Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

The pluperfect Democrat

You’ll never find a more stellar example.

The suspect in the vandalism of a New York synagogue was a Democratic activist and former City Hall intern who worked on anti-hate crime issues, The Daily Caller News Foundation has learned.

He is a “queer” black man informally adopted by a Jewish couple, and The New York Times’ charity, the Neediest Cases, helped pay for him to go to college where his focus was African American studies, according to a 2017 New York Times profile.

A political event with two Democratic candidates at the Union Temple of Brooklyn was canceled Friday after attendees found graffiti saying “Die Jew Rats” and “Hitler,” which one of the candidates said highlighted the need to vote out “hate.” Police arrested 26-year old James Polite later that night based on surveillance footage.

A year ago, The New York Times profiled Polite, noting that he was an LGBT foster youth who “could defy the statistics” after becoming the “adopted child of the Quinn administration,” as Christine Quinn, then the speaker of the New York city council, put it. “And it wasn’t just me. It was the entire City Council staff.”

In the 2017 profile, The New York Times said Polite, who requested to join the foster care system after his mother provided “unsanitary” conditions for him, “interned with Ms. Quinn, a Manhattan Democrat, for several years, working on initiatives to combat hate crime, sexual assault and domestic violence. He also took part in her re-election campaign in 2009 and returned to help with her unsuccessful bid for mayor in 2013.”

His Facebook profile, reviewed by TheDCNF, shows that on Nov. 1, a day before the synagogue vandalism, he posted “A dream with eyes wide open. civil war is here. Nobody gotta die. Mexico, latin America, carribean vs. Jew nigger pigs. One person touch me this whole shit a smoking.”

The Facebook profile’s pictures and biographical information reveal that it is the same man in The New York Times’ profile. Its URL includes James Polite, but he changed his online name to Abraham Aali.

SO: LGBTQRXTUVRYLXXXXBLRGH. Mentally unbalanced. Racial minority. Barely literate. An over-entitled ingrate eager to bite the hand that fed him. Filled with rage and hate. Possible convert to Islam. Prone to violence. A government employee. Completely deranged. Unshakably convinced of his own righteousness and innate superiority. A moron. Yep, he checks all the Democrat-Socialist boxes sure enough. They ought to run him for President in 2020, seems to me. I mean, who else they got, Creepy Joe Biden?

Share

Are you hearing your words?

Irony so incandescent it actually hurts to look directly at it.

I listened to a remarkable bit of self-parody on National Public Radio on Tuesday: a moderator, a pair of experts, and some very earnest listeners trying to figure out how to most politely tell climate change skeptics they are dangerous idiots.

Yes, on NPR’s “1A,” finding a way to convert those neanderthals, or at least move the “conversation” in the right direction, was the topic of nearly 40 minutes of chatter that was at times quite unintentionally funny.

To be clear, this program was not about debating the existence of climate change. That was already settled for everyone whose head isn’t stuck in a microwave. This was about talking to pea-brains who do not fully believe drastic policy changes are required to combat climate change, and—this is important—having these “conversations” in a way that would not frighten or anger these stunted children.

That the entire segment presupposed that the panelists are so much smarter, wiser, more virtuous than skeptics—or “deniers,” to borrow that creepy nomenclature—and thus, extremely condescending, seemed to escape everyone involved. Let’s dig in.

Said moderator Joshua Johnson at the outset:

Clearly climate change is tough to discuss, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its existence. Or maybe because of that evidence. I mean, think about it. If someone tried to hit you over the head with a bunch of facts and figures, supremely confident that they are right and you are wrong, how would you feel? Or, if someone flat out refused to hear you out, despite the facts being really clear, and just dug in their heels to avoid feeling like they lost an argument, what would that be like? We want to elevate this debate, to change the way we talk about climate change.

Bold mine, of course, because…wow. These people would seem to possess not even trace amounts of self-awareness.

Bledsoe took a question from a caller who wondered why President Trump and other skeptics are so “adamantly ignorant” on the issue, and he warned of not talking about it in terms that are too science-y.

“We who talk about climate change have to talk about it differently. We can’t make it a technocratic or scientific issue,” Bledsoe said.

No, you really can’t. But not for the reason you think.

Myhre was more scathing and then neatly shifted into how gender dynamics fits into all this, showcasing what I’m assuming she learned in Intersectionalism 301 at UC-Davis.

“My view is that we need to indict public leaders who are trafficking in science denial as a form of misconduct and a form of putting the American public into danger,” she said. “However, I do think that we as scientists have engaged nonstop in trying to confront denialism and often that engagement is a very—it’s coded male power brokering that is very problematic in the culture because it pits people against each other instead of focusing on shared values.”

Bold mine, again, because, again…wow. She’s really hitting all the libtard buttons she can reach, ain’t she? C’mon, honey, work some transgenderIslamophobicNaziracistcapitalistgreedbigotedsexism into the mix, whydon’tcha? I got faith in you; I know you can do it. In fact, I suspect you couldn’t stop it if you tried.

Bledsoe interrupted to say the U.S. problem with climate change was unique in its political and cultural aspects, but Myhre responded:

I would agree with that, but I just want to reflect back again that the entire world, by and large, and the world’s global resources are run by men, and those decisions are made by men, and so one of the fundamental aspects of solutions for climate change has to do with anti-racism and anti-misogyny, and that is at a global level. The closer we get to an equitable and safe society for everyone, specifically for the rights of girls and women, then that’s a component of the pathway for us to get to climate solutions.

Ahhh, there it is. Earlier, though, she accidentally let a little raw truth slip out:

I mean, you can talk about the science until you’re blue in the face right? But then when we are actually trying to sit in relationship with people, that’s a two-way street. That is an experience where you have to listen in order to engender trust and relationship, and part of the piece around this is that realizing as scientists, we’re trying to broker power and authority in the public. We’re trying to gain agency and authority, in order for the science that we are stewarding to be integrated into public decision-making. But that piece around brokering for power, man, you gotta get curious about that, right? Because there’s all sorts of lines that divide our culture around, who is trusted? Who gets buy-in? Who has authority?

And that’s what it’s REALLY all about; for the Left, it always is. They can’t ever keep the mailed fist hidden in the velvet glove for very long. I got lots more to say about that, but I’m going to hold onto it for another post.

The crazy bint then went on to have a total moonbat-meltdown on Twitter over having been “disrespected” and “patronized” by the men in the discussion, which I find quite a bit less than surprising (before tootling off to a “sexual harrassment” meeting, naturally). Yeah, I can totally see this seized-up nutbar engaging in a calm, rational, trust-and-relationship engendering chat with a truly well-informed skeptic expecting to bring him or her around to Her Truth on the climate-change scam. I’d give her about a sentence and a half of being able to maintain her obviously precarious sang-froid before going bughouse and getting violent, no more.

A lot of religious discussions seem to end that way, you know.

(Via MisHum)

Share

Stinkin’ Blue Wave

Don’t let any splash on ya, that’s my advice.



Via Hoft and PB.

Defeat is an orphan update! Okay, I have to admit that, as confident as I’ve been about the Blue Wave being a washout, I did NOT see this coming.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said Monday that he has always thought this year’s elections would be close and that he doesn’t use the term “blue wave” to describe a possible big win for his party.

“We always knew that this election was going to be close — I don’t use the term ‘blue wave,’ I always talk about the need for the blocking and tackling,” Perez said in comments on CNN’s “New Day.”

“I always talk about the need for organizing, to make sure you’re leading with your values, and that’s how we’ve been winning throughout this year and throughout 2017.”

More:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) thinks there is reason to doubt the predicted “blue wave” in next month’s midterm elections, saying control of Congress will be decided by a few tight races.

“I know a lot of people talk about this blue wave and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it,” Sanders told Hill.TV’s “Rising” co-host Krystal Ball during an interview that aired on Monday.

Yet more:

Is the “blue wave” turning purple?

Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven closely watched states, according to data provided by TargetSmart and independently analyzed by the NBC News Data Analytics Lab.

GOP-affiliated voters have surpassed Democratic-affiliated ones in early voting in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee and Texas, the data showed.

Only in Nevada have Democratic-affiliated voters exceeded Republican-affiliated voters so far in early voting, according to the data.

Another tell:

One of the emerging lessons of the midterms is that if you’re a Democrat running statewide in Trump country, you have to run as a Trump Republican to have a shot at victory. Consider the handful of statewide elections currently considered toss-ups. Most of them feature Democrats trying to persuade swingable voters that not only are they not part of the Resistance, they actually agree with Trump on certain issues.

In Indiana, which Trump won by 19 points, incumbent Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly is running an ad campaign attacking “the radical left,” touting Trump’s border wall, and boasting about how often he splits from his own party. In South Dakota, which Trump won by nearly 30 points, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Billie Sutton, who is pro-life and pro-gun, is running on an anti-corruption platform with a former Republican as his running mate.

In Montana, which Trump won by 20 points, incumbent Democratic Sen. Jon Tester ran a full-page ad in 14 state newspapers ahead of a Trump’s visit in July, thanking the president for signing bills that Tester had pushed. (Despite the thank-you, Trump has been attacking Tester for allegations he made against Trump’s one-time secretary of Veterans’ Affairs nominee, Adm. Ronny Jackson.)

In each of these races, recent polls show the Democratic candidate with a slight lead. That stands in sharp contrast to Democratic candidates who are making no effort to embrace Trump voters in states he won. They aren’t faring nearly as well.

So, as always, they have to lie through their teeth and conceal what they really are, then. Nothing new about that.

