or sheer brutal repression – in current terms, the Venezuela option. Socialism is the enemy not only of human flourishing and individual freedom, but, as we will note shortly, of the concept of equality before the law.

“Democratic socialism” is a contradiction in terms – or it is democratic in the same way as death is, reducing everyone to the same level. Socialism is no less a grim reaper than mortality. Similarly, “social justice” has nothing to do with the Western legacy of equality before the law. Clearly, people are not equal with respect to character, intelligence, aptitude, moral fiber, personal responsibility, and motivation, but they should be equal before the law. “Democratic socialism” ignores the complexity of human personality by reducing difference to a lowest common denominator just as “social justice” is dismissive of individual contributions to the well-being of the state. What such fantasy-laden constructs call “equality” is nothing but the dispensation of unearned privilege to the masses, culminating inexorably in the imposition of a featureless collective.

Socialism is a perversion of both equality and justice, the weaponizing of the law in the service of an unfeasible ideal and the progressivist legalization of outright theft, which can result only in the eventual destabilization of the state. It terminates in the society of Harrison Bergeron, in which everyone is equal only in the sense that everyone, apart from an echelon of exploiters, is equally poor, equally deprived, and equally miserable. This is not what Amos would have conceived as justice.

But it is what the Ocasio-Cortezes of the world – and they are legion – would in their risible ignorance inflict upon the rest of us, if we are lunatic enough to allow them. Florida candidate for governor Ron DeSantis is on the mark when he points to the utter folly of Ocasio-Cortez “running around saying, well, capitalism is going to die and…that socialism is the wave of the future. And as somebody who lives in Florida, I can tell you, we probably have more refugees from socialist countries – Cuban-Americans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans – then just about any state…and certainly they can tell you socialism doesn’t work. It’s a failed philosophy.”

Or, to go back to the Powerline meme collection:


Fleeing-capitalism.jpg


If socialism really IS “the wave of the future,” the future is gonna really, really suck.

Update! OG blogger Stephen fisks the living hell out of a socialism-pimping Reuters propaganda piece.

First the headline, which reads: “Once oil wealthy, Venezuela’s largest state struggles to keep the lights on.”

That headline gives the impression that Venezuela has run out of oil, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country still possesses the world’s largest oil reserves, so there’s plenty of oil wealth. It’s still right there in the ground. It hasn’t gone anywhere. The problem is that Bolivarian socialism has ruined the country’s extraction industry, but you wouldn’t know that from anything in the entire story.

Here’s the second graf:

The rolling power blackouts in the state of Zulia pile more misery on Venezuelans living under a fifth year of an economic crisis that has sparked malnutrition, hyperinflation and mass emigration. OPEC member Venezuela’s once-thriving socialist economy has collapsed since the 2014 fall of oil prices.

When Hugo Chavez took over the country in 1998 and began imposing his socialist regime, oil prices were at around $18 a barrel. Twenty years later they’ve “collapsed” to… about $70, with some temporary lows around $40 or so.

That is to say, oil prices since 2014 have averaged about triple what they were in 1998. And from ’98 to 2014, oil was mostly on an upward trajectory and routinely went for well over $100. So the question isn’t how this “crisis” was caused by a “collapse” in oil prices. The question is: What the hell did Maduro and Chavez do with all the damn money?

Here we have a story detailing Venezuela’s economic collapse, and every single problem can be explained by two words: Because socialism. And yet the only time reporter Mayela Armas uses the word socialism, it’s in the context of a “once-thriving socialist economy.”

It never WAS a “once-thriving socialist economy”—because when they went socialist, the economy stopped thriving. Just like they all do, every single time. One thing Stephen gets wrong, though: he calls this propaganda “malignantly uninformed,” but it’s more like MISinformed. Or, to be more precise, dezinformatsiya.

Share

“Some racism is more equal than others”

Hound the NYT, harrass them, don’t let up for a moment. It’s doubtful that we’ll ever persuade them to give up their new house racist; she’s nothing more than a reflection of the views they already hold themselves, and we have no sway with them whatsoever. But we can at least make their—and her—lives miserable for a while, and that ain’t nothing.

As CNN’s Jim Acosta grandstanded his way out of a White House press briefing on Thursday because the administration portrays the news media in an adversarial light that he claims endangers journalists, the Times hired a woman who equates Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. Why, other than to inspire an Operation Valkyrie, does anyone with a megaphone compare the elected president of the United States with a genocidal monster? Acosta advocates producing chants, buttons, and bumper stickers protesting the White House, apparently in an effort to persuade the public that the president is wrong to regard the press as an enemy.

Some people miss their irony.

More than a generation ago, The Media Elite reported a survey of 240 journalists at major publications showing that in the four presidential elections from 1964 to 1976 the press never voted by less than a 4-to-1 margin for the Democratic candidate. A 2014 study by Indiana University professors Lars Willnat and David Weaver indicated that the number of Republicans among full-time journalists dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to seven percent in 2013. Anecdotal evidence, such as the New York Times editorial board hiring a crackpot and CNN assigning a zealot to cover the White House, suggests that the media became more ideologically homogenous in the intervening few years.

