Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Category: WAAAAAH!

Liberal pussies and their annoying blubbering

“Seriously problematic”?

Posted on      by     

Rudolph? Seriously? Is there nothing the PC/Left killjoys won’t happily ruin for sane people?

First they came for “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, and I did nothing because I was too busy watching her put some records on while I pour.

Then they came for “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”. Following my appearance with Tucker on Thursday, mein host spoke to Dave Rubin about the usual tosspots taking umbrage over “Rudolph” because it’s “seriously problematic”. As Dave said, it’s easier to destroy than to create. But the quivering pearl-clutching cries of “Seriously problematic!” suggest even destruction requires a creativity of which our moribund age is increasingly incapable.

My general line on “Rudolph” comes from a Life magazine editorial in 1950: “They discriminated against Rudolph for not being just like every other reindeer in the herd. They drew the color line against his nose.” But the editors also correctly noted why the little fellow was so effective in rising above the deeply ingrained erubescophobia. “The run-of-the-sled reindeer began shouting his praises, not because they really loved Rudolph, but because Rudolph was suddenly a Big Shot.”

No doubt the red-nosed reindeer, heading the A-list on the sleigh list, knows Prancer and Comet don’t really love him, but why should he care? He’s learned a quintessentially American lesson: don’t get deep and crisp, get even.

Steyn links to the backstory, and yep, sure enough they’re talking about one of my absolute favorite Christmas perennials from my childhood:

HuffPost, a liberal news site, was lampooned after saying Christmas classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” was “seriously problematic” over claims that it features sexism and bullying.

“Viewers are noticing the tale may not be so jolly after all,” the outlet’s video said. “And they’re sharing their observations online.”

“Yearly reminder that #Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a parable on racism & homophobia w/Santa as a bigoted exploitative prick,” read one comment shared by HuffPost. “Santa’s operation is an HR nightmare and in serious need of diversity and inclusion training. #Rudolph,” read another.

Oh for fuck’s fucking sake. Burn in motherfucking Hell for a thousand years, you fucking obnoxious prigs. Thankfully, though, at least some of us still retain a lick of fucking sense:

But HuffPost’s effort to highlight the perceived bigotry of the beloved movie attracted tens of thousands of negative comments, most of them mocking the video.

“Oh look! Something people like and enjoy; let’s go ruin it!” tweeted Rebeccah Heinrichs.“If you try hard enough you can find offence in almost anything,” Chloe Westley seconded.

Even President Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. weighed in on the topic, tweeting “Liberalism is a disease.”

It damned sure is. A mental disease, crippling and debilitating, horrifically contagious but not fatal. Which is too bad; it means the rest have to go on putting up with mental malfunction like this from these logorrheic freaks, more and more of it each and every year.

If you enjoy the Rudolph special as much as I do, might be a good idea to go ahead and buy the DVD while you still can; they probably won’t be airing it very many more years, I’d bet. It’ll just quietly slip away from us under liberal pressure, like so many other good and enjoyable things already have.

They won’t stop—not ever, they won’t. Not, at least, until each and every one of us is as hopelessly miserable as they are. Maybe not even then.

Share

Times a million billion gajillion

Posted on      by     

This. This right here.

It’s Time These Bastards Got A Taste Of Their Own Medicine
In case you weren’t aware of it, an AntiFa mob stormed Fox News personality Tucker Carlson’s home yesterday evening and tried to break in, ruining his oak front door in the process. They screamed and chanted outside, terrorizing his wife and children, for some time. Here’s left-wing shill, ignorant, bigoted, generally despicable waste of flesh Matt Yglesias’s reaction:

I think the idea behind terrorizing his family, like it or not as a strategy, is to make them feel some of the fear that the victims of MAGA-inspired violence feel thanks to the non-stop racial incitement coming from Tucker, Trump, etc. https://t.co/hmBTBtcTBM
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 8, 2018

I agree that this is probably not tactically sound but if your instinct is to empathize with the fear of the Carlson family rather than with the fear of his victims then you should take a moment to reflect on why that is.
— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) November 8, 2018 (link to this transcription here—M)

I want this bastard to suffer. Does he have a family, or is he just another left-wing cocksucker who would never undertake the responsibility of a wife and children?

They must taste their own medicine, or the harassment will never stop.

Precisely so. These villainous scum need to be hurt, and badly. But until such time as enough of us reach the tipping point and start truly taking care of business in the only way remaining to us that will actually work—ie, harming them physically, punching back twice as hard, and, in the most egregious case, deleting these vile cocksuckers entirely—this will suffice:

Yglesias, who co-founded Vox and is a senior correspondent there, was widely criticized for his tweets, including by me. (Disclosure: Yglesias was my colleague at Slate from 2011 to 2014.) By Thursday night he had deleted them.

Before he did, however, at least one Twitter user responded by posting Yglesias’ own home address in a reply thread. The implied threat was clear: Yglesias had failed to denounce the harassment by left-wingers of a conservative media personality at his home, so now he and his family deserved the same treatment.

My favorite part? This whine:

At least two users, one of them Yglesias himself, said they reported the tweet to Twitter. Twitter responded to both by saying that the tweet didn’t violate its rules, and took no action. In an email that was forwarded to Slate, Twitter wrote: “Thank you for your recent report. We have reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of the Twitter Rules regarding the posting of private information.”

And so Yglesias’ private information remained on Twitter, endorsed by Twitter, throughout Thursday afternoon, overnight, and well into Friday morning. One of the users who had reported the doxing tweeted about it and tagged CEO Jack Dorsey. Still nothing happened.

At 11:20 a.m. Friday, I emailed Twitter’s public relations department to ask for comment on the decision to allow Yglesias’ doxing. By noon, a Twitter official responded that the company was looking into it. When I checked minutes later, the tweet was no longer online.

Aww, did poor widdle Wefty get a solid dose of him’s own bullshit crammed right down his fucking throat?