After their enormous Kavanaugh blunder and last week’s attempt to tamp down fever-swamp expectations for the Mueller charade, the Demonrats are backpedaling so fast they’re liable to trip over themselves. None of this sounds or feels like a party confident of any impending “blue wave” to me. In the end, it all comes down to this:

“How many people do you know who voted for Trump (are) claiming that the Democrats need to win now because Trump has to be stopped and all this tweeting has to be stopped and all these bad manners have to be?”

“Uh, nobody.”

“So why do you think the blue wave?”

“I saw it in the media. I saw it on TV. I see the polls.”

“Why do you believe it? Where is the trend that Democrats are winning elections?”

Seventy-seven thousand people have signed up to get into the Trump rally in Texas for Cruz that holds 17,000 people. Where do you get this idea Democrats are popular?

Meanwhile, in another huge tell, even their once-mighty Lord and Savior, His Most Puissant Highness Barrack, can’t draw flies. In light of all this, I’m thinking Bill and Her Herness might want to rethink that stadium tour of theirs, unless they’re willing to pay people to attend.

The Democrat Socialist jalopy is running on fumes, sputtering and farting and belching smoke; they’re praying for a miracle to help nurse the faltering old rattletrap back home before it falls completely apart and leaves them stranded in Nowheresville. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of assholes, if you ask me.

Share

Different worlds

The real world versus…that other thing.

Their racism, sexism, and other -isms and -phobias are all so stupid that you can’t help but point at their prejudices and laugh, which really sets Shoveling Bull on the warpath because to her and her elite pals, it’s all so very, very serious.

They actually believe this bigoted garbage. And they hate us because we don’t. And they really hate us when we laugh at them.

But how are we supposed to react? Are we supposed to take them seriously? Nah. We look at people for who they are. Some guy used to call our criteria for evaluating others “the content of their character,” but our alleged betters now dismiss that crazy talk as the ravings of some Christian kook mansplaining away his privilege. We live in the real world, where this nuttiness doesn’t fly, as opposed to an elite that lives in the institutional nuthouses of academia, the media, and the Democrat Party where this nonsense is their secular religion. With them, it’s a constant struggle of the unoppressed oppressed bickering over the spoils of victimhood.

Think about your life as a Normal. You’re always interacting with people of all races, ethnicities, orientations, and creeds. And statistically, you deal with people more Indian than Elizabeth Warren every day, which isn’t hard since statistically pretty much everyone is more Indian than Elizabeth Warren. Hell, my wife – a Cuban immigrant – did one of those DNA tests and she’s more Indian than Elizabeth Warren. Really.

We’re too busy to care about immutable characteristics, and even if we weren’t we wouldn’t do it because we think caring about that stuff is stupid. Our elite, on the other hand, appears to have nothing better to do than obsess about who fits in what category. Why? Well, our elite’s track record over recent decades is pretty much an unbroken series of failures and fiascos. Since they can’t actually do anything, they really have little else to distinguish themselves with besides their membership (or fake membership) in some oppressed group.

It used to be “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.” Now, it’s “Those who can, do; those who can’t teach oppression studies down at the university and dress up like handmaids to protest due process.”

Yet, these are the people who think they should be ruling over us. They think we’re the mindless idiots, and they can’t even see past someone’s skin tone. Pathetic.

Actually, for the more cunning of them it’s not so much that they think we’re mindless idiots as it is that they need us to be mindless idiots, and are frightened half to death that we might not be. And that, in turn, is why they hate us: they have this nice little ideological pigeonhole all prepared for us to be shoved into, and damned if we don’t keep spoiling The Plan by refusing to fit into it.

Share

Is NOTHING sacred?

And I don’t mean John Henry, necessarily. I mean the goddamned ROCK, buster.

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson will play folk hero John Henry in an upcoming Netflix movie. Until the recent backlash, I was unaware that Johnson is only half black; his mother is Samoan.

Some think Johnson, who is among the highest-paid actors in the world, is not black enough to play a black man in the movies. One wrote, “John Henry was a very dark skin man & yes that matters.” Yet, John Henry is mythological. The skin shade of the “real” John Henry is uncertain; and like all folk tales, many aspects of the story “are subject to debate.”

Other critics say Dwayne Johnson hasn’t proclaimed his blackness enough to qualify as black. One tweet read, “The Rock is black when it’s profitable and racially ambiguous when it isn’t. We need a proud, strong, all-day black man to play John Henry.” 

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Remind me of that the next time you shrieking twerps want, say, Will Smith to play Jim West, or a black lesbian to play Captain Kirk, or any other such PC douchebaggery you degenerates cook up in your never-ceasing “reboots” of classic old movies or TV shows.

It reminds me of the ridiculousness that greeted me not long after I had moved to Atlanta back in ’98. The local teewee “news” wasted a couple of days covering, with somber seriousness, a big protest at the Keebler factory over the lack of any black Keebler elves in the commercials for their cookies. Nobody bothered to break it to these mental giants that, uhh, there aren’t any elves, black or white, in the first place. Nor did they bake their delicious cookies inside a hollow tree. Because, you see, ELVES DON’T EXIST. So when dreaming up imaginary cartoon-spokesthings to advertise said cookies, you’re free to make them any skin color you might wish to. The whole ward of douchenoodles would probably have suffered a mass nervous breakdown over having that shocking news broken to ’em.

Would those criticizing the selection of Dwayne Johnson to play John Henry be outraged by the idea that their mindset is the same as those who sought to determine who was Jewish in Nazi Germany?

Why would they? They—well, their ideological forerunners—were the ones doing it. And THOSE ovens were real. And were not manned by elves, either. They were manned by dedicated, diehard socialists, not at all far removed in either philosophical or practical terms from the ones blighting the landscape and wet-belching up moronic Tweets against The Rock today.

Can you even imagine how miserable it must be to have to go through life whining and moaning and offended and upset over every least little insignificant thing you encounter? There’s absolutely nothing that doesn’t bother them, nothing they can leave alone or let slide without complaint. Even the most granular, fleabitten nothing on Earth gets conflated into a major ass-ache by these pusnutted pissants. It must be awful.

Serves ’em right.

Share

The Trigglypuff vote

They deserve each other, and real Americans deserve better.

Commenting on the irrational female rage unleashed by the Kavanaugh confirmation circus, Stephen Green remarks: “The Democrats have worked hard to lock down the Trigglypuff vote, but at what cost of even slightly more moderate voters?” But do such voters really exist?

We are more than 25 years into a cycle of increasing polarization that arguably began with Bill Clinton’s election as president. Clinton’s radicalism — remember the so-called “assault weapons” ban? — sparked a backlash that cost Democrats the control of the House that they’d held for 40 years. Everything thereafter increased the partisan divide: The budget standoff that led to the government shutdown, the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis, the Florida recount in 2000, the Iraq War, the recapture of Congress by Nancy Pelosi’s Democrats, Obama’s election in 2008, the Tea Party movement, on and on.

It is not the case that America’s politics have become more divisive because the Republican Party has moved further right. Liberal pundits, commenting from within their ideological cocoons, habitually apply labels — “far right,” “extremist,” “white nationalist,” etc. — to depict the GOP as beholden to a dangerous fringe, but this is just paranoid propaganda. The typical Republican voter in 2018 is actually no more “extreme” than his father was in 1988. Nor is the policy agenda of the GOP now any more “far right” than it was in the presidency of Ronald Reagan. The cause of the increased partisan divide is not that the Republicans have moved right, but that Democrats have moved left.

What happened, when did it happen and why did it happen?

Just this: enough Americans woke up to what the Democrat-Socialists really were—as opposed to what they misleadingly claimed themselves to be—to reject them firmly and fully by putting Trump in the Oval Office, which drove them batshit insane. Room for lots more detaIled analysis, natch, but that’s the nut of it.

Having worked so hard to lock down the TrigglyPuff vote, as Stephen Green says, Democrats are now held hostage by the mob mentality of the identity-politics “social justice” coalition they’ve built.

This is what the Kavanaugh confirmation circus confirmed: Democrats are now the party of TrigglyPuff, of angry college girls driven to fits of insanity — a deranged mob clawing at the doors of the Supreme Court — by the irrationality of their “progressive” belief system.

What about those “slightly more moderate voters” who might be alienated by the Democrats’ surrender to extremism? They don’t seem to exist. Polls indicate that the Democrats’ advantage in the generic congressional ballot is holding firm around 7 or 8 points. Why?

I’ll just answer that question with a quote from Huck Finn: “H’ain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And ain’t that a big enough majority in any town?” In towns like NYC, Chicago, LA, San Francisco, Detroit, etc, yes. Yes, it surely is.

(Via Insty)

Share

It’s a white thing

And I don’t want to understand.



The thug yelling “Yeah, you little white motherf**ker. Yeah, you’re a f**king whitey, a little whitey, aren’t you?” appears to be a “f**king whitey” himself, at least to judge from his pasty white calves. So are most of the other protesters. But, rather in the way all those white ladies on “The View” kept going on about “old white Republican men” during the Kavanaugh business, for an increasing number of white people, sneering at your fellow white people as “white people” is the preferred epithet. This is sad and at one level psychologically unhealthy – like living in a ward full of self-proclaimed Napoleons laughing at the one guy who isn’t. But on the other hand it shows diversity is now so deeply ingrained that white folks can celebrate it all by themselves.

As the scenes from Portland remind us, the cold civil war – growing hotter by the day – is really between two classes of white people, even if one of them insists on pretending it isn’t.

Well, sure, but they’re the GOOD ones, see. But if that isn’t ludicrous enough for ya:

Perhaps white people who prefer not to identify as white people could become whxte people – in the same way that a remarkable number of UK businesses are now using the word “womxn”:

Companies have come under fire for using the word “womxn” instead of “woman,” after worrying the latter word excludes transgender people.