Hypocrisy may color the media’s crusades for diversity in other fields as journalism remains a stuff-white-people-like profession. Something far worse characterizes its lockstep conformity of opinion.

Something far worse still characterizes their frantic lust to enforce that conformity of opinion on everyone else at the point of the Big Government gun.

Share

“Journalists and their hangers-on are doing more to encourage violence against journalists than Trump is”



And then another libmedia drooltard chimed in to support his fellow propagandist:

In a now-deleted tweet, Caputo commented on the video, saying, “If you put everyone’s mouths together in this video, you’d get a full set of teeth.”

In another deleted tweet, he responded to a tweet castigating his mockery of Trump supporters. “Oh no! I made fun of garbage people jeering at another person as they falsely accused him of lying and flipped him off. Someone fetch a fainting couch,” Caputo wrote.

“Oh no! Some real Americans called Acosta out to his face for his open contempt of them, his and his network’s dishonest fake-news “journalistic” malpractice, and his general asswipery—verbally, without resorting to actual violence like liberals do. Someone fetch him a fresh clean diaper!”

Right back atcha, asshole.

Caputo then apologized for his insulting outburst, which, who cares. Insty offers thoughts:

Two points: (1) Yes, this is what the press thinks about Trump supporters, and this now-deleted tweet was an honest reflection of that. It’s totally hypocritical for people like Acosta to clutch their pearls about Trump’s “rhetoric” given how they treat, and talk about, his supporters. And as for their fear that Trump’s “rhetoric” might lead to violence, note how they skip right over the fact that Democrat James Hodgkinson shot GOP Congressman Steve Scalise as he tried to massacre the Republican House leadership.

(2) What’s worse is, Caputo’s actually one of the better political reporters, willing to report stuff that hurts Democrats and helps Republicans without sweeping it under the rug. That’s good, but if he thinks this way, what are the rest like?

And yes, he offered a solid apology. But that doesn’t change the attitude that his original statement revealed, or the fact that it seems to be widely shared among his press colleagues.

Fuck Caputo, fuck Acosta, fuck the whole filthy lot of them. The loathing and contempt for normal Americans their ilk can’t seem to help themselves expressing is reciprocated in full measure out here. Whining and bleating about “hate” and “violence” coming from these oozing chancres is pretty rich considering their own ongoing incitement to violence—incitement which has resulted in actual, y’know, hate and violence.

538, motherfuckers. That ain’t some prissy journo-dink’s fear or fantasy; that’s an actual, hard number of verifiable media applause for acts of shitlib violence against their opposition. In one corner, we have that; in the other, we have people making Wee Jimmy Winky wet himself by yelling “CNN sucks” in his pinched little face.

One of these things is NOT like the other.

“The press is not the enemy”? Like bleeding hell it ain’t. These guys are just upset that now we know it, and they’re shit-scared of the possibility of getting some of their own splashed back on them at last.

Well, cry me a river, you lying pissant pricks. This is just the opening bell; you sniveling curs have got a lot more like it and worse coming, and you’ve earned everything you might get, plus some.

Share

Guilty of being white

They hate you. They really, really hate you.

The Democratic coalition is always on the verge of flying apart in fratricidal enmity. At the moment, for example, the media is stoking black rage toward white women, whom The New York Times is repeatedly calling by the racist slur “Becky,” for summoning the police when they feel unsafe.

The one thing the Democrats’ confederacy of the dissimilar can share is hatred of whites, or, to be precise, cisgender straight white men.

This is why the press keeps pushing endless hate hoaxes. Shameful antiwhite racist libels are the KKKrazy Glue that holds together the Democratic coalition.

To Vox readers, importing a new electorate of foreign ringers is how they intend to grind their enemies, their fellow American citizens, into the dust beneath their political chariot wheels, so it’s best not to notice what they’ve chosen to inflict upon their nation.

After all, that white Americans are slowly waking up to the fact that they don’t really want to get pushed around by newcomers just for being white merely proves that whites deserve their fate.

Klein eventually seems to endorse the stratagem offered by his favorite researcher, Jennifer Richeson: The media should lie harder to white people.

Richeson believes it would be wise for demographers to stop using terms like “majority-minority America”—after all, whites will still be a plurality, and what good can come of framing America’s trajectory in a way that leaves the single largest group feeling maximally threatened? It sounds like “a force of nonwhite people who are coming and they are working as a coalition to overturn white people and whiteness,” Richeson said, laughing. “That’s a problem!”

But for the Democrats, of course, that’s not a problem; that’s the plan.