Well, GOOD. Fuck you. War. To the fucking knife, until not ONE of you commie carbuncles is left standing. Not. One.

Francis is perfectly correct above: none of this shit—Antifa harrassment, #BlackLiesMurder riots, bike-lock beatings, Democrat Socialist election thievery, Enemedia lying and manipulation, serious liberal-mob threats, Deep-State coup attempts at overthrowing a duly-elected President, NONE of it—stops until our enemies suffer real consequences for their effrontery. And I do mean suffer, very damned literally. Until then, all our complaints are nothing more than wind.

Update! Steyn, a good friend of Tucker’s, weighs in.

On Wednesday night Tucker Carlson was subject to an outrageous thug assault on his home by pampered decadent “anti-fascists” and “anti-racists” who have no idea what those words mean – and that, when you’re battering on a front door and forcing the woman inside to hide in the pantry in terror, you’re the fascist.

They need to get themselves a good, hard taste of the real deal to wise their stupid, whimpering, melodramatic asses up. If we really WERE fascists, they’d all be dead already. And if they don’t figure out the advisability of leaving us the hell alone, they’ll soon end up that way anyway.

This is an appalling reflection on where our politics is headed. In recent years I’ve seen enough friends in Europe forced out of public life and into hiding by Islamic fanatics in the cause of their lunatic caliphate. To see the same template adopted by 28-year-old Navel-Gazing Studies resistance poseurs is pathetic but disturbing nevertheless. Did they mean to assault him and his family? Or were they just mouthing off? Well, they broke an oak door. But, in any case, that’s not a calculation that should be forced on even as decayed a public discourse as ours.

“An appalling reflection” it sure is…but here we are. We didn’t do it; certainly, none of us are any happier about this sorry state of affairs than Steyn is, and devoutly wish things were different. But if we have to fight them, then we have to be sure we win, and unfortunately that means doing things we’d much rather not have to do.

So be it.

These are not the poor and downtrodden: The poseur resistance is largely what Americans call “upper middle-class”, for whom identification, arrest, trial and conviction would have serious consequences. We will see whether the District of Columbia has the will to do that – or, as in other US cities, whether they’re content to cede the streets to the paramilitary wing of Media Matters.

Steyn pulled that last punch a mite; seeing as how the time for that sort of courtesy is well behind us, I feel I must correct him: they are NOT “the paramilitary wing of Media Matters.” They’re the paramilitary wing of the Democrat Socialist Party, just like the Klan used to be. Media Matters is a branch of the propaganda wing of the Democrat Socialist Party, see. The Democrat Socialist Party is the bumbershoot all those wholly-owned subsidiaries currently cower under, the parent conglomerate governing MarxoSedition Inc and all its affiliated offshoots, partners, and unindicted co-conspirators.

In all things, precision, Mark, ol’ boy.

Share

Reality bites

Posted on      by     

And bites hard.

All things must end, even crazy things, and for the Left that day has now arrived. With the sensible electorate nearing the end of its rope during the last elections, Trump’s win  was born of desperation—something the dwindling ranks of the #NeverTrumpumpkins to this day cannot understand. Michael Anton’s famous “The Flight 93 Election” essay resonated both on an intellectual and visceral level; the vast majority of normal Americans may never have read it, but in their hearts, they knew he was right: “Charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees. Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain.”

And now the Left knows it, too; hence their inchoate rage. For leftists are not so much reacting to the gleeful rejection of their crackpot policies as they are to their own realization that their policies were, in fact, lunacy. Men are not women. Inaction is not action. History does not unfold in an “arc” that bends toward their definition of justice. Up is not down. Black is not white. Cultural traditions are not arbitrary impositions from authority, but the residue of millennia of experience. In short, definitions matter—names matter—and truth follows.

Which is to say: just because some might call a man a “woman,” or a woman a “man,” doesn’t make it so. This infuriates those for whom the power of the transgressive fantasy is more potent and palatable than reality. But when the gap between what the Left believes to be true and what actually is true become unbridgeable—even by their febrile minds and hyperactive imaginations, and fueled by their satanic rage against the natural order of things—then they cannot help but tumble into the pit.

What’s happening right now is the counterrevolution—not of conservatives, or Republicans, or Trump, but of nature, which always reasserts itself, sometimes in very unpleasant but nonetheless instructive ways. The Greeks called the defiance of the gods and the natural order hubris,which inevitably sent folks like Icarus plunging to their doom. That screeching you hear is not the Left venting its anger at the heavens; it’s the sound of the sheer terror that now possesses them as they plummet to their doom—realizing, too late, that all along they have been dead wrong.

Oh, I dunno about all that, Mike; methinks you’re giving them way too much credit. Just because, as I always say, their argument isn’t with us but with reality, it doesn’t necessarily follow that they aren’t crazy enough to stubbornly persist in thinking they can win it anyway.

Share

The alternative to force: sometimes, there ain’t one

Posted on      by     

A dissection of Jonah Goldberg, and cuckoldry in general.

The alternative to force, of course, is persuasion. There are times when persuasion does not suffice, however, to establish justice—and in such moments of crisis the greatest of statesman have often used persuasion to spur the rightful use of force. In fact, in such times winning is often the best means of persuasion available. To what extent would Abraham Lincoln’s speeches have mattered if the North didn’t win the Civil War?

Of course, war is messy. It inexorably escalates, tempting both sides to throw principle to the wind, to use any means necessary for the sake of winning, and to dehumanize the other side. It risks lasting damage to the alpha and omega of politics—shared principle and common purpose. That is why no sane statesman would choose it willingly.

Nonetheless, there are times when shared principle and common purpose are already in dispute, and the war comes to you.