Not so long ago, in the days of “sex changes”, the point about becoming a woman was to become a woman. But now trans-women are a thing unto themselves, so the term “woman” is exclusionary. “I am woman, hear me…pipe down about it in case everyone thinks I’m being non-binary-phobic.”

A squirrel can identify as an emotional support animal, a white man can identify as a person of color, but a woman can no longer identify as a woman because that’s transphobic. One begins to detect among some of the chippier feminists a faint sense that this trans thing is a reverse phallocentric takeover of the entire woman business.

I don’t have a squirrel in this fight, but the above three stories are not the daily news churn of a healthy society.

Oh, great. Just when I was finally getting used to “wymyn” and “xyr” and all.

Share

Mob rules

Not just a Black Sabbath album anymore. Unfortunately.

For the first time in history, we have a populace who will not abide by the results of our election process, and its effort to obstruct and destroy is damaging the fabric of our society and the foundation on which this country rests. We have a lawful process in place to address the will of the people, and currently we see the Democrats destroying the institutions we have relied on since our founding to carry out the will of the people. Whether it is the unlawful plots at the FBI and the Justice Department to frame an innocent President Trump, the weaponization of the IRS to silence conservatives, or the theater of the absurd at the confirmation hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, the left’s dirty tactics are now a threat to our liberty and democracy. There is not an institution that has not been impacted. Many of us are asking what institutions we can still trust and rely on.

Since the left has not been able to advance its agenda at the ballot box, its followers rely on activist judges in black robes to advance their radical agenda. It was a process that worked well for them under Clinton and Obama, but now, without Congress or the Executive Branch and with the possible loss of the Supreme Court, they see their grasp on power slipping away, and they have become unhinged. They have openly stated they will stop at nothing in their effort to remove a duly elected president. In an effort to  hang on to power, they are now employing mob rule and character assassination in the halls of Congress, as we witnessed during last week’s congressional hearing.

Thus, it is not enough to denounce the thugs. George Soros, the billionaire funding the assaults and attacks, must be brought to justice for not only inciting violence, not to mention investigated for sedition, a crime we need to begin to take seriously. He and his minions are obstructing the agenda we voted on and one we won. It is imperative that Republicans in office begin to use the term “sedition” in public.

Those who plot the overthrow of the United States as a constitutional republic for a one-world order, as Soros has openly advocated, can no longer be ignored. He and his marching minions must be prosecuted for funding a war waged against our republic, and let it be a warning that we will no longer sit idly by as we watch our country destroyed from within. 

He calls for real Americans to vote the Treasoncrats out en masse in November, and he isn’t wrong to do so. His call to bring the truly, literally evil Soros to justice and resurrect the concept of sedition is also right on. Certainly, a Red Wave that removes large numbers of Democrat Socialist politicians from the halls of power can only be a good thing.

But anybody who thinks the ballot box is going to end—or even slow—the Left’s descent into violent, revolutionary madness is dreaming. They’re only to get worse instead, and harsher measures than the vote will be required to rid ourselves of them, if such is ever to be done at all.

Update! Did I just say Leftist insanity and violence will get worse? You bet it will.

Sen. Rand Paul’s wife on Wednesday demanded that a Democrat take back his comment encouraging activists to “get up in the face of some congresspeople,” and said she now keeps a loaded gun near her bed after Paul was mobbed by protesters this week at an airport.

“Preventing someone from moving forward, thrusting your middle finger in their face, screaming vitriol — is this the way to express concern or enact change?” Kelley Paul wrote in an open letter to Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., condemning the incident. “Or does it only incite unstable people to violence, making them feel that assaulting a person is somehow politically justifiable?”

“I would call on you to retract your statement,” Paul said in the letter. “I would call on you to condemn violence, the leaking of elected officials’ personal addresses (our address was leaked from a Senate directory given only to senators), and the intimidation and threats that are being hurled at them and their families.”

It ain’t gonna happen. Violence is all they have left, and they’ve already demonstrated that they’re too power-crazed to just let it go at being defeated in an election. Bless your heart, Mrs Paul, and your husband’s too, but what we’ve seen so far is only the beginning, I’m afraid.

The New America update! Hinderaker says:

I am sure a lot of Republicans in Washington are upgrading their security systems and making sure they are prepared to defend themselves against crazed Democratic Party activists. This isn’t the America I grew up in, but it is the America we all live in now.

The thing I don’t understand is, why do Democrats like Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, Chuck Schumer, etc., think they are the only ones who can use violence to advance their cause? Do they not understand what a whirlwind they will unleash if they try to use political violence as a path to power?

They don’t care; they think they’ll win, and the depth of the fanatical hatred that drives them won’t allow them to stand down.

Share

Antisemitic Jews

A few of the other distasteful groups some on the alt-right choose to align themselves with: Joo-hatin’ libtards, self-hating Jewish libtards, and…guess who.

Anti-Israel activist Peter Beinart had spent years arguing that Hamas was a potentially moderate organization. Then when he was questioned at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport, he played victim. 

But as Caroline Glick notes, there was every reason for Israeli authorities to question Beinart’s visit, because the anti-Israel BDS activist had participated in anti-Israel protests in Israel. Beinart was not, despite his claims, detained. He was asked about his participation in that protest by the Center for Jewish Nonviolence. The Center, despite its name, is used by Jewish Voice for Peace members, a BDS hate group, which also, despite its name, advocates for and supports terrorists who attack Israel. 

JVP members are on the banned list. Beinart had participated in a protest organized by a group that it used as a vehicle. So it’s completely normal that he was asked about it just as visitors to this country are asked about their membership in prohibited organizations such as the Nazi, Communist and other totalitarian parties. The BDS blacklist that bigots like Beinart rave about is no different than the United States blacklist on anyone who “has used a position of prominence to endorse terrorism.” 

That’s the BDS movement. 

JVP declared that it was proud to host Rasmea Odeh. Odeh had been convicted of a supermarket bombing in Israel that killed Edward Joffe and Leon Kanner: two Hebrew University students. It called the terrorist an “inspiration” and used the hashtag, #HonorRasmea. That’s using “a position of prominence to endorse terrorism” which gets you banned from both the United States and Israel. 

Beinart writes for The Forward, a paper notorious for attacks on Israel and Jews that veer into the anti-Semitic. Typically anti-Semitic Forward headlines include, “3 Jewish Moguls Among Eight Who Own as Much as Half the Human Race” and “Why We Should Applaud The Politician Who Said Jews Control The Weather.” 

Did I neglect to mention yet another of those distasteful groups above: the absolutely batshit insane? Consider the oversight hereby corrected, then. But wait, there’s more…and worse.

Jewish power, Karl Marx, whose bearded visage still sneers from The Forward’s old building, claimed, is self-interest. That self-interest has corrupted Jews. And Jewish self-interest has corrupted the world. Only socialism, enlightened global altruism, can redeem the world from the corruption of the Jews. 

Behind the special pleading, the foaming outrage, the laughable invocations of Jewish tradition and morality, Beinart, Eisner, The Forward and Jewish Voice for Peace are working off the same Marxist critique of Jews. Israel’s crime and that of its Jewish supporters, they contend, is that its self-interest has corrupted Jewish morality. The only way to redeem the Jews is to destroy Jewish self-interest. 

To destroy Israel. 

Only by abandoning their self-interest, their power, even their survival, can they atone for what Marxist anti-Semites, from their great bearded master on down, see as the ‘original sin’ of the Jews.

Peter Beinart, The Forward and JVP aren’t putting forward bold new ideas. Their Jewish sources are not, as they claim, the prophets of Israel or the Kotzker Rebbe, but the original prototype of the anti-Jewish Jew. Their prophet is the pathological anti-Semite who raved, “What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.” 

Over a century and a half later, Marxist criticism of the Jews has made few innovations, replacing Judaism with Israel, and to a lesser degree, money with power. Leftist anti-Zionism is so hard to distinguish from anti-Semitism because its roots are still in the same anti-Semitic Marxist sewer. 

The Anti-Jewish Jews preach the salvific powers of the left to redeem the selfishness of the Jews. Only the left can save Jews from Jewish power. Only the left can redeem Jews from clinging to their guns, bible, and land by destroying Israel.

Boy, the irony is strong with these ones, ain’t it?

Yeah, I ain’t gonna be joining the chorus of “JOOZ DID IT!” conspiracy theorists, Right, Left, or Confutated, thanks. I don’t care how vociferously they preach their frothy gospel, here at this websty or anyplace else. Try peddling it someplace else, guys; there’s no market for it here.

Share

Going, going…GONE

As Ed says: get woke, go broke.

Lexington, Virginia, is struggling to recover its image as a welcoming community after one of its restaurants famously refused to serve White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. The whole town faced a backlash after The Red Hen, a restaurant in downtown Lexington, refused to serve Sanders and her family, forcing them to into the street last June.

Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of The Red Hen, reportedly followed the Sanders party across the street and organized a protest, “yelling and screaming at them from outside the restaurant and creating this scene,” according to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, even though Sanders had left the party.

The ugly incident prompted President Trump to lash out at The Red Hen on Twitter, calling it “filthy” and “dirty.”

Over two months later tourism in the small town is still reportedly suffering.

The Roanoke Times reported on Sunday that the regional tourism board has been forced to use emergency funds to boost its digital marketing campaign. Officials said the funds were needed because “the region is in desperate need of positive coverage.”

I can think of one sure-fire way to accomplish that quite quickly: run that goddamned liberal-fascist hen out of town on a rail. Film it, put it on YouTube, and announce that the town is again open for business, its restaurants no longer politicized. That ought to do it.

Share

“We Have to Regulate Every Aspect of People’s Lives”

Any questions?