My post title up there is swiped from an old Minor Threat song:

I’m sorry
For something that I didn’t do
Lynched somebody
But I don’t know who
You blame me for slavery
A hundred years before I was born


DAMN, but I still love that band. Anyways, and along these same lines, Thales names his Idiot Of The Week:

Self-loathing white people are some of the most disturbing people to have ever drawn breath. Drama queens might be the best way to describe them, for they obsess endlessly about things they haven’t done, they elevate petty problems to the world stage and bury major ones behind a veneer of political correctness. A white kid wearing dreadlocks is the end of the world. But recognizing that ISIS lobs gay people off of buildings for amusement is probably racism (even though, paradoxically, Islam is not a race). Sanctimony is their religion, Social Justice their crusade, and endless self-hatred their spiritual diet.

Here’s a window into the insane mind of one of these cretins: White People Have No Culture. And it cries out in the darkness of colossal ignorance for a proper fisking.

For a moment, I almost felt sorry for the author. While I generally feel quite secure in the knowledge of where I come from, who I am, and the history and culture of my ancestors, she clearly does not feel this. I could discuss this topic for hours. Today’s modern urbanite “cosmopolitans” have only the most superficial understanding of culture and history. The author knows that her knowledge of “indigenous” culture and history is woefully lacking, but she doesn’t stop to consider the possibility that her understanding of European cultures and history is similarly lacking. Imagine standing beneath the Hagia Sophia and saying “white people have no culture.” Imagine walking into the Pantheon in Rome and suggesting that white people have no understanding of their history.

Powerful stuff, as is his closer.

Share

Citizenship: a responsibility, not a right

Michael Anton, of “Flight 93 Election” fame, addresses “birthright citizenship” sophistry:

I have been accused of wanting to strip citizenship from those already born to illegal immigrants and thus already granted citizenship. Of course, I said nothing of the kind, nor does my argument demand any such conclusion. We may grant that our current understanding of birthright citizenship is a mistake and correct that mistake without retroactively stripping anyone of citizenship. Indeed, I believe that the American people in their generosity would support exactly such a measure. Correct the issue going forward. Make clear to the world that the United States will no longer grant birthright citizenship to the children of non-citizen illegal immigrants, birth tourists, or people here on temporary work or student visas. The citizenship of those already born would forever be honored—even enshrined into law if necessary.

This is a reasonable way forward. The alternative—illegal immigration, population growth, and all their attendant problems forever—is not sustainable. Nor is it—once again—in the interests of the current citizens of the United States, including those born to illegal immigrant parents.

Birthright citizenship—as I and others have argued—is a magnet for illegal immigration, an ongoing problem that worsens many of our other problems. The longer we continue the practice, the more illegal immigration we will get, with all its ensuing effects. As I have argued elsewhere, the United States does not need more people. We need to do a better job meeting the needs of the citizens we already have.

Birthright citizenship also undermines the consent-based social compact, which is the basis for the legitimacy of the U.S. government and for all our law, constitutional and otherwise. If we don’t have a social compact, we don’t have a country. A social compact that can be joined contrary to the will of its existing members is an impossibility, a self-contradiction.

It’s no wonder, then, that only around 30 countries out of nearly 200 practice birthright citizenship. The highest accounting that I have seen says 33. There are 197 countries in the world (193 UN members, two observers, and two non-members). Thus 83% of the world’s nations do not allow birthright citizenship. Those countries that do have a combined population of 958 million (in all cases, rounding estimates up in order not to be accused of fudging the numbers in my direction). According to the UN, the world population is today 7.6 billion. Our “conservatives” insist that opposition to birthright citizenship is “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, white supremacist” and more. This means that 6.642 billion of the world’s people (give or take) must also be “nativist, xenophobic, bigoted, racist, white nationalist, and white supremacist.” The latter two would truly be something, given how few of those people are white.

It’s an ugly thing to hear and read the worst of these epithets from ostensible allies. But of course, those hurling these calumnies are in no sense allies. That was clear in 2016, if not before, and it’s even clearer now. Clarity is good. Let’s all make clear where we stand on the issues of the day and in relation with others in the big tent we used to call “the Conservative Movement.”

It’s clear to me that those who use this kind of language are leftists—leftists in rhetoric and in philosophy.

That’s about the size of it, yeah.

Share

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on

Isn’t it just AWFUL how Trump keeps harping on and on about “fake news”? Why, the man isn’t merely a jerk; he’s a menace. Here all these dedicated journalists work hard to present facts in an unbiased way, and then Trump endangers these dedicated professionals by creating this climate of hatred for no good…that is, with absolutely no basis in…ummm…uhhhh….

Dang.

One year later, National Geographic has finally admitted to facilitating “fake news” regarding climate change. The magazine’s most viral video ever, which featured heart-wrenching images of a starving polar bear, perpetuated the narrative that the animal’s imminent death was caused by climate change. However, the climate change aspect of the story is void of any real evidence.