Goldberg acknowledges that the battle over Kavanaugh had to be fought, but the fact that “many voters rallied to Trump on the grounds that ‘at least he fights,’” troubles him greatly. Yet the “at least he fights” sentiment that Goldberg seemingly finds deplorable isn’t some kind of intrinsic evil. It was echoed by none other than Lincoln himself, who famously told the detractors of General Ulysses S. Grant, without denying Grant’s undeniable flaws: “I can’t spare this man–he fights.” Dan McCarthy superbly develops this point this week in his thoughts on “Consensus as Surrender.”

Goldberg, however, wrestles in National Review recently with his own “misgivings about the price of victory” in the effort to confirm Kavanaugh. He doesn’t like the fact that winning was “the least bad option.” Twisting and turning, Goldberg finds himself “less enthusiastic about the pro-Kavanaugh forces winning” than he was about the Left losing.

Why this anxiety? Goldberg plaintively warns that “there will be bad consequences no matter what, because we now live in a world where sub-optimal outcomes are the only choices available.” But we have always lived in such a world. This is practically the definition of political life in which, to use the parlance of our times, only the gradation of suckitude changes.

Why incessantly lament it so?

The central problem both parties face is not a matter of tone or rhetoric in the midst of the chaos and confusion—rhetorical and otherwise—caused by the fall of the old modes and orders. The salient fact of the moment is that the race is on to rethink and reground policy in light of our Republic’s founding principles. The Republican party must realign itself with the real needs of real people if it is to survive. There is no going back; the only way out is through.

And I’ll take winning—led by whoever can contrive to do so, using whatever means—over losing gracefully, seven days a week and twice on Sunday. Particularly when losing to the demonic Left means losing absolutely everything. To paraphrase the great Vince Lombardi, who could surely have taught today’s Cuckpublicans a thing or two: show me a dignified loser…and I’ll show you a loser. Another great Lombardi-ism, maybe even more relevant to this discussion: “If you can accept losing, you can’t win.“

Share

Worse? Worse than WHAT?!?

Posted on      by     

He’s right. Incomprehensible though it may seem, he’s right.

Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation was more than attempted character assassination, it was the liberals’ warning shot. Intended to be lethal, it also signaled the next one will be worse. No group is more dependent on the Supreme Court’s power than America’s left and they will stop at nothing to prevent losing further ground there.

The left’s anti-Kavanaugh strategy was clear. An accretion of accusations, rolled out to roil the press, was meant to sink a nomination they could not outright defeat. Timed to coincide with the calendar’s closing and punctuated by increasing demands, it was meant to bleed the nomination to death, not down it with a single blow.

That liberals’ orchestrated effort took both Congress and Court to new lows was not their concern. Their one and only goal was in not seeing the Supreme Court move any more to the right. Yet, the left’s effort also served notice: If they have their way, the process will only get worse.

That such an effort would be expended on this pick may seem surprising. After all, Kavanaugh was replacing Kennedy, another Republican nominee who often voted with conservatives. Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Court would not so much quantitatively change its 5-4 conservative majority, as it would qualitatively change it.

Looking ahead, the left’s reasoning becomes clearer, though. The Court’s next two oldest justices are liberals Ginsburg and Breyer. At 85 and 80 respectively, they are 15 and 10 years older than the next oldest justice, the conservative Thomas.

Liberals could easily see the Court move quantitatively to the right quite a bit — potentially going to a 7-2 conservative majority — before having an obvious chance to swing it back to the left.

Looking backward, liberals’ fear is understandable. America’s left have a long history of dependence on the Supreme Court. The Court has been the primary means of advancing their political agenda for decades. Unsurprisingly, they have a sentimental attachment to the Court.

The Court’s lack of dependence on a political majority has been crucial to liberals, America’s smallest ideology. Lacking the thick edge of the political wedge, America’s left have sought the thin one of the Court to advance issues for which they could never have constructed a public majority.

Of course, nobody ever went far wrong expecting more and worse from the Left. But they seem to have found another tack to take now that the Court is slipping from their grasp:

In 2016, Harvard Law professor Mark Tushnet urged liberal judges and justices to abandon “defensive-crouch liberalism” and remake legal precedent in their image. Two years later, he told Vox it’s time to “abolish” the Supreme Court by reversing the idea of judicial review — giving the Supreme Court a say on whether or not laws are constitutional.

“Do you think we’d be better off if we abolished the Supreme Court in its current manifestation?” Vox’s Sean Illing asked. Tushnet responded, “Yeah, I do. I’m a big fan of the dialogic approach.”

Tushnet also argued that judicial review would prevent the American people from debating constitutional issues on their own. “Judicial review may actually impair the public’s ability to engage in serious thinking about what the Constitution means…In a way, the Supreme Court simply takes on this conversation for itself, and leaves the citizenry as bystanders.”

Discussing the rejection of judicial review, Tushnet insisted, “I’ve felt this way for my entire career, regardless of the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court.”

The Harvard law professor even suggested that Supreme Court justices should be subject to 18-year term limits. “I think there is some enthusiasm among Democrats about alternative constitutional designs, but they can’t do anything about it now. But if they win in 2018 or 2020 or beyond, who knows?”

I do like that sneaky little “alternative constitutional designs” subterfuge, don’t you? Weasel-wording rarely gets more slippery than that construction, and my hat’s off to this oleaginous tyranny-pimp for it. Most scrumptiously delicious part of the whole grease-pie, though? This:

Despite Tushnet’s insistence that he has always “felt this way,” in 2016 he argued something entirely different. In an article published in May 2016, the Harvard Law professor argued that liberals should abandon “defensive-crouch constitutionalism.”

Among other things, the professor argued that liberals should embrace the idea that “The culture wars are over; they lost, we won.” He boldly compared the conservative “losers” to the defeated Axis powers from World War II.

“My own judgment is that taking a hard line (‘You lost, live with it’) is better than trying to accommodate the losers, who – remember – defended, and are defending, positions that liberals regard as having no normative pull at all,” he argued. “Trying to be nice to the losers didn’t work well after the Civil War, nor after Brown. (And taking a hard line seemed to work reasonably well in Germany and Japan after 1945.)”