A Santa Barbara city councilman inadvertently let slip the primary purpose of progressivism in 21st century America.

The city recently criminalized the use of plastic straws. Speaking to that issue, Councilman Jesse Dominguez said, “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

Got that? “We” are smarter than you and know what’s best for you better than you do.

Go read his stumbling, shambling walkback and non-apology “apology” after realizing how badly he’d let the iron fist backing the liberal smiley-face show. It’s pathetic. Moran follows up:

Lately, individual liberty has been getting squeezed by a cadre of statists who believe they have been born with the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to live their lives. To enforce this belief, they have hijacked the enormous power of the state, nibbling away at individual rights in the name of “community.”

They couch their tyranny in soothing words, but the result is catastrophic for liberty. 

Which of course is the plan, and was all along. Steven Hayward at Powerline holds out hope that the people of Santa Barbara might turn the Mark-1, Mod-0 liberal out of office in a sudden, unprecedented show of perspicacity, but Moran has the right of it: it ain’t even remotely likely.

Forget it, Steve, it’s Cali-town.

Share

Open letter

It’s good and all, but the question I keep coming back to is: why bother talking to them at all? It’s not as if they’re A) listening; B) interested; or C) amenable to reason and/or logic.

On November 9, you awoke from a self-induced, eight-year-long political coma to find that White House press secretaries shade the truth and top presidential advisors run political cover for their boss. You were shocked to discover that presidents exaggerate, even lie, on occasion. You became interested for the first time about the travel accommodations, office expenses, and lobbyist pals of administration officials. You started counting how many rounds of golf the president played. You suddenly thought it was fine to mock the first lady now that she wasn’t Michelle Obama. Once you removed your pussy hat after attending the Women’s March, you made fun of Kellyanne Conway’s hair, Sarah Sanders’ weight, Melania Trump’s shoes, Hope Hicks’ death stare; you helped fuel a rumor started by a bottom-feeding author that U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley slept with Donald Trump. You thought it was A-OK that Betsy DeVos was nearly physically assaulted and routinely heckled. You glorified a woman who has sex on camera for a paycheck.

You have learned all kinds of new things that those of us who didn’t willfully ignore politics for the past eight years already knew. For example, we already knew that illegal immigrants were being deported and families were being separated.

Some of your behavior has been kinda cute. It was endearing to watch you become experts on the Logan Act, the Hatch Act, the Second Amendment, the 25th Amendment, and the Emoluments Clause. You developed a new crush on Mitt Romney after calling him a “sexist” for having “binders full of women.” You longed for a redux of the presidency of George W. Bush, a man you once wanted imprisoned for war crimes. Ditto for John McCain. You embraced people like Bill Kristol and David Frum without knowing anything about their histories of shotgunning the Iraq War.

Classified emails shared by Hillary Clinton? Who cares! Devin Nunes wanting to declassify crucial information of the public interest? Traitor! But your newfound admiration and fealty to law enforcement really has been a fascinating transformation. Wasn’t it just last fall that I saw you loudly supporting professional athletes who were protesting police brutality by kneeling during the national anthem? Remember how you fanboyed a mediocre quarterback for wearing socks that depicted cops as pigs?

But now you sound like paid spokesmen for the Fraternal Order of Police.

In lieu of further comment, I’ll limit myself to dittoing CH: “I have nothing to add. This was a beautiful ray of truth from Julie Kelly, piercing a veil of shitlib lies, distortions, and delusions.

Share

Trump’s Underground Militia scores another win

“This meeting of the Trump Underground Militia will come to order. Jason, how do we stand with our efforts in London?”

“We’ve recruited about 200 of the wierdest, most repulsive whackos in the city. They have promised to show up at protests wearing their most outrageous costumes, and doing their hair in neon bright colors and ridiculous styles.”

“Sounds like a good start. What kind of costumes are we talking about?”

“Well one woman described this pink Statue of Liberty thing she wanted to do, but it turns out she has no idea what the Statue of Liberty actually looks like. We said she was holding a fan instead of a tablet, and the idiot bought it. Then we’ve got a man who dresses as a cat, a person of indeterminate sexuality with some kind of strange pirate getup, a bunch who like to dress in white-face with black makeup, and another person of indeterminate sexuality who likes to display his or her crotch in as vulgar a way as you can imagine.”

“Good! How about signs?”

“We made some suggestions, and those fools just ate them up. They make no sense at all, but that didn’t seem to matter. For example, ‘Don’t grab pussy with blood’ was their favorite, even though it doesn’t make a lick of sense.”

“Did they bite on the Black Lives Matter sign I suggested?”

“Oh, yeah. There wasn’t a black within ten miles, but they thought BLM was great. We told them Trump was racist against blacks and they said ‘Of course he is!’, and they didn’t need to know anything more about BLM.”

“How about the usual papier mache puppets?”

“Oh, we came up with a better idea – a balloon of Trump in a diaper. I though they were going to orgasm right there in front of us. We helped them raise $40,000 for it.”

“Aren’t you afraid they might actually make something impressive with $40K?”

“Those maroons? Not a chance. It ended up being about the size of a car. Anyone who has seen the Macy’s Day parade will laugh at it. The newspapers are already printing photoshopped pictures of this giant balloon over the city, and the actual one will just make them look pathetic.”

“Well done, all. I think we can count this as another major success in our 2020 re-election strategy. I’m sure lots of voters will look at those British protestors and vote for Trump from sheer revulsion.”

“OK, just make sure there are some good pictures of your work for the media to publish.”

Trump hating idiots

Share

Morning in America!

A brand new day, a brand new way.

The early years of the Trump administration have seen both the worst and the best of the judiciary. Federal judges joined the leftist resistance by seizing the power to decide everything from immigration policy down to whom the President of the United States can block on Twitter. These decisions weren’t just power grabs, they ignored basic law and precedent, and not to mention checks and balances.

The President spent months having his legitimate authority of office crippled while waiting for the Supreme Court to intervene. And sometimes these interventions, as in Trump v. Hawaii, were shockingly narrow. Without Gorsuch, the 5-4 decision, in which the court’s four leftists insisted on denying Trump the authority of his office, would have been the verdict of the Supreme Court and the law of the land.

During the election, Never Trumpers told us that a Republican Senate could check Hillary Clinton. Now, George Will and other GOP defectors insist that the Senate needs to be turned over to the Democrats.

Imagine the Supreme Court with two or three more leftists on it. That would have been the outcome.

And imagine Janus v. AFSCME, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Abbott v. Perez, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, and others coming up under the justices appointed by President Hillary Clinton.

Then ask how anyone who believes those cases involving religious freedom, freedom of speech, and the rights of states should have been decided to the left could possibly claim to be a conservative.

Oh, that’s easy: falsely.

If President Trump had done nothing else, two Supreme Court appointments alone are transformative.

We stand on the threshold of a golden age in conservative jurisprudence. After generations of wandering through a wasteland of judicial activism and unilateral supremacism, we can see the light at the end of the tunnel. And so can the left. That is why it is preparing to go to war for Kennedy’s seat.

Trump needs to stand firm, and real Americans need to stand firmly with him. Lefty lunatics are going to go truly berserk over this, and there’s going to be violence from them as a result. Nobody should kid themselves otherwise. Daniel has lots and lots more; read it all, and steel yourselves for real trouble to come.

Share

An idea whose time has…uhh, well…

It might not be such a bad idea, really, but I don’t see it happening.

America is being made great again in the wake of Obama’s failed presidency, which in hindsight already appears as nothing more than the absurd climax of affirmative action gone off the rails.  Trump has wiped the floor with his legacy while building an incredible one of his own.

Now, I propose, is the perfect time for the American people to seal their own deal: let’s make a campaign ourselves to expire terms such as “Democrat,” “liberal,” “leftist,” and “progressive,” and let’s call it what it is: totalitarianism.

He ain’t entirely wrong, of course. But “totalitarian” is a wee mite unwieldy, shall we say. Not to mention that I doubt most average workaday Joes out there even know what it means, or care.

I’ve opined myself about the near-uselessness nowadays of the old terms like “liberal,” “conservative,” etc. In fact, those two in particular have come to signify pretty much the opposite of their old, long-accepted definitions—a direct result of the Left’s hijacking of the world “liberal” not as a clarification of their intentions, but as camouflage for them. If there’s anything remotely liberal about unending expansion of a bureaucratic central behemoth’s control over each and every one of us, I sure wish someone would explain to me what it might be.

I coined the term “Progressivist” and use it pretty extensively here, because I am confident in my readers’ familiarity with the history of the so-called Progressive movement, its origins, and its sinister agenda. But I expect that my use of “Progressivist” as a sort of shorthand for the Left’s fetishized continuation and extension of the original Progressives’ statist, tyrannical program might not be properly understood by most folks out there. On the other hand, when someone says “liberal” everybody pretty much gets the idea, at least for now. Cohen still makes some pretty good points, though:

Now that Trump is midway through his second year as president, I believe we can now announce without fear of the Post-Orwellian Thought Police: the enemies of President Trump are the enemies of the family, the Constitution, morality, and sanity. They are collectively the enemies of our nation’s future, who actively seek to flood the nation with third-world refugees while disarming the native population. In a word, President Trump’s enemies are barbarians within the gates, and they have gotten this far because they do a good job of weeping when retaliation looms. We now must update our terminology if we are consciously to move ahead: the words “liberal,” “progressive,” “Democrat” are what “National Socialist” are to “Nazi.” They are a lot of misleading verbiage.