“We had lost control of the narrative,” admitted Cristina Mittermeier, the photographer of the polar bear. Mittermeier explained the climate change deception in a piece titled “Starving-Polar-Bear Photographer Recalls What Went Wrong” for the magazine’s August issue.

Mittermeier conceded that the images of the bony, emaciated polar bear were meant to sound an alarm about climate change, though she complains that people took the image “literally.”

“Photographer Paul Nicklen and I are on a mission to capture images that communicate the urgency of climate change. Documenting its effects on wildlife hasn’t been easy,” she wrote. “With this image, we thought we had found a way to help people imagine what the future of climate change might look like. We were, perhaps, naive. The picture went viral — and people took it literally.”

Perhaps people took the gloom-and-doom climate change narrative “literally” because Nat Geo’s first line of the video was, “This is what climate change looks like.” To boot, the words “climate change” were even emphasized, highlighted in the magazine’s signature yellow.

The “fake news” narrative was viewed by over 2.5 billion sets of eyes, becoming the magazine’s most viral video in their history.

“Perhaps we made a mistake in not telling the full story — that we were looking for a picture that foretold the future and that we didn’t know what had happened to this particular polar bear,” she wrote.

“Mistake” my hairy ass. You did precisely what you intended to do, what shitlib propagandists like you always do: lied to advance the Leftist agenda. As Prestigiacomo concludes: “It’s simply befuddling why there’s such a lack of trust in media.” Ain’t it, though. Ain’t it just.

Share

The mantra of tyrants

Which only makes sense: Leftism, after all, is the ideology of tyranny.

One of the more bizarre news items of the day relates to a continuing fetish of American municipal governments for banning plastic straws. Now, a liberal acquaintance of mine assured me that he was not inconvenienced by the use of biodegradable paper and wax straws, and plastic straws do have various environmental consequences. In this, my liberal acquaintance is entirely correct. Yet I still disagree vociferously with these straw bans.

The usual argument is that banning doesn’t work because people will get what they want regardless. There will be speakeasies and bootleggers, organized crime and street thugs. That’s partially correct. But let’s be frank. None of those things will be a problem for banning plastic straws. Certainly, I don’t see organized crime selling crates of plastic straws out of the backs of sketchy minivans. So what’s the real issue?

This leads us right back to the lack of principle. What the Left doesn’t like must be banned. They are quite casual with bans, too. They’ll ban guns and plastic straws, both. I heard a tale once of a town in Texas which banned inflatable gorillas. While I’m sure there is an amusing story behind the ban, it illustrates that nothing is beyond the reach of the ban hammer.

This morning, a local community page was full of demands to ban fireworks on behalf of pets, veterans with PTSD, and idiots who hurt themselves doing dumb things with fireworks. The chief proponent of the ban rattled off statistics not unlike what you see in the Prohibition propaganda. 12,000 people annually are hurt by fireworks, she said, and we can’t even count the harm to pets and veterans. They should be replaced with laser light shows, she demanded.

Once you get into debating the pros and cons of a ban, you have already implicitly conceded that bans are justified given a certain harm/benefit ratio. At that point, you are now vulnerable to the manipulation and spin of said data, which is commonplace. It’s an endless rabbit hole, and debates like that spiral into infinity. We’re all caught over the event horizon of a singularity of stupid.

So I’ll repeat the heresy: ban nothing.

In a truly free country, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But we’d have to get rid of all the Leftards first. Read all of it, natch; I particularly like his closer, and the Declination gang is going rocketing into the blogroll and bookmarks for it.

(Via Hoyt)

Share

Lesson: ignored

Wasn’t properly taught, nor driven home.

California Rep. Maxine Waters said that Americans should be “out in the streets screaming” about President Trump in a Wednesday interview.

Waters told CNBC’s John Harwood, “I think [Trump’s] dangerous.”

“I don’t know why people take it. I think Americans should be out in the streets screaming to the top of their voice. Do something. Make something happen,” she continued.

During the interview, she also said, “[Trump is] one of the most deplorable people I’ve ever encountered in my life.”

These comments come after Waters encouraged the harassment of Trump cabinet members in June.

Looks like the Oathkeepers, with their half-hearted, aborted “protest” at her office instead of her home, screwed the pooch sure enough. Malone again: “If you open the ball with these people you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won’t give up the fight until one of you is dead.” And yes, it should be noted that in one case we’re talking about gangsters, crooks, and violent criminals, while in the other we’re talking about…Al Capone.

(Via Ace)

Share

How far WON’T they go?

Walsh answers VDH’s question, as mentioned here earlier.

My colleague Victor Davis Hanson raised the question in these pages the other day: “Just how far will the Left go?” in its attempt to overthrow the government of Donald J. Trump? With his customary precision, Hanson laid out the catalog of enormities committed by the Left in its pursuit of Trump and of conservatives in general, among them the fatuous investigation led by Mr. Straight Arrow himself, the demonization of Trump-as-Hitler, their frustration over losing the 2016 election (which they thought would cement their hostile takeover of the American Republic) and their inability to mask their true anti-American natures any longer.