To quote Treacher yet again: they’ll say anything they think will get them through the next five minutes. Absolutely anything at all. And they’ll directlt contradict themselves eighteen times before lunch each and every day, and never bat an eye over it.

Ahem. You lost. Live with it, fuckface—every last sobbing, squalling one of you. Or go lie down in the tub and open a vein, for all I give a shit.

Share

Is NOTHING sacred?

Posted on      by     

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

Posted on      by     

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

How it’s done

Posted on      by     

Street justice served, fresh and piping hot.

Members of the far-right men’s group “Proud Boys” beat up at least three protesters Friday in the streets of Manhattan after an event Friday night. The members of the pro-Trump organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as a hate group had gathered at the Metropolitan Republican Club on the Upper East Side to hear a speech by the group’s founder, Gavin McInnes. Minutes after they left the event, some 30 members of the group took part in the beating, which allegedly began when three anti-fascist protesters knocked a “Make America Great Again” hat off the head of a Proud Boy member.

Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit, AntiFa fascist. But if you make a bonehead move with ill intent, prepare to tote the full-load ass-whuppin’, just like you deserve. The New Rule, a la Schichter, is: what goes around comes around. In full measure, with a quickness.

Videos posted on social media show the violence that included apparent members of Proud Boys beating protesters while shouting “faggot” and “cocksucker.” None of the Proud Boys were detained for the attacks although three anti-fascist protesters were arrested. Police accused the protesters of attacking a 30-year-old man who was leaving the rally.

Two journalists who were at the scene, Sandi Bachom and Shay Horse, talked to the HuffPost and described how the “confrontation turned into a mob assault” with Proud Boys vastly outnumbering the protesters. “They turned it into a pummeling,” Horse said. “This was three people on the ground and people just kicking the shit out of them.” After the attacks, the Proud Boys members posed for a photo while flashing “white power” hand signs, according to a photo posted on Twitter. “I haven’t seen a fight that violent in a long time,” Horse tweeted.

Good. I hope they got their sorry asses beaten half to death, and will be walking with a limp, jumping at loud noises, and peeing through a tube into a bag for life. The only unsatisfying part of this feel-good story is that there weren’t more Lefty oxygen thieves present to take their dose along with these three simps.

“The proud boys were totally ready and willing to be violent tonight. They didn’t even wear masks.” Members of the group also reportedly shouted “I like beer” repeatedly, a clear reference to what Justice Brett Kavanaugh said during his confirmation hearings.

Heh. You go, ‘Boys. If there’s gotta be blood in the street, I’d much rather it be theirs.

The Proud Boys are a sterling example to us all, clearly ready to take care of business at the slightest provocation from fascist pussyfarts and deal out the right stuff in response, rather than curling into a fetal ball and whimpering about “civility” or some such.

In their faces. Twice as hard. “You must condemn the right-wing violence,” sniffs Leftiecakes? Yeah, go fuck yourself with a splintery, rotten 2×4. Cuck nancyboys, too, can snivel and whine right alongside their libtard leash-holders about how just awfully awfully awful it all is; Proud Boys don’t give a shit what they think either. Me, I fucking love it.

Share

Depends on what the meaning of “mob” is

Posted on      by     

Uh oh, looks like shitlibs have decided on another word we’re not allowed to use anymore.

There is nothing wrong with “fighting” in politics. We don’t need to be hypersensitive about the metaphorical excesses of partisanship (unless it’s Donald Trump or Sarah Palin — then we must take it literally, seriously, and hysterically). But the problem is that Democrats have a bad habit of acting as if every political setback they experience is caused by some act of criminality. This instigates lots people to act like a bunch of children—or worse.

When Democrats lose the House, it’s because of mythical unilateral gerrymandering or mythical mass-voter suppression. When they lose the Senate, the system suddenly becomes an antiquated relic of the 1700s. When they lose the Supreme Court, there is a “legitimacy crisis.” When they lost the 2000 election, it was stolen by the Supreme Court. In 2004, George W. Bush rigged the election in Ohio. When Democrats lost in 2016, those omnipotent Russians and the unfair Electoral College snatched the office from its preordained owner.

The Republican Senate majority “cheated” Obama out of a seat. The Republicans are “packing” the court by seating the same number of justices Barack Obama did. Every legislative action that fails to comport with liberal thinking is to them an apocalyptic event and the end of “democracy.”

If all of this were true, the only question is: why aren’t more people joining a mob? If your government is stealing your country, why wouldn’t you embrace boorishness, or even violence?

Yet Democrats still act perplexed by the backlash. Even now the mob within their ranks is being cast, predictably, as a conservative fiction. “Republicans Seize On ‘Angry Mob’ Mantra To Keep Their Midterm Base Fired Up,” says NPR, and so on. CNN insists that it’s a normal, everyday demonstration of free expression to chase politicians’ wives out of public places. You may not use the word “mob” in their presence.

“The media’s insistence that mob action & intimidation tactics have not been deployed by the left here — stuff that goes well beyond the normal parameters of acceptable protest — is pure gaslighting,” Guy Benson recently noted. “Especially as major national Democrats shrug it off or even egg it on.”

No, it’s not the Parisian mob. It’s more like one of those illiberal campus mobs that attempt, often successfully, to shut down debate. A mob is a disorderly crowd of people who have the intent “of causing trouble or violence.” So, for example, that means people who interrupt lawful proceedings, or people who wildly bang on the Supreme Court doors when a vote doesn’t go their way, or people who surround politicians (and their families) and chase them out of public places like restaurants, or people who join groups that smear other Americans without evidence, and those who try to undermine the rule of law through intimidation.

Well, see, it’s diff’runt when they do it. Just like always.