Oh, I don’t know how misleading they really are at this point. They were once, and were intended to be. But people are beginning to see through the smokescreen more clearly than they ever have before; the fog is lifting at last as the inevitable failure of Left governance makes itself felt more keenly, leaving behind only the revolting stench of pure corruption. Cohen goes on to reel off this great line:

The liberal agenda exists solely because the people liberals are hell-bent on attacking are too busy living their lives to bother shooting them all.

Heh. For now, I suppose. We’ll see how long that holds up. Cohen’s closing recommendation is right on the money too.

Share

A level playing field

Except when it doesn’t suit us.

Last week, track and field’s world governing body limited entry into women’s events to athletes who have testosterone levels that are capable of being produced solely by ovaries.

These rules apply across the board to athletes however they presented at birth. Advocates for intersex and transgender athletes have vigorously attacked the International Association of Athletics Federations’ new rules, but they are an extraordinary compromise for women’s sports, including for traditional feminist proponents of equal access to sports for girls and women, guaranteed in the civil rights legislation known as Title IX.

Understanding the rules and why they make sense is hard. They are based in biology people don’t know or don’t like to talk about and, let’s be honest, at least in some circles, they’re politically incorrect. They force us to talk about women’s bodies when it is increasingly taboo to do so, and they run counter to the movement that seeks to include transgender and intersex people in social institutions based on their gender identity rather than their biology.

These are important progressive developments, but their effects on valuable institutions like women’s sport are real and they need to be understood before positions harden on bad information. Pretending that the female body doesn’t exist or that we can’t define the boundaries between men’s and women’s bodies is a bad idea for many reasons. Replacing traditional sex classifications with classifications based on gender identity certainly has steep costs in contexts like competitive sport, where the likelihood of success is precisely about sex-specific biology.

A lot has been written about intersex athletes who identify — or are identified in their legal documents — as women. What is important to know is that there are many different intersex conditions, but the I.A.A.F. is only concerned with the subset that involves athletes who are biologically male. They are “in between” only with respect to the pre-birth underdevelopment of their external genitals. Intersex athletes who are biologically female aren’t affected by the rules.

Specifically, the athletes who are the focus of the I.A.A.F.’s rules are those who have testes. Starting in puberty and as adults, their testes produce sperm, not eggs, and supply testosterone in quantities that biologically female bodies and their ovaries never come close to producing.

The male range at its lowest is three times higher than the female range at its highest. At puberty these athletes developed male, not female, secondary sex characteristics: increased muscle mass and strength, including increased heart size; higher hemoglobin levels, which result in better oxygen carrying capacity; and different muscle types and ratios of fat to muscle.

Advocates for intersex athletes like to say that sex doesn’t divide neatly. This may be true in gender studies departments, but at least for competitive sports purposes, they are simply wrong. Sex in this context is easy to define and the lines are cleanly drawn: You either have testes and testosterone in the male range or you don’t. As the I.A.A.F.’s rules provide, a simple testosterone test establishes this fact one way or the other.

This is actually a highly sensible editorial, especially as it ran originally in the NYT. I hate to argue with her, since she’s taken basically the same position and used the same words I have myself, many times over. But…no. HELL no. No way. To begin with: despite current PC fashion, sex in just about ANY context is “easy to define,” with cleanly drawn lines.

The writer, being an athlete, focuses exclusively on sports. Sorry, but that’s not sufficient. From the military to fire departments to just about any field where biology and physical reality puts women at a disadvantage, standards have been lowered to allow females access at the behest of so-called “third-wave” feminists. For decades, these “feminists” have angrily insisted that there are no meaningful differences between men and women, and that every obstruction to total male-female “equality” must therefore be demolished. They’ve forcibly reshaped society to square with these absurd contentions. Any common-sense pushback is dismissed with enraged howls of protest, or mocked as anachronistic stupidity at best.

Fine by me, then. Every womens’ sports league, at every level from professional down to junior-high, must be disbanded by law. Transgenders must be accommodated as whichever of the 357 Flavors of Fluidity suits them that day, week, month, or season. There shall be no more women-only public bathrooms, gym showers, or university housing. Likewise sororities, hobbyist groups, social clubs, and all other female-only organizations. The WNBA must take its place on the ash-heap of history’s discarded lies, a shameful monument to discrimination and bigotry from a less-enlightened era. If aspiring female firefighters can’t carry the dummy the requisite distance in the requisite time—a dummy of the exact same size and weight as the men must qualify with—then they don’t get to ride the truck or carry the hose. Can’t beat the boys in the fifty-yard dash, wrestling, or powerlifting? Can’t manage as many pull-ups as a male SEAL or Marine? Better learn how to be a good loser, then.

No shortcuts, do-overs, handicaps, or ladies’ tees. No weeping rooms, fainting couches, or “safe spaces” either. Plumbing problems, flat tires, any home repair requiring a circular saw, a sledgehammer, or a prybar? Your arms ain’t broke, fix it yourself. Nut up or wash out. If you can’t stand the heat, get back in the kitchen.

Don’t like that, “ladies”? Please allow me to commend Alinsky’s Rule 4 to your attention, following which you can all go pound sand. Sorry, but you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too; you want to be “equal,” then you will BY GOD BE EQUAL, according to the truest, sparest, most literal definition of the word. It’s only fair.

Careful what you wish for, Lefty dopes.

Share

The politics of everydamnedthing

Is there nothing the Killjoy Left’s relentless politicization of every facet of life can’t suck the juice out of?

Once PC culinary sages merely condemned what Americans ate as factory farm-driven, profit-mad and highly caloric. Twinkies and high-fructose corn syrup would kill us all, unless we gave up steaks and fries for low-fat, plant-based regimens.

But in the last year, the agenda’s lurched far, far leftward. Kit Kat bars are making people fat in South America, part of a “marketing juggernaut that is upending traditional diets from Brazil to Ghana to India,” The New York Times moaned on its front page as far back as Sept. 16.

At the new downtown Chick-fil-A, you’re buying into “creepy infiltration” of the chain’s “pervasive Christian traditionalism,” gay-hating views of its founders and the sinister undertones of cow portraits hanging on the walls, which “glorify God,” according to Dan Piepenbring in the April 13 issue of The New Yorker. (He doesn’t mention that Chick-fil-A’s NYC landlord is a Syrian-Jewish family who seemingly wasn’t offended when they leased the site to the Jesus freaks.)

The New Yorker has cornered the market on extreme “food politics.” A feature in a 2017 article about a South Carolina eatery founded by a deceased white supremacist wants us to know that barbecue “is America’s most political food,” when most of us thought it was merely the greasiest.

And the best, when properly done Eastern North Carolina style.

(Via MisHum)

Share

What, this again?

Stupid: unfixable.

It’s time to give socialism a try

No it isn’t. It’s time for you to rethink a few things, admit a few things—LEARN a few things. The rest of us are way ahead of you, and we’re getting a little tired of waiting for the short bus to finally catch up.

Astoundingly, this WaPo op-ed seems not to be parody or satire. It’s really kind of pitiful at this point; the stubborn fools really, truly have nothing else. NOTHING. The Left is so completely mired in the gooey morass of pure folly they couldn’t be dug out with a backhoe. All they can think to do is keep eyes dutifully averted from their ideology’s manifest failures, hoping against hope the rest of us don’t see, and just…go right on regurgitating the same tired, irrelevant crap.

In the United States, we’ve arrived at a pair of mutually exclusive convictions: that liberal, capitalist democracies are guaranteed by their nature to succeed and that in our Trumpist moment they seem to be failing in deeply unsettling ways.

“Failing,” is it? Oh sure, your ideology is, but that “Trumpist moment” you so bitterly lament sure ain’t. With unemployment at record lows; incomes rising; businesses bringing money, jobs, and opportunity back from overseas tax shelters; the stock market soaring to previously undreamed of heights; and even manufacturing showing signs of reviving? If this is failure, we’ll take more of it, please.

For liberals — and by this I mean inheritors of the long liberal tradition, not specifically those who might also be called progressives —

Boy, talk about splitting hairs, about distinctions without a difference. Here’s a more honest interpretation: “Liberal makes meaningless distinction in hopes of appearing more moderate…while promoting socialism.” Pull the other one, hon, it has a bell on it.

efforts to square these two notions have typically combined expressions of high anxiety with reassurances that, if we only have the right attitude, everything will set itself aright.

Which is nothing but more of the usual: if we only wish hard enough, all our totalitarian dreams will finally come true! The anxiety is fitting enough, though: they’ve failed over and over, we’ve seen through them at last, and so we elected someone to undo the damage their Golden Idol did. He’s doing so unexpectedly quickly, with positive results evident to all and undeniable by the mentally sound among us.

Lefty’s only response so far: A) complain bitterly about a reviving economy, more people working, and more money in people’s pockets, and B) insist—nay, demand!—that we go back to their hapless floundering about IMMEDIATELY—that we turn the reins back over to them so they can drive us right back into the liberal sinkhole for good.

Hanging on and hoping for the best is certainly one approach to rescuing the best of liberalism from its discontents,

Its failures, you mean. Its innumerable, almost boringly predictable, colossal failures.

but my answer is admittedly more ambitious: It’s time to give socialism a try.

And there it is again: the only POSSIBLE solution to the failure of liberalism is…MORE LIBERALISM. In some quarters also referred to as “doubling down on stupid.”

But my sense is that while Sullivan, Mounk and all the other concerned liberal observers are right that something is wrong with the state of American liberalism, the problem is much deeper than they allow.

Oh, you bet your sweet bippy it is.

I don’t think business-as-usual but better is enough to fix what’s broken here. I think the problem lies at the root of the thing, with capitalism itself.

How very…insightful. American liberalism—violently, viscerally opposed to capitalism like a drowning man is opposed to more water—is in trouble, and the problem is…umm, capitalism.