So let me provide an answer: As far as they can, for as long as it takes.

If a political movement is willing effectively to abolish the country’s borders (but keep bleeding its productive class in order to fund its welfare/patronage system), what does that tell you about its ultimate aspirations? The American Left (a subsidiary of the International Left) has as its goal the “fundamental transformation” of the United States from a free-market capitalist, at least nominally Christian country of mostly European descent into something resembling the old Soviet Union, a place where “from each according to his ability” gleefully embraces the buggering of the taxpaying class in order to give “to each according to his needs.”

And so it goes. Each day brings a new outrage, a development enthusiastically promulgated by a brain-dead media that thinks a headline must contain the words “sparks outrage” or “comes under fire,” to be newsworthy. The foxes of anger and resentment have been set among the hens of political cohesion, and every day the squawking grows louder—as it will until that day comes when there are no more hens left to lay the eggs.

The key to understanding the Left is that it cannot stop. Once it has set itself on a path to power, it must have all the power. Once it has created a social program, it must run that program into the ground. Once it has identified an enemy, that enemy must be destroyed, no matter what the cost to itself. Like a shark, the Left must always keep moving—forward! And the end result is always the same.

How far will they go? All the way. “By any means necessary” is their slogan for a reason. They mean it.

The question we really ought to be asking is directed at ourselves: how far are WE willing to go to stop them? It’s Malone’s question all over again: “What are you prepared to do?” “Everything within the law.” “And THEN what are you prepared to do?”

Share

Cut ’em off

Seriously, there’s even a discussion to be had here?

So the reason we permit these guys to keep their security clearances is actually twofold:

1. To keep them legal to accept classified information, in case the president needs to call them out of retirement to advise him on a national security matter.

With Comey and McCabe proven leakers, with Brennan looking like he arranged the Comey briefing just to leak it, and calling Trump a traitor every week, etc., I would say the likelihood that Trump will call up on these Genius Experts’ Expert Genius to be about the likelihood that Kate Upton will pay me thirty million dollars to sit on my face.

2. Frankly, as way to pay them continuing non-pecuniary benefits in their retirement, because anyone with a security clearance will be paid more money than those without one in the fields where such a thing is valuable, e.g., defense industries, information security, etc.

I don’t see why Trump would feel obliged to put money into their pockets by extending to them a benefit he is not required to extend to them.

So there are two reasons to keep these people cleared for classified reason — one which could maybe, allegedly benefit the country, but which will never happen, due to the fact that these people belong to the Deep State which has been trying to get Trump blocked from taking office and now that he is president, removed from it.

The second is just a nice thing you do for your friends, to keep paying them off for services rendered, but they are not Trump’s friends and the services they have rendered are a conspiracy to enact a coup against the duly elected president of the United States.

On the other hand, there is the risk of permitting them to retain their security clearances.

Given that there is absolutely no benefit to the country — none at all, zero — of letting them keep their clearances, the downsides risks stand all alone, with no upside potential to offset them.

Draining The Swamp of neccessity means clearing out the Obama stay-behinds and Deep State shitweasels infesting the place, and clearing them out for good. Seditious swine like Brennan and Clapper in particular are a GREAT place to start. Ace winds it up:

As there is no national security upside to letting these leakers and liars keep their security clearances and continue “monetizing” them — as Trump correctly said — and quite a bit of national security downside to letting them keep them, it’s time to terminate the clearances.

It most certainly is—time, and way past time. Cut ’em off and send ’em packing. Let the shitlibs cry a raging torrent; they’re going to anyway, of course.

Share

Proud Boys’ Proud Girl

First off, the background, from the PB manifesto/mission statement:

The Proud Boys are a men’s organization founded in 2016 by Vice Media co-founder Gavin McInnes. McInnes has described the Proud Boys as a pro-Western fraternal organization for men who refuse to apologize for creating the modern world; aka Western Chauvinists.

Proud Boys‘ values center on the following tenets:

Minimal Government
Maximum Freedom
Anti-Political Correctness
Anti-Drug War
Closed Borders
Anti-Racial Guilt
Anti-Racism
Pro-Free Speech (1st Amendment)
Pro-Gun Rights (2nd Amendment)
Glorifying the Entrepreneur
Venerating the Housewife
Reinstating a Spirit of Western Chauvinism

Though these are our central tenets, all that is required to become a Proud Boy is that a man declare he is “a Western chauvinist who refuses to apologize for creating the modern world.” We do not discriminate based upon race or sexual orientation/preference. We are not an “ism”, “ist”, or “phobic” that fits the Left’s narrative. We truly believe that the West Is The Best and welcome those who believe in the same tenets as us. We have an international reach, with members spanning the globe.