But you just gotta love it anyway. Just a little bit of pushback, a little bit of showing fight, and all of a sudden they’re flipping their wigs completely—wreaking violent mayhem when they can get away with several of them sucker-punching some lone wolf and running away, curling into a fetal ball and crying themselves comatose when they can’t.

But if you think this is funny—and it is—just wait til we REALLY start punching back…twice as hard.

Civility? Nah update! Schlichter has the right idea:

I liked it when the howling loonies started pounding on the bronze doors of the Supreme Court like Brett Kavanaugh was totally going to open them up and invite the freaks in to air their many stupid grievances over a hot cup of Too Damn Bad. I also liked it when Lindsey Graham dissed that silly shrieking harpy as he adjusted his tie and smirked. And I liked it when Jesse Kelly channeled Andrew Breitbart by heading down to the protest with a t-shirt that said“Hands Off My Uterus.” I liked a lot of things about last week, and all of them involved liberal jerks being unhappy.

Their pain feeds my soul.

Now, in the wake of our total victory over the forces of whiny, stupid evil – I’m trying to think of another term to describe people who think the hysterical chicks in The Crucible were the good guys and that Atticus Finch was the bad guy – some voices on the right are cautioning us to be magnanimous. To not be sore winners. To extend a hand of friendship to those who oppose us.

Oh, I’m extending a hand, but only part of one. A single finger. Guess which one.

This is not the time to go back to the same limp, listless conservatism that got us here in the first place. My new book Militant Normals: How Regular Americans Are Rebelling Against the Elite to Reclaim Our Democracy talks a lot about how the same Conservative, Inc., goofs who want us to surrender now that we’ve won got us here by failing to understand what they were up against in the Before Trump era, when nice guys like Mitt the Cancer-Causing Dog Torturer literally finished last. They were blind out of professional courtesy; the looney left are fellow members of the same elite class, and our conservativish betters didn’t want to rock the boat – or donor-filled cruise ship, as it were.

Ahoy, losers – we’re woke and free of your fussy influence. We have crushed our enemies and driven them before us, and now we hear the sweet music that is the lamentation of the women-identifying persons. You Never Trumpers who used to talk a big game about conservative success to milk the marks now look upon our success and despair. We look at the festival of insanity and choose to giggle. 

Damn straight. Let them send their mobs right on; we got the means to deal with ’em when the time comes. In the meantime, we’ll just keep right on laughing—and winning.

“It’s not only the right who will bleed” update! Careful what you wish for, shitlibs.

The Democrats have overtly committed to violence. If we needed further evidence, we need only look at what Antifa did in Portland the other day, where the police faded away, ceding the streets to Antifa, whose members blocked streets and ordered traffic and pedestrians to obey, for no other purpose than to show that they must be obeyed. Those who didn’t were hit with batons. We’ve all seen the video of a septuagenarian trying to get away and being punished. Now the Democrats who control Portland are considering charges against him…

Dick Durbin, oleaginous Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee, described the protesters at the Kavanaugh nomination hearings as the “sounds of democracy.” The left’s collective tantrum had nothing to do with democracy. It had everything to do with intimidation and violence.

Everyone knows that Maxine Waters has been calling for violence since the day Donald Trump took office. The left has always been violent. It’s only now that the leftists admit it. No…now, they advocate for it.

It bears repeating that Democrats, unable to win an argument on the merits, or obtain power through elections, are now calling for violence. I include Antifa when I discuss the Democrats because Antifa is their private militia. The media are their propaganda arm.

To be perfectly honest, I think the left is right. It’s time we exercised our “voices of democracy” and did some “kicking,” as well as displayed a little “incivility.” I don’t know about you, but if I’m driving down the Yellow Brick Road, and Antifa blocks my legal access or right to proceed, I will be polite and make every effort to go around as I go on my way. But, should one of those Halloween costume-wearing, tough-guy militia members get in my way and get a “brush back,” I’m not going to lose any sleep. I’ll make the damages up on the GoFundMe account.

The really great thing about all this is, the more Real Americans see this insanity, the more votes it will cost the Democrat Socialists.

Mob rules update! A cautionary note:

The rhetoricians of violence, intimidation, and harassment may be stupid – they were certainly self-deluded enough to lose “the most winnable presidential campaign in history” – but they’re not stupid enough to believe that no one will take their exhortations literally. When the eruptions of left-wing mob behavior are as numerous, as public, and as well documented as they’ve been, there can be no serious doubt that that’s exactly what’s happening. It started on Inauguration Day. It’s only grown worse since then.

We have to assume that they know what they’re doing. We have to assume that they intend the consequences. And we have to allow them no smallest, thinnest shred of concealment from the odium they’ve earned. They must be made to wear it – in some cases, all the way to prison. What else, pray tell, are laws against incitement to riot meant for?

A few brassy persons on the Right have said things to the effect that if a real civil war should erupt, the Right will prevail, because “we have all the guns.” This is foolishness on a potentially catastrophic level. Guns don’t matter nearly as much as the willingness to accept risks to self and loved ones, or the will to fight and win regardless of the cost. What evidence do we have that the Right is adequately supplied with those things? As Right-leaning Americans tend to be rather older than their putative adversaries – men with wives, children, homes, and workplaces to worry about – the matter admits of considerable doubt.

And while we sit here complacent about our preparedness, the chain grows link by link. One end lies in the hands of men and women who are determined to return to power, and never again to be removed from it. The other is connected to the thugs and harassers, and they follow their masters’ exhortations willingly.

Counteraction is required. Perhaps it must be of the sort Mr. “If they bring a knife, we bring a gun” has prescribed for his allegiants. Perhaps something less tawdry will suffice. But we cannot preserve the Republic when only our enemies, would-be totalitarians entirely devoid of scruple determined to regain power at any price, are willing to fight.

Time to pray.