Jeez, can’t you guys even be somewhat coherent? It’s like you’re not even trying anymore. You’re all just phoning it in.

In fact, both Sullivan’s and Mounk’s complaints — that Americans appear to be isolated, viciously competitive, suspicious of one another and spiritually shallow;

According to who, exactly? You miserable elitist tapeworms in your exorbitantly-priced urban ratholes, quivering in terror at the nascent American renaissance? You surely can’t be talking about normal Americans, who are in the main living contentedly in quiet, peaceful homes surrounded by loving families; perhaps competitive but by no means viciously so; suspicious not of each other but of YOU and your ilk, their would-be masters, and quite rightly too; comforted and enriched by the Christian faith you deride and mock from the depths of your mindless ignorance—while you yourselves provide a near-comical example of true spiritual shallowness by mindlessly chasing after every fad guru, shaman, mystic, quack, crackpot, or plain charlatan who knows an easy mark when he sees a city full of them.

You flock to the bookstores and lecture halls in search of, well, whatever. But the peace you gain is fleeting, the comfort insubstantial, the contentment illusory—because you have no faith. Your egotism and narcissism will not allow you to relinquish their primacy and subsume yourself in humble acceptance of a higher power. Such sad excuses for “spirituality” are merely a game, an empty ritual bereft of meaning and incapable of imparting wisdom. Because in the end, try as you might, you just can’t bring yourself to really, truly believe. Your vanity condemns you to a pursuit that is eternal, and eternally fruitless, with the only reward at the end of it all being…nothingness.

The Christian faithful you so despise, while perhaps now and then harboring doubts as their faith is tested by life’s travails, are much happier than you’ll ever manage to be. Which, deep down in the place you don’t talk about at parties, is the real reason you despise them.

we are anxiously looking for some kind of attachment to something real and profound in an age of decreasing trust and regard — seem to be emblematic of capitalism, which encourages and requires fierce individualism,

Okay, that’s fair enough. And not a bad thing, either.

self-interested disregard for the other,

Which I suppose would be why America leads the world in charitable giving and volunteerism, and why conservatives (i.e. supporters of capitalism) far outstrip liberals in philanthropy here at home.

and resentment of arrangements into which one deposits more than he or she withdraws.

Right. Be sure to note all the “resentment” at the next church-sponsored soup kitchen, charity bake sale, or paper drive you attend. Why, they’re a veritable boiling cauldron of “resentment,” they are.

Clueless dimwit.

Capitalism is an ideology that is far more encompassing than it admits, and one that turns every relationship into a calculable exchange. Bodies, time, energy, creativity, love — all become commodities to be priced and sold. Alienation reigns. There is no room for sustained contemplation and little interest in public morality; everything collapses down to the level of the atomized individual.

More ignorant horseshit. No room for contemplation? Little interest in public morality? Well, that last might be true in a minor way; what most of us have is a willingness to live and let live, to let others walk their own path without interference from us. To leave people the hell alone, in other words. Which is the one thing so-called liberals can never, ever do.

Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would support a kind of socialism that would be democratic and aimed primarily at decommodifying labor, reducing the vast inequality brought about by capitalism, and breaking capital’s stranglehold over politics and culture.

“Not to be confused for a totalitarian nostalgist, I would like to advocate nostalgic totalitarianism.” Whereupon we descend into Mark-1, Mod-0 liberal adolescent fantasy. To wit: juvenile shallowness masquerading as Deep Thought, pie-in-the-sky nitwittery indulging pretentions to profundity.

“Democratic”? The People spoke loudly enough last election, rejecting you utterly. Your petulant refusal to accept the results of democracy has been shoved in our faces without cessation ever since. “Decommodifying labor”? To quote the old joke from Soviet Russia: “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” “Inequality”? An immutable fact of life on this planet—one that, if approached with the right attitude, can serve as an inspiration to better one’s lot. “Breaking capital’s stranglehold” etc? NEVER going to happen. EVER. It most certainly never did in any previous doomed attempt at socialism, and it won’t with yours either.

The entirety of this dim bulb’s stinking pile of rhetorical desperation does accomplish one useful thing, I admit. It establishes beyond doubt the unassailable veracity of yet another reality of human life, namely: Some people never learn.

You keep right on dreamin’ your sweet, sweet dreams, honey. There’ll always be plenty of grown-ups solidly grounded in reality around, willing and able to counter fantasist codswallop with 24-karat truth…and to protect American prosperity and freedom from the monsters under the Left side of the bed.

Share

Kill ’em all

I originally put this up as an update to an earlier post, then had some further thoughts I wanted to slide in there. So I’m breaking it out into its own post. Yeah, I know, it’s confusing. But what the heck.

This is what it’s REALLY all about.

After every attack, the clamor for “common sense” gun control begins by political hacks, talk show hosts and celebrities who don’t set foot outside their homes without an armed guard. None of these “common sense folks” seem to know the first thing about guns. And none of them care. 

Gun control isn’t a policy. It’s a moral panic. Like prohibition, it’s a xenophobic reaction to a different culture that shares the same country with them. Guns have come to embody a rural conservative culture in the minds of urban leftists the way that alcohol once embodied foreign immigrants to prohibition activists and the way that drugs represented urban decadence to rural America. 

It’s why the “common sense solution” talk quickly gives way to broad denunciations of a “national gun culture”, of “white privilege”, of rural folk “clinging to their bibles and guns”, of American militarism and toxic masculinity, and of all the things for which guns are merely a symbol to the leftists who hate them. 

A cultural critique is very different than a common sense solution. It isn’t guns that the left wants to ban. It’s people. It was never really about banning guns. It was always about the culture war.

Yep. Just as I’ve said repeatedly about Trump, when all is said and done we’re left in the same place: it ain’t so much Trump they hate, and pretty much the same with guns. It’s US. I mean, how could they not? We obstinately persist in committing what for them is the one truly unpardonable sin: we resist them.

At least half the country refusing to knuckle under means that the Left’s authority is less than total—a good bit less, in fact. And that just flies all over them. For one thing, this mulishness screws up their whole world-socialism project, which by definition must be global in order to succeed. In the bigger picture it amounts to a practical rejection of their claim to innate superiority, in the wake of which all sorts of cherished delusions come plunging down to earth.

Why, it is simply INTOLERABLE!

Think of how deeply it must gall them: our pig-headed stupidity causes their socialist fantasy to crash and burn, whereupon we constantly natter at them about how their ideology always fails, when its failure is caused not by any flaw in the ideology but by…YOU STUPID PEOPLE!

It’s why some of them, starting with Obama’s pal Bill Ayers, have openly declared that millions of us will probably have to be marched off to the camps and murdered in order to finally get the dodo off the ground.

I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

I can recall at least two other such admissions during Obama’s Reign Of Error, which a cursory Duck-Duck-Go-ing doesn’t unearth. But I strongly suspect such sentiments are far from rare among the more dedicated of these Leftard fanatics; mass slaughter is baked right into the totalitarian cake, a feature, not a bug.

And why wouldn’t THAT be? Gulags, concentration camps, killing fields—all have sooner or later gone hand in hand with every attempt to establish Lefty Utopia, every single time. Attempts will be made to bring those who resist the Glorious Destiny the Left has so selflessly planned for them to “enlightenment.” But there will always be those who refuse to submit—always. Since Proggy superiority is an undeniable confirmation of a right to rule one might call Divinely established (if one was allowed to believe in God), these stubborn souls are warped, depraved, probably insane. They are by definition Enemies Of The State.

For Lefty, it isn’t such a long jump from there to the notion that these resisters are not quite human, underdeveloped throwbacks to an unenlightened era. They are not redeemable or salvageable. Forces for chaos and disruption, they represent a serious threat to harmony and order in fledgling and fragile Leftopia. They are a drag on the wings of the Noble Ideal, a potential failure point that could bring the whole construct tumbling down, to the detriment of all.

Dovetailing nicely with this diseased thinking is the dismissal of the importance of the individual, the primacy given to the Needs of the Many. It isn’t even a jump at all from there to the elimination of such troublesome, perverse lunatics; it’s a necessary step, a requirement upon which success depends absolutely. Tolerance or forbearance in dealing with destructive saboteurs such as they can only inflict great harm on the Many. It would be the closest thing to real evil their depraved ideology can ever imagine.

Yeah, I know. Ironic, that.

Share

Ask a silly the silliest question

And then answer it.

Do they really hate ordinary people that much?

Yes, they do. For liberals, the distinction between the “dumb masses” and their enlightened selves renders life meaningful. Disdain for ordinary folks is not just an ancillary trait of liberalism. It is fundamental to its nature.

At its heart, liberalism is a gnostic religion, and the essence of that religion is the believer’s faith that he possesses the means of changing the world for the better. The belief that the world must be changed requires there to be a mass of individuals whose lives are in need of change. Following this logic, it is the liberal, not those deplorables in need of change, who knows what must be changed. For liberals, there must be a mass of people in need of this knowledge for life to make sense.

Above all, liberalism is a hubristic faith. Its followers share the fatal flaw of pride in their own intellectual capacity. This is why liberalism appeals so strongly to those in the knowledge trades: teachers, journalists, writers, psychologists, and social workers. The sense of “knowing more than others” is its strongest attraction – particularly to the young, who otherwise know so little. Liberalism confers, or seems to confer, almost immediate power and authority to those who embrace it.

That’s just the opener. He goes on from there and nails it all down clean and tight, tying some at-first-blush disparate threads together into a seamless whole. This bit especially resonated with me:

At its core, liberalism can be defined in gnostic terms as the human mind’s idolizing of itself. In this sense, Obama’s famous aphorism is spot on. The liberal mind really is what the liberal mind has been waiting for.