Seems laudable and reasonable enough to me, but then I’m not a Degenerate Left scumbag who blames Western Civ for all the problems Leftist cant and their encouragement of Third World dysfunction have created worldwide. Apparently, though, a Washington state sheriff’s department feels differently about things:

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office initially placed Deputy Erin Willey on leave pending an internal investigation after a local newspaper, The Columbian, shared a photograph of Willey wearing “a hooded sweatshirt with a logo showing a switchblade, lipstick and an abbreviation for Proud Boys’ Girls” with the sheriff’s office. Willey was hired in May of 2017 and was let go on July 17 following the Columbian’s report.

The sheriff’s department did not specify the reasoning behind Willey’s firing, but according to the Columbian, it was because of the photo…

Let this fully-converged sheriff’s department look to the Left for support if they like; let them grovel and genuflect at the altar of Political Correctness til their beggar’s knees are raw and bloody. We’ll just see what it gets them.

Share

“A nation of immigrants”?

Nope.

The “nation of immigrants” trope is relatively new in American history, appearing not until the late 19th century. Its first appearance in print was most likely The Daily State Journal of Alexandria, Virginia, in 1874. In praising a state bill that encouraged European immigration, the editors wrote: “We are a nation of immigrants and immigrants’ children.” In 1938, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said to the Daughters of the American Revolution: “Remember, remember always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.” John F. Kennedy would later use the term as the title of a book, written as part of an Anti-Defamation League series, so it is undoubtedly objective, quality scholarship.

But in 1874, as in 1938, and even in 1958 when JFK’s book was written, America was not a nation of immigrants. The women Roosevelt was addressing were not the daughters of immigrants but rather the descendants of settlers—those Americans who founded the society that immigrants in 1874 came to be a part of.

Concerning immigration patterns, from 1820 through 1924, 34 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Europe. Throughout this period, intermittent waves of immigration were punctuated by pauses and lulls. These respites provided immigrants time to Americanize. By contrast, from 1965 through 2000, 24 million new arrivals entered the United States, mostly from Latin America and Asia, and with few if any pauses between waves. In just 35 years, America experienced nearly as much immigration as it did over a century. Nevertheless, from 1820 through 2000, the foreign-born averaged just over 10 percent of the total American population.

To claim that America is a “nation of immigrants” is to stretch a truth—that America historically has experienced intermittent waves of immigration—into a total falsehood, that America is a nation of immigrants. For the truth of the first thing to equal the truth of the other, every nation that experiences immigration may just as well be considered a “nation of immigrants.” Germans have lived along the Rhine since before Christ, yet Germany has also been swarmed by foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa. Is Germany, therefore, a nation of immigrants? A resounding nein is the answer we are hearing from Germans.

Before America was a nation, it had to be settled and founded. As Michael Anton reiterated in response to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens: America is a nation of settlers, not a nation of immigrants. In that, Anton is echoing Samuel Huntington, who showed that America is a society of settlers. Those settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries—more than anyone else after—had the most profound and lasting impact on American culture, institutions, historical development, and identity. American began in the 1600s—not 1874—and what followed in the 1770s and 1780s was rooted in the founded society of those settlers.

Settlers, Anton explains, travel from an existing society into the wilderness to build a society ex nihilo. Settlers travel in groups that either implicitly or explicitly agree to a social compact. Settlers, unlike immigrants, go abroad with the intention of creating a new community away from the mother country. Immigrants, on the other hand, travel from one existing society to another, either as individuals or as families, and are motivated by different reasons; and not always good ones. Immigrants come later to be part of the society already built by settlers, who, as Higham wrote, establish the polity, language, customs, and habits of the society immigrants seek to join and in joining must embrace and adopt.

Justice Louis Brandeis would later echo Jay, declaring that the immigrant is Americanized when he “adopts the clothes, the manners, and the customs generally prevailing here…substitutes for his mother tongue the English language,” ensures that “his interests and affections have become deeply rooted here,” and comes “into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations.” Only when the immigrant has done this will he have “the national consciousness of an American.”

Remember, Brandeis was a Progressive leading light back then. In light of the above statement, the raving madmen of our present-day Loonie Left wouldn’t for a moment consider him an acceptable SC nominee now. But then, if Trump nominated Che Guevara to the Court the NYT, WaPo, and all the rest would doubtless denounce even him as a “right-wing extremist,” too.

That’s progress, see.

Share

Bar raised

Bakeries. Why is it always bakeries, for Pete’s sake?

Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing
PORTLAND, Ore. — Two employees of a bakery in Northeast Portland were fired earlier this month for denying a black woman service because the business had closed.

“Back To Eden Bakery” released several public apologies and statements following the incident, before letting the employees go. In one Facebook post, the bakery’s co-owner wrote, “We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

Annnd here we go.

In one statement, “Back To Eden Bakery” says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named “Lillian”, who is well known in the area as a “professional equity activist”,

Of course she is.

entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery’s closing time. Employees had also turned off the “Open” sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside. Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before “Lillian”, and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.