The will of the Right to engage the Left fully is by no means a given; Righty has a lot more to lose from such a war, regardless of the outcome, whereas Lefty has almost nothing at all left. One side will be fighting for an abstraction, an idea; the other, for nothing more than raw, unbridled power. Too, the more hardcore on the Left are arming themselves, and getting real military-type training too.

On the other hand, people will only let themselves be used as punching bags and targets for so long before they lash out. My guess is that Righty is every bit as fed up with Lefty violence against them as they are with, say, the Deep State status quo or merely-verbal mockery from the hate-filled, frothing Left—and those are by no means separate issues. It’s only to be expected that largely comfortable, prosperous, stable people will be reluctant to go to war. As the Left’s provocations become ever more severe, though, that reluctance will likely evaporate.

The upcoming election, along with 2020 (should we make it that far), might just be the last desperate chance at resolving this conflict peacefully. I have serious doubts about just how good a chance that really is.

Share

Don’t gloat?

Posted on      by     

Yeah, no.


Ace sets up his response to this “please can’t we just get back to losing with dignity” bushwa in an earlier post. Reposted here in full, and to hell with fair use, since the central point (which I’ll take the additional liberty of boldfacing) is one I’ve already made a thousand times and don’t feel like restating myself:

A Look Back at the NeverTrumpers Who Brainlessly Taunted Trump Supporters With a Stupid Twitter-Snark “But He Fights!” Jab
—Ace of Spades

But Gorsuch.

But Kavanaugh.

But a 49 Year Low in the Unemployment rate.

But He Fights.

Let me point out that the same people who attack Trump for juvenile baiting on Twitter try to do so themselves. Oh, I’m sure they’ll make excuses why they should be permitted to do this while Trump should be condemned; phony moralists and sanctimonious hypocrites are forever minting reasons why they are entitled to do things that other people are forbidden to.

SJWs do this a lot. And the SJWs of the nominal right, get this, imitate them.

They’ll say “But he’s the President!”

Okay– but you guys are writers for what pretends to be an important intellectual magazine, National Review. We might say Trump should have more care to defend the dignity of the office.

Should not Jonah Goldberg et al take more care to defend the dignity of a once-illustrious magazine? Or are the juvenile taunts an admission that that magazine no longer has much dignity to protect?

The other thing I’d note is that these people do fight, in their own condescending, nasty twitter-coward way.

It’s just that they believe in fighting conservatives and fighting to defend the leftist-dominated culture and institutional order.

They will fight — but for causes they believe in. Such as the prerogatives and privileges of the left.

What they’re really complaining about is Trump’s mainstreaming of the idea that the liberal, Rockefeller-Republican-dominated fake-conservative Republican Establishment should be fought.

They don’t want that fought. They don’t want their progressive friends fought, or not too seriously at least. (They like pretend-fighting and then having cocktails later.)

What they want are genuine conservatives and grassroots activists — the dirty upstarts! — fought.

Ace’s link above is the same one Steyn used in the post I excerpted below, which I didn’t transcribe. You should check it out despite my laziness, because it’s a stinging evisceration of a whole slew of NeverTrumpTards who deserve every bit of it, climaxing thusly:

The list goes on and on.

As noted:  They take the one thing that’s actually the most true, and marginalize it to reduce or eliminate its potency. And Trump beat them all because they thumb-wrestle for participation trophies while he dropkicks people for the win.

Just to be very clear: If Trump didn’t fight, then Brett Kavanaugh would be a footnote and right now we’d be fending off claims that Amy Coney Barrett once attended a party where someone said something racist.

You’re damn right Trump fights. And it’s a good thing too.

The greatest, most biting irony of all this? What got them Trump in the first place was that they never bothered to fight anybody but other conservatives, just as Ace notes (“The great thing about never fighting is that you never win and therefore never had the opportunity to gloat“) and I’ve said over and over again. As for “don’t gloat”? Well, it just so happens that that article was written by longtime liberal activist and Obama-admin appointee Cass Sunstein, headlined: “GOP’s Toasts to Kavanaugh Are Unspeakably Cruel.”

So, y’know, yeah. Sunstein even has the balls to trot out a Lincoln comparison (!), and moans piteously about the importance of “empathy” and not “mocking human suffering” without once acknowledging the suffering Kavanaugh and his entire family were put through by a dishonest smear campaign waged against him by “people” who took enormous pleasure in the pain they inflicted in service to a lie.

“Empathy”? Kiss my ass, shitlib. “Don’t gloat”? Better peddle that someplace else, ain’t no market for it here. You and yours will never, EVER suffer pain enough to suit me.

Share

Fake news!

Posted on      by     

Oh, but this is rich.

CNN’s Jim Acosta posted about the looming confirmation vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, ticking off a laundry list of liberal causes that might be affected by a more conservative court. Acosta was called out for spouting liberal talking points and did not take it well, deleting a tweet that accused his GOP critics of “bullying the press” and whining, “Can’t you guys win gracefully?”

Acosta initially tangled with the account of Don”Stew” Stewart, Deputy Chief of Staff to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The deleted tweet was a reply to the personal account of Zach Roday, who describes himself as, ” @RepublicanAGscomms director | previously Paul Ryan’s political spox, House flack, Scott Walker ‘14, Romney/Ryan, Senate aide “

Acosta tweeted, “With a single speech, Sen. Collins, announcing her support for Kavanaugh, has paved the way for a much more conservative Supreme Court for the next generation. Abortion rights, gay rights, climate change, and health care reform could well be impacted for decades to come.”

Stewart tweaked him with, “Heads up: I think PFAW hacked your account.” (Note: PFAW is the acronym for the leftist group founded by Norman Lear, People for the American Way.)

The thin-skinned Acosta whined to Stewart about the First Amendment, “More bashing the press by those in power. First Amendment getting you down Stew?” Stewart replied, “Nope, in fact I was exercising my First Amendment rights. You get to express opinions; I get to express opinions. That’s how it works. Thanks for the RT.” Acosta came back, “Awww Stew… I get it. Reporting you don’t like gets labeled “opinion.” Hey buddy.. I’ve been called worse.”