What it seeks is not, however, goodness, or security, or higher living standards, or even better health care. What it seeks is the celebration of its own brilliance. “Smug” is a small word that perfectly captures the nature of the progressive mind.

To succeed, liberalism must acquire and retain clients in need of change. It is not in the interest of the liberal to solve problems. What the liberal needs is continually to discover new problems and hold them up as in need of solution.

Thereby not just substantiating their pretension to innate superiority, but confirming them as indispensable. Their core insecurity, juvenile and facile as it is, demands constant affirmation. Their egos, wildly inflated as they are, shatter as easily as the thinnest glass at the slightest touch of the hammer. Which, tragically for them, is exactly what reality is constantly subjecting them to. Which in turn is why they’re such miserable people, truly happy only when inflicting misery on others.

This analysis also covers why it is that they lash out so viciously, out of all proportion to the perceived provocation, whenever they’re thwarted in their designs or even so much as contradicted verbally. If you don’t believe me, try arguing—reasonably, calmly, respectfully—with a lib, on any issue at all, preferably a somewhat trivial one. The vehemence of the reaction you get will astound you. Persist, and the “discussion” will degenerate into an arm-waving, bug-eyed shouting match with a quickness no matter how hard you may work to keep things civil. Debate them into a corner from which there is no escape and the very least you can expect in response is a simmering, pouty, butthurt sulk.

As I’ve mentioned many times, being a professional musician all these years inevitably means I have many liberal friends out there in meatspace. There are certain things I just don’t talk about with most of ’em, unless I’m intentionally trying to tweak their noses a little. Even then, I’m careful to let things go only so far before I relent. Pressing it ain’t worth the bother; I already know they aren’t persuadable, and I don’t wish to sacrifice friendships I do actually value over mere politics. As the old joke goes: it wastes my time, and annoys the pig. Out of the whole crowd, I can think of exactly three (3) with which I can have serious discussions without things degenerating into a near-brawl.

Freud had ’em sussed out long ago, as it happens. And they’ve hated him ever since for it, too.

Update! Oh, THIS oughta piss ’em off for sure.

I normally shy away from this kind of activism, but at some point conservatives need to begin pushing back. To that end, here’s what I encourage:

An NRA member needs to find the most progressive bakery he can, and then request an AR-15-shaped cake for a Second Amendment celebration. Walk into the store wearing an NRA shirt and hat. Openly carry a gun if you’re legally allowed. Ask for the top of the cake to be decorated with words like “In celebration of the NRA.”

When the mortified SJW baker refuses, sue her.

In doing so, you may run up against the argument that being a gun owner isn’t an identity. Hogwash! If you feel like being a gun owner and an NRA member is central to your identity, no one has the right to deny you that identity.

Instead of trying to fight progressives’ absurdities with logic and common sense, maybe it’s time to start turning the absurdity back onto progressives.

I’ve long advocated turning Alinsky back on ’em, Rule 4 in particular: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Damned skippy. In so doing, one would also be in compliance with Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” If such an unthinkable atrocity didn’t speedily reduce Progtards to spluttering, hysterical incoherence once word of it got around, I don’t know what would. There’d probably be nationwide urban rioting over it, I’d bet. Such side-splitting developments would actually make tuning in to the MSM nightly news shows worthwhile.

Share

My list of phrases that identify the speaker as an idiot (volume 1)

Hey, this is Billy, not Mike. Naturally, I’m honored that Mike gave me posting privileges here. I have some in-depth things I’ve been working on that will show up here at some point.

For the nonce, I have a few shorter posts. This one should help set the stage, letting those who don’t know me get a feel for my worldview.

It’s my list of words and phrases that will immediately cause me to think someone is a complete idiot if they use them unironically. It’s incomplete, of course; modern political life furnishes practically an infinite number of such phrases. But this will do as volume 1:

  • “That’s cultural appropriation.”
  • cis-anything that isn’t related to chemistry (update: or astronomy)
  • anybody being “woke”
  • “I’m/he’s/she’s transitioning.”
  • “Blacks can’t be racist.”
  • “Banning guns is the solution to problem X.”
  • “Well, Rachel Maddow said…”
  • “Well, Whoopi Goldberg said…”
  • “Well, George Clooney said…”
  • “Well, Joy Behar said…”
  • “Well, Nancy Pelosi said…” (double idiot points)
  • “Well, the Southern Poverty Law Center said…” (double idiot points)

[must stop here for this subtype – a complete list of this type of idiot marker would require hundreds of entries]

  • “Of course it’s true, I read it in the New York Times.”
  • “Of course it’s true, I saw it on CNN.” (triple idiot points)
  • “We should just switch completely to wind and solar, but the big oil companies won’t let us.”
  • “My senator is a dedicated public servant.”
  • “…the patriarchy…”
  • “My teenager is gender fluid.”
  • “My teenager is transgender and starting to take hormones.”
  • “We’re not assigning a gender to our baby. We will wait until it chooses its own gender.” (triple idiot points)
  • “Gender is a social construct.” (double idiot points)
  • “The gender binary has no biological basis.”
  • “I’m feeding my cat a vegan diet.” (triple idiot points)
  • “Vaccines cause autism.”
  • “I support Bernie Sanders because socialism works and capitalism is a failure.” (Bonus idiot points for someone typing this on a device that could only be produced by capitalism)
  • “I think Oprah would make a good president.”
  • “I think Michelle Obama would make a good president.” (quadruple idiot points)
  • “Black Lives Matter. No, you can’t say All Lives Matter. That’s racist.”
  • “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.”
  • “Americans are undertaxed.”
  • “I insist you use my preferred pronoun, which is ze/zir/hir/wtf.”
  • “He/she/it/ze/zir has the right not to be offended.”
  • “I feel threatened by those words, and I need a safe space.”
  • “Speakers are responsible for the violence they cause when they offend others and cause riots.”
  • “Islam is a religion of peace.”
  • “Hillary is the most qualified person ever to run for president.”
  • “Trump is a fascist.”
  • “Trump is a clown.”
  • “Trump colluded with Russians to throw the election.”

(The next three are idiot markers from the period of 2015-2016)

  • “Trump is running as a stunt.”
  • “Trump has no chance to win the nomination.”
  • “Trump will get crushed by Hillary.”

 

  • “We should have a conversation about that on Twitter.” (double idiot points)
  • “This is my emotional support animal.” (Take care – some cynics game the system to keep their pets with them, and are not properly considered idiots. They are actually assholes.)
  • “Toxic masculinity”
  • “I’m triggered by that.”
  • anything being described as a microaggression

It’s a depressing part of our political scene that everything on this list is said by people who think they are smart and informed. It’s also a testament to just how far the left has wandered into delusional territory. This list spans a wide, wide variety of subjects, and the left is simply batshit insane about every one of them.

I learned at least twenty years ago that there’s no point in arguing with such people, so I don’t. Their worldview is warped into delusion by the post-modern philosophy that has become their substitute religion. (That’s a subject for a future post.)

You can list your own idiot markers in the comments, of course.

Share

Moonbat meltdown

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

Delenda. Est

Or, put more, ummm, directly: Bug. Fucking. Nuts.

The 2014 death of Eric Garner spurred Black Lives Matter protests. In fact, Garner’s final words — “I can’t breathe” — became a rallying cry for the movement designed to combat overly aggressive police behavior. Garner was approached by police for allegedly selling “loosies” — individual cigarettes sold without the proper tax stamps. He died after being held in a chokehold.

The ensuing national debate — if you can call a series of protests, riots and football-game kneeling a debate — has been remarkable given the degree to which both entrenched sides have avoided discussing the main causes of the problem.

Conservatives instinctively defend the police while ignoring the way police unions (which often back Democrats, by the way) protect bad behavior and bad policies in the same way as teachers’ unions make it nearly impossible to fire incompetent and misbehaving “educators.” Progressives would have us believe that such problems are entirely the product of racism.

And progressives are unable to answer the obvious question: What were police doing arresting someone for possibly selling a few loose cigarettes? It’s simple: New York City and other liberal locales are intent on regulating virtually every aspect of human behavior. The more piddling rules they pass, the more those rules invite potentially dangerous police encounters.

Think of that in the context of New York’s leftist Mayor Bill de Blasio, a harsh police critic who recently held a press conference with the city’s police leadership announcing a crackdown on that budding “menace” of people who ride environmentally friendly electric-assisted bicycles. We’ve reached the point where it’s impossible to tell which things the professional uplifters want to subsidize — and which things they want to punish and ban.

The real hilarity begins when they’ve banned so many things nobody can really keep track of them all anymore. We’ll just leave aside the stunning, self-contradictory hypocrisy of advocating for marijuana legalization even as they’re winding up the final stages of their decades-long Holier-Than-Thou War against tobacco.

But there’s a reason all right. I repeat: Bug. Fucking. Nuts.

Do not be deceived: Leftism is an enigma. We need a theorem that explains not one or two aspects of Leftism, but all their traits.

The theory must explain, first, the honest decency of the modern liberals combined with their astonishing indifference, nay, hostility to facts, common sense, and evidence; second, it must explain their high self-esteem (or, to be blunt, their pathological narcissism) combined not merely with an utter lack of accomplishment, but with their utter devotion to destructiveness, a yearning to ruin everything they touch; third, it must explain their sanctimoniousness combined with their applause, praise, support, and tireless efforts to spread all perversions (especially sexual), moral decay, vulgarity, and every form of desecration; fourth, their pretense of intellectual superiority combined with their notorious mental fecklessness; fifth, it must explain both their violence and their pacifism; sixth, the theory must explain why they hate the very things they should love most; seventh, the theory must explain why they are incapable of comprehending an honest disagreement or any honorable foe.