The bakery says “Lillian” left the store briefly and began recording video.

In other words, as with the Memories Pizza incident, the whole thing was a put-up job from the git-go. Some inflamed carbuncle visited the bakery purely with the intention of raising a stink, nothing more. The pestilential oxygen-thief was way more interested in ginning up controversy than she ever was in cupcakes or eclairs.

The bakery’s statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business’s protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because “sometimes impact outweighs intent.”

So these kids basically got fired for doing their fucking jobs properly, then. Mark it on your calendar, gang: now, right now, is the moment when we finally reached Peak Progtard Idiocy. Next headline from Libloonyville: Apoplectic Negress agitator has shitfit, sues Woolworth’s after being refused service at store that had been closed for decades!

In the statement “Back To Eden” says the employees were fired because the woman and the “clamoring public” demanded they be fired.

Fine by me; let the public clamor as much as it likes. Also let it do without baked goods in the future, and the Starbucks coffee to go with it, as “woke” businesses run by shitlibs in Progtard hellholes are driven out of business one after another. Then they can all sit back and have themselves a good cry over “food deserts,” “redlining,” and the unavailability of damned near everything as the fruits of their obstinate jackassery fully ripen at last, leaving them with nothing but the stinking, rotten peel.

Via Glenn and Hinderaker, who says:

Utterly sickening. Sure, you can say it happened in Portland. (“It’s Chinatown, Jake.”) But this kind of insanity has taken root all across the country. We are in a fight for our lives.

Yep.

Share

“IS THE MEDIA THE ‘ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE’?”

Ask a silly question.

Is the media really the enemy of the American people? Let’s tackle the question objectively.

Enemies hate you and want to destroy you. Do the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS, and the whole alphabet soup of organizations with corporate headquarters in major cities really want to destroy the people who watch their programs, buy their papers and serve them soup after hours?

It seems implausible. But so did the Communists of the Khmer Rouge shooting everyone who wore glasses. Or North Korea’s multi-generational concentration camps, Nazi Germany diverting crucial resources from the war effort to kill Jews, or Venezuela shipping oil to Cuba while its people starve.

Plausibility is a poor measure of what fanatical ideologues might do. Let’s start with what they do, do.

By all means, let’s.

Rap Sheet: ***529*** Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters

Note that the title above has been updated since I first opened the article a few days ago; the count was at 203 then. I left the tab open intending to mention it here when I got a chance; when the page auto-reloaded just now, the toll was up to…what you see above.

Enemy of the people? You bet your ass they are, in every way that matters. Back to Daniel for further explication:

The media’s first allegiance is to the left. Not to America. Its people are not Americans. They’re leftists. The politics of the left are geared at replacing Americans with leftists through a combination of indoctrination, demographic replacement, economic warfare and voter suppression.

Destroying the American people would be an act worthy of an “enemy of the people”.

The media is offended by being referred to as the “enemy of the people”. But does it believe that the American people have the right to exist and maintain their existence? And if so, on what terms?

Unacceptable ones, that’s what: subjugation, silence, oppression, and servitude. Just like in every other socialist hellhole.

The liberal media is as committed an enemy of the American people—of America itself—as is possible to imagine, and Trump is right to say so. Far from being appalled or alarmed by it, his calling them out openly is one of the reasons normal Americans love him—yet another facet of his incredible success shitlibs just don’t get, and never will. Back to Nolte again for the closer:

…remember that if any one of these things happened to a Democrat, the media would use the story to blot out the sun for weeks. Remember how crazy the media went over a nobody rodeo clown who wore an Obama mask, a GOP staffer who criticized Obama’s daughters? And yet, hundreds of Trump supporters are harassed and brutalized and the media only dutifully report them, if at all. That is because the media are desperate to normalize and justify violence and harassment against Trump and his supporters.

And while the media openly encourage this violence against us, the media also campaign to disarm us, to take away our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves.

Funny, that. Must be one of them coinkydinks or something.

Share

Back off—or don’t

What an asshole.

Some say it wasn’t “civil” of me to approach Pruitt at lunch and that it’s a sign of dark times ahead for our political climate. But these arguments are not genuine: The bogus “civility” argument has arisen because conservatives are losing on the content of the arguments.

Actually, Precious, you feel it necessary to harass and “confront” government officials trying to have a meal in peace with their families because YOUR side lost on “the contents of the arguments” a long fucking time ago—also, because you whiny shitlibs lost an election and lack the steel to face up to your rejection by normal Americans. As for times getting “dark,” just wait til we start returning the favor by “getting in your faces and punching back twice as hard”—very damned literally.

“Dark times”? I promise you, you ain’t seen NOTHING yet. But you’re going to.

Focusing on where, when, or how a concerned citizen speaks up is what a person does when they don’t have an adequate response to the concerns being voiced.

Or when they’re just sicked and tired of being constantly fucked with by stupid, nervy jackasses.