Acosta must really love his King of the Whiney Media Bitches status; he seems awfully determined to maintain it, at any and all cost.

“Bullying the press.” No, Jim, it’s calling you out for the lying propagandists you are. Sorry our President ripped your mask off and left you cowering and cringing, fully exposed to public view and all. But hey, them’s the breaks. If you really think a little gentle ribbing is “bullying,” better brace yourself; by all rights you and yours got a lot more, and a lot worse, coming yet.

Share

A run-in with THE LAW

Posted on      by     

Well, I never!

Kavanaugh Questioned in 1985 After Bar Fight — for Throwing Ice

Why, clearly, this man does NOT possess the necessary “judicial temperament,” as the shitlibs are saying. Even though he’s been a respected judge for decades now.

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh (shown above left) was questioned by authorities in 1985 following an altercation at a bar after a UB40 concert, according to The New York Times. He was accused of throwing ice on another individual in a tussle at a bar along with his friend Chris Dudley (above right), who later became a player for the NBA.

Kavanaugh was an undergraduate in his junior year at Yale in New Haven, Connecticut, at the time of the September 1985 incident. The New Haven Police Department questioned him and four others, but no one was arrested and no charges were filed.

“Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him ‘for some unknown reason,’” said The Times article.

Okay, this dumpster-diving nonsense is actually getting kind of funny at this point. Can the heavy-breathing twatburgers at the NYT really think ancient-history hijinks like this matter to even the slightest degree to anybody all these years later—Kavanaugh included? Do they seriously mean to propose that having been young and perhaps a little rowdy once should disqualify one for service on the USSC as an adult? Do they really think the kind of juiceless, timid, sheltered dweebs that apparently inhabit big-city newsrooms must be the only ones making decisions regarding the laws that affect the lives of those of us who actually DO get out into the rough-and-tumble real world now and then?

Never mind that last one, it sort of answers itself.

Bottom line update! Here’s what it’s really all about:

Aside from the Left’s vicious and venal assault on Kavanaugh and his family, another ulterior motive has been at play over the past few weeks. It is “Revenge of the Nerds, Swamp Edition.” Duckie versus Blaine. Farmer Ted versus Jake Ryan. Booger versus Ogre. Except this time, dweeby Democratic lawmakers and their media Geek Squad have piled on to the SCOTUS Prom King, and it isn’t pretty. Decades of pent-up hostility for being ignored, depantsed and stuffed in lockers came frothing to the top of our national political dialogue.

Brett Kavanaugh is the guy the dorks love to hate, and they still resent him. He was a three-sport athlete and top student—”busted my butt in school,” he told Whitehouse—and obviously very well-liked. Legions of friends, both men and women, have come to his defense. Old girlfriends have attested to his character and manners. “I’ve been friends with Brett Kavanaugh for over 35 years, and dated him during high school,” wrote Maura Kane. “In every situation where we were together he was always respectful, kind and thoughtful. We remain good friends and I admire him as a husband, father, and professional.”

Sadly for the nerds, Kavanaugh’s charmed life did not end after graduation. He went on to the Ivy Leagues, worked in the Bush White House, and became a federal judge. The fact Kavanaugh is also a devout churchgoer, a volunteer at homeless shelters, marathon-runner, kids’ basketball coach, husband, and father to two beautiful little girls only made the dorks more mad. They are fuming that this party boy, and not they, will be in a position of power instead of selling cars like all party boys should be.

Kelly’s point here might seem frivolous at first blush, but I think there’s more to it than might initially be apparent. The NYT’s sniffy “gotcha” mentioned up top inadvertently reveals the deep-seated resentment and envy underlying their cheap “scoop”; the bolded part above reads like a list from the Left’s All Things Anathema handbook. And envy has always been one of the primary gears driving the Progressivist machinery. For booger-eating Lefty pencilnecks, what’s not to hate about a guy like Kavanaugh?

Share

So shut ’em down already

Posted on      by     

Heartiste spells out what’s up:

We’ve gone from:

THESE ARE THE FACTS

to

I WANT TO BELIEVE

to

I WANT YOU TO BELIEVE

to

YOU MUST BELIEVE

Next stop:

NON-BELIEVERS IN THE NEVER-WRONGNESS AND SAINTLINESS OF WOMEN WILL BE SHOT AT DAWN

Well, not precisely. They don’t seem too much interested in believing Paula Jones, Juanita Brodderick, or Karen Monahan, just to name a very few.

Update! Gotta include this:



Methinks it’s about time the Vichy GOPers stopped saying OK and got on with things, but I ain’t holding my breath. In fact, after seeing Grassley’s “deadline” (much akin to Obama’s “red line” fan-dance) prove to be about as firm as an overcooked noodle, I now predict that Kavanaugh will NOT be seated on the Court—certainly not in time for the next session, and very likely not at all. Meanwhile, speaking of Karen Monahan (from the link above):

U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison pushed back Friday against allegations of domestic abuse, saying his accuser fabricated the story about him.

The Minnesota Democrat also dismissed a medical record that named him as the abuser, but said he can’t be sure more people won’t “cook up” allegations against him.

Yeah, I just bet. But he’s a Muslim, so thumping on his women is a-okay with you shitlibs, right? Right.

Share

The last word on McCain

Posted on      by     

No really, I mean it this time. Although this one is more about Trump than McStain, actually.

MSNBC anchor Katy Tur is angry at you.

“Last week was a tidal wave of bad news for this presidency and this president, and his approval rating stayed the same. So I wonder — I mean, if that’s not going to move the needle, is this John McCain thing going to move the needle?” Tur said during an on-air breakdown worthy of Martha Raddatz.