Umm…honesty? DECENCY? Seriously? John’s being way more generous than I would ever be.

And, while we are at it, if we could also explain why the Rich, who are routinely vilified by the Left number among its most ardent supporters, or the secular Jews, our theory would be very potent in its explanatory power.

There is such an explanation. I make no claim to have discovered this theory. It was discovered by Alan Bloom, back in the 1980’s, in his book THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND, which he wrote to explain why the generation of the 1970’s was suddenly and remarkably stupider than any previous decade of his students.

The theory was popularized recently by Evan Sayet in his book KINDER GARDEN OF EDEN. Roots of this theory go back further yet: you will find an early articulation by C.S. Lewis in his seminal THE ABOLITION OF MAN, written a generation prior. And no doubt he learned his ideas from G.K. Chesterton in his ORTHODOXY, who wrote a generation prior again, and first diagnosed the error involved in Freethinkers (as they were called then) doubting one’s own ability to think.

Let us examine each one in order.

And he goes on to do just that, quite well. Although I do think he misses the mark a little here and there, and leaves a thing or two out, as comprehensive and well-thought-out as this piece is overall. For instance:

Now, having turned their back on reason, evidence, facts and reality, the only thing they have to go on is emotion. And the one emotion necessary to their desire not to think is sanctimony. They must regard themselves as so high-minded and compassionate that even reality must give way.

Sanctimony, certainly; I wouldn’t for a moment argue that they suffer any lack of it. But there are two others that I would insist are of at least equal importance: envy, and resentment. Resentment I covered the other day; envy could be said to be a precursor to that, and their having it in great sloshing bucketloads ought to be plenty obvious to any honest observer of their antics by now. In fact, you could make a good case that envy is a prerequisite for succumbing to full-on Leftism; it inspires it, breeds it, and then goes on to nurture it—right up until such time as the Leftist grows weary of being constantly, inchoately miserable, and of blaming his misery on everybody else.

This bit, too, covers something I’ve mused about here recently:

This philosophy is corrupt and hypocritical to it core.

It is not based on lying, it is lying. It is the very essence of lying.

It is the art of filling one’s thoughts with symbols that have no relation to reality, and with words that make no sense and form no internally consistent statements. If human nature were utterly pliant and plastic, as their theory says human nature is, there would be no reaction nor retaliation from this gross self deception.

But human nature exacts a terrible and divine revenge. You bend human nature so far, and it snaps back.

Exactly as I alluded to briefly in the same CF post I just linked to above, and have pontificated on here at greater length many times over the years. Indeed, the idea of the malleability of human nature (and of the desirability of tinkering with it, and their fitness to do so) has been a core plank of Progressivism right from its inception—its central assumption, and its most fundamental ambition.

Please don’t let my picking of piddling nits with John’s ambitious piece keep you from reading it; it’s a damned fine one, as well-crafted and enjoyable as you’d rightly expect anything by John C Wright to be if you’re familiar with his work at all. He covers one hell of a lot of ground herein, and not one word of it is false or inaccurate. Hats off to him for his effort in putting it all together.

Share

Liberal media covers itself in its usual “glory”

Or shit, take your pick.

I’ll get to that point in just a sec, but first I want to address something from the Chuck Schemer squirm below, which the liberal media outlets are gleefully quoting as if it were the Gettysburg Address or something—specifically, this part:

Schumer also snuck in his own counter-punch, pointing out that Trump’s budget proposal had cut back on anti-terrorism funding, and he called on Trump to seek more money for those programs.

Now, leaving aside that it’s only a proposal at this point and therefore could have had NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER on the actions of the terrorist Schemer so willfully imported into this country, can these people truly believe that every single problem we face—EVERY SINGLE ONE—is solvable only by having the government spend more money on it? And can they possibly be unaware that, if we start sanely restricting immigration as we should have long ago, it wouldn’t be necessary to throw bucketloads of government money at the problem in the first place? Not to even mention militarizing our police; building a surveillance state in direct contravention of our battered Constitution; subjecting ourselves to demeaning, intrusive, and ineffectual Security Theater; scarifying our public spaces with barricades, bollards, and AR15-toting military-style guards in Kevlar and full battle rattle—in sum, transforming the very warp and woof of American life into something more closely resembling Beirut circa 1983 or so?

Never mind; don’t answer that, lest the answer inspire us to start stringing these feckless cocksuckers up from lampposts. With sincere apologies for the insult to any and all honest, sane, and intelligent suckers of cock everywhere, mind.

Anyways, in the post below I quoted from a Limbaugh diatribe that goes on to address another irksome liberal-media issue, namely the constant use of the “lone wolf” meme to deflect and distract from what’s really going on here. Along with their recent penchant for going out of their way to identify Moslem immivaders who’ve been here less than eight or ten years as “homegrown” or “domestic” terrorists who were doing just fine until suddenly and mysteriously finding themselves radicalized from within the US or whatever other nation they spent those eight or ten years plotting to attack, it’s a particularly silly subterfuge, capable of deceiving only the thickest among us. To wit:

The whole point is, this guy has backup. He’s got an entire community or neighborhood that gives him moral support, that buttresses him! He’s not a lone wolf and a coward. That’s the whole point of the Diversity Visa Program. It’s the whole point of the necessity being to vet for Sharia supremacists and prevent them from getting in.

He’s got a network of people who think exactly like he does, who inspire him, motivate him, encourage him. He’s exactly not a lone wolf! That’s the whole point. He may have been the only guy in the commission of this crime, but he’s not alone, and he’s not rogue. That’s what they want you to believe so that you don’t think you’re in danger. “It’s a one off. These things happen!”

Precisely so. And sure enough, the inevitable drip-drip-drip of information contradicting the liberal head-in-the-sand version of (un)reality is already starting:

Federal authorities announced Wednesday they are no longer searching for a second Uzbek national who may have been connected with Tuesday’s terror attack in Lower Manhattan.

The FBI announced Wednesday there were seeking information about 32-year-old Mukhammadzoir Kadirov, who they believed may have played a role in the incident, as reported by the The New York Times.

The FBI is no longer seeking information on Kadirov, according to Reuters. Authorities say they found the man, the FBI announced during a Wednesday press conference.

Okay, well and good, right? Sure, except…

Saipov was connected to suspects under investigations for terror-related activities, police officials also announced Wednesday. 

Hmm. “Suspects,” plural, is it? “Investigations,” with an “s”? My oh my.

This guy, and every other damned “lone wolf” Moslem terrorist, has an entire global network of support behind him. He can travel to any country in the Middle East any time he likes and be welcomed in the neighborhoods and mosques of Baghdad, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, Khartoum, Dubai, Doha, or Sanna’a as a brother-in-arms and a hero, because that’s exactly what he is to them. He can get money and materiel from any number of governments or independent organizations via those same mosques; he can feed his psychotic depravity by immersing himself in books, leaflets, and websites innumerable.

Should he ever waver momentarily in his dedication to jihad, his commitment can be quickly bolstered by watching a few Dark Web murder videos or visiting those same mosques, or just talking it over with his like-minded neighbors. There’s a reason they tend to congregate in Moslem-only enclaves seeded in the outskirts of urban areas throughout the West, you know; they’re keepin’ the faith, baby, and as with the hippie communes in the 60s from whose denizens the phrase originated, that’s always been easier to do in a group. Should he require marksmanship and/or tactical training at some point, there are between 22 and 35 Moslem terrorist training camps right here in the good ol’ US of A where he can feel right at home again, cleansing himself of unholy influences and brushing up on his infidel-smiting skills.

And…”domestic terrorist” my chapped ass. These swine are about as American as playing polo on horseback with the head of a goat for a ball, or shunning and killing dogs as “unclean,” or stoning women for the crime of having been gang-raped, or…well, you get the picture. I like falafel and hummus and dates just fine and all, don’t get me wrong. But hot dogs and apple pie they ain’t, any more than the Muslim call to prayer is the equal American-tradition-wise of church bells ringing on Sunday morning or a Fourth of July parade. Unlike liberal media boll weevils, you’ll never hear me try to claim that they are.

In other words, they aren’t American at all. They never will be, because they don’t wish to be. They come here not because of their admiration and respect for us, their desire to enjoy the blessings and benefits of living in Western society. They come here to destroy it, to undermine it, to conquer and vanquish it; to absorb it into the global Caliphate, and to kill as many of those who would dare to resist or defy them and their bloodthirsty, demonic false God as they possibly can.

The “lone wolf/domestic terrorist” narrative is horseshit on stilts, as is the notion of the peaceable, tolerant “moderate Muslim” (himself damned near chimerical) suddenly waking up one fine morning in his peaceful suburban home to find himself “radicalized” by incomprehensible forces, as if he’d caught a bad flu bug from off a restroom doorhandle. They’re all nothing more than polite, comforting fictions liberals tell themselves for two reasons: to reassure themselves that their ass-backwards ideology can somehow be made to work at long last, particularly as pertains to multiculti diversity achieving not an explosive potential for conflict but a warm, fuzzy, huggy-kissy Utopia, and to convince the rest of us of how wrong we really are about them and their childish delusions.

Every successive attack, every mauled corpse, every blood-splashed Western sidewalk contradicts these shallow and ignorant assumptions. Rather than face up to the cognitive dissonance—which has to be so severe by now as to be physically painful—it’s much easier to close their eyes, stuff their fingers in their ears, sing tra-la-la, and keep hoping for some sort of miraculous deliverance from their awful plight.

Until they end up being one of those butchered in our increasingly bloody streets, anyway. Which is about as fitting an end for them as I can think of, really, short of that whole swinging-from-lampposts thing I mentioned earlier.

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