I’m not saying everyone should be disrupting politicians in restaurants. But I am saying that putting pressure on our government is vital, and we all need to do our part.

Sure—and there are ways to do that already, while still maintaining respect for dissenting opinions and without prioritizing your own self-righteous sense of absolute infallibility and superiority. Why, they’re written right into the Constitution and everything. Too bad you spent the last 70 years trashing it.

I expect I’ll be getting plenty of mileage henceforth out of Cromwell’s great quote: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Addendum from real Americans addressed to confrontational, violent Progtards: “…before we get fed up enough with your bullshit to just start shooting your asses on sight.” Which is not so much a threat, really; it’s fair warning. Very likely the only one you moonbats are going to get.

But hey, I’m being unfair here. I mean, we all remember how our side reacted to Obama’s eight-year reign of error by publicly harassing shitlibs wherever we found them, attacking them physically, shooting their government officials at softball practice, and…uh…ummm…well, that is to say…

Yeah. As we all know, none of that actually happened. And that just might’ve been our biggest mistake. But it’s not as if there’s any expiration date on correcting it.

Share

Let’s go to Bizarro World!

Let’s explore liberal hijacking of some common terms, unpack those terms, and explain what they really mean by them.

Climate change denier
The climate has been changing ever since the planet has had a climate, and absolutely nobody is denying that. What the more honest and sane of us DO deny is the reliability of the computer models used to bolster the AGW hoax. These models, aside from being cooked and manipulated to produce the desired result, are necessarily flawed from go because of incomplete data. And how could it possibly be otherwise? We don’t even KNOW all the data on the climate, nowhere near.

Anti-fascist, Nazi, Trump is Hitler, etc
These are some of the most painfully ironic verses in the whole liberal hymn book, seeing as how THEY’RE the ones out in the streets in masks and hoods violently crushing dissent. It’s a noxious offshoot of the greatest liberal con ever perpetrated: turning the popular perception of the Nazis—ie, the National SOCIALIST Workers’ Party, for Christ’s sake—into a “right-wing” phenomenon, rather than what it really was: a nasty refining of Marx’s original shitshow.

Women’s health
Abortion.

A woman’s right to choose
Ditto.

Reproductive freedom
Abortion as contraception.

Family planning
Avoidance of having a family

No one is talking about taking anyone’s guns away
That’s EXACTLY what they’re talking about.

Reasonable, common sense gun control
See above.

“I’m a hunter myself”
Only when the TV cameras are running.

Civility
Shut up, we’re lecturing.

Constitutional rights
“Rights” not found anywhere in the US Constitution, whether explicit or implied.

Islamopohobia
Prudent caution about unfettered Muslim immigration, based on an informed understanding of what the Koran says.

Undocumented immigrant
Illegal alien, border jumper.

Racist bigotry
Color-blind.

Affirmative action
Government-mandated racism.

Journalism
Propaganda.

Starting to read a bit like Orwell, ain’t it? Note that this is only a very partial listing, and that I left obvious chestnuts like “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “fairness” entirely alone.

Share

Civility now

After starting off as something of a NeverTrumper early in the MAGA festivities, Mike Walsh gets it—completely, unflinchingly, and without apology.

We’ve tried civility, and we know from bitter experience it doesn’t work. There is no pacifying the Left, no accommodating it, no buying it off with a bit of appeasement here and there. They’re not in the political fray to play, they’re in it to win it. They’re not fiddling around the edges of the American experiment, they’re throwing everything critical theory has at us, questioning every institution and founding principle, and finding all of them worthy of destruction. If we react with anything less than a full-throated defense of both Western and American civilization, we’re going to lose.

Anyway, you fight the battle with the weapons you have, including those of the other side. And it wasn’t us who broke the peace that roughly obtained from World War II to the assassination (by a Communist) of John F. Kennedy. In the latest phase of a long war, the Unholy Left went to battle against America in the summer of 1968 and hasn’t stopped fighting since. They hated Nixon, they hated Reagan, they hated G. W. Bush and now, boy do they hate Donald J. Trump. From the moment it dawned on them on election night that Trump was going to win, they have gone to the mattresses, seeking to undermine the validity of the election and bring down the president of the United States. If you won’t fight to protect your country, what will you fight to do? If the answer is “nothing,” then to heck with you.

This passivity in the face of constant provocation is what our enemies are counting on. They want you cowed, thinking that any pushback is illegitimate. They want you to think that you’re the bad guy in this morality play. That’s why their pet media frames every confrontation as “far-right” groups vs. “anti-fascist” protesters, pushed beyond the limits of their well-known tolerance to take matters into their own violent hands. You are hateful, intolerant, racist and brimming with more phobias than Freud ever dreamed possible. You deserve every bad thing that’s coming to you.

The time for pushback is now.

It most certainly is—before they get the gulags cranking again. And the ovens.

Share

Categories

Archives

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

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



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

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

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

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

All original content © Mike Hendrix