“And forgive me for being skeptical because I was under the impression, as was most people, that when Donald Trump came out and said he wasn’t a war hero — he likes the guys that don’t get caught — back in 2015, that people would care. And when I went out and I talked to Republican voters, they didn’t care at all.”

Gee, how dare people not react the way she predicted. How dare we reject the media’s attempts to frame President Trump.

“Eighty-eight percent of Republicans still support him — 88 percent. I’m sorry, I just — I start to wonder when we have these conversations and we say, ‘Well, this is going to be the breaking point,’ I wonder if there is a breaking point. I wonder if enough people in this country find the actions and the behavior repulsive enough to want to change what’s going on,” Tur said.

There is no breaking point. None. The media cannot break the bond between the man and his supporters.

Bingo, nailed it in one.

In the old days, they could. Republicans have a long history of sacrificing candidates at the altar of appeasement over one of these media-driven fake scandals.

Then came Obama. His political mentor was an unrepentant terrorist. His religious mentor — the man he dedicated his book “The Audacity of Hope” to — said America deserved 9/11.

Most of the media didn’t care.

Why should we care if President Trump said something the media doesn’t like?

The media has fouled itself out; it is the boy who cried wolf.

While the media pitched Fake News about Russia, the economy caught fire, North Korea gave up its nukes, and the War on Terrorism seems over.

The media abused its power — and lost that power.

And they still just don’t get it, and can’t get over it.

Share

Where’s MY white privilege, dammit?

Posted on      by     

Self-loathing is an essential—perhaps THE essential—component driving the modern liberal psyche.

The concept of ‘white privilege’ was popularized by Peggy McIntosh in a 1989 paper written at Harvard University and titled, “White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack.” It was written as a personal, experiential essay, and it details 26 ways in which McIntosh’s skin color has been decisive in determining her life outcomes. This hugely influential paper has been responsible for the subsequent proliferation of a rigidly enforced theory of privilege throughout social movements and university classrooms. So central has this doctrine become to progressive politics, pedagogy, and activism, that to even question its validity is to invite the inquisitorial wrath of ‘social justice’ radicals. But it is for this very reason that it is important to subject McIntosh’s ideas to scrutiny. So let us return to the source and to first principles and unpack Peggy McIntosh’s knapsack…

Follows, a close examination of the tremendously large silver spoon ensconced in the gormless nitwit’s mouth from birth, a matter far more of wealth, social position, and access to a network of lofty connections than of race. She doesn’t seem interested in groveling apologetically for those things, oddly enough.

In other words, Peggy McIntosh was born into the very cream of America’s aristocratic elite, and has remained ensconced there ever since. Her ‘experiential’ list enumerating the ways in which she benefits from being born with white skin simply confuses racial privilege with the financial advantages she has always been fortunate enough to enjoy. Many of her points are demonstrably economic. One is left to wonder why, given her stated conviction that she has unfairly benefited from her skin color, there seems to be no record of her involvement in any charity or civil rights work. If she did take to the streets in support of some cause or other, she left no trace that I can see. Nor, as far as I can tell, has she spent any time teaching the underprivileged or working directly to better anyone’s condition but her own. Instead, she has contented herself with a generous six figure salary, and has not shown any particular eagerness to hand her position over to a more deserving person of color.

Very few of the people reading this article—whatever the color of their skin—will have even the vaguest idea of the comfort and privilege in which Peggy McIntosh grew up and to which she has since become accustomed. Nor will we have access to the world of opportunities that she has been fortunate enough to enjoy. But even though the lifetime of privilege McIntosh has experienced is almost certainly due to her wealth and not the colour of her skin, she nevertheless found a way to share this irksome burden with the illiterate children of Kentucky coal miners, the hopeless peasants of the Appalachians, poor single mothers struggling to make ends meet on welfare, and the vast majority of whites in the United States and throughout the world who never had the chance to attend Radcliffe or Harvard. She simply reclassified her manifest economic advantage as racial privilege and then dumped this newly discovered original sin onto every person who happens to share her skin color. Without, of course, actually redistributing any of the wealth that, by her own account, she had done nothing to deserve.

All of which means that pretty much anything you read about ‘white privilege’ is traceable to an ‘experiential’ essay written by a woman who benefitted from massive wealth, a panoply of aristocratic connections, and absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. This alone calls into question the seriousness and scholarly validity of the derivative works, since they are all the fruit of a poisonous tree. But McIntosh’s hypothesis was eagerly embraced nonetheless, because it served a particular purpose—it helped to mainstream a bitter zero-sum politics of guilt and identity. This dark epistemology has quietly percolated through the universities and the wider culture for two decades now. It has had the effect of draining attention from a massive and growing wealth gap and it has pitted the poor against one another in public spectacles of acrimony and even violence. Even so, it was readily embraced by progressively-minded professors who might otherwise have had trouble squaring their thirst for social justice with their high six figure salaries. In the last decade, this dogma has come screaming out of the nation’s august halls of learning and into mainstream civil discourse (although to call most of what passes for discourse today ‘civil’ somewhat labours the definition). And, still, we are endlessly and forcefully reminded that to question this concept in any way is, in and of itself, racist.

That’s probably enough excerpting; it’s a deep, well-conceived and crafted piece which goes into some unexpected places and is deserving of a read in full. Good comments, too.

McIntosh’s unwelcome gift of the burden of her own misguided guilt, neurosis, and self-flagellation is one the world could have done without. Whatever happened to the notion of a becoming sense of gratitude, responsibility, and noblesse oblige as an accompaniment to the good fortune of being born into a life of wealth and privilege, anyway?

If we’re all going to have to shoulder the load of stupid PC-Progtard angst, though, I’m gonna have to insist that they lay off their damned appropriation of my culture: “The Language Police Want Y’all to Adopt the Gender-Neutral, Non-Sexist ‘Y’all’.” Help, help, I’ve been microaggressed!

Seriously, though, the idea of sensible people “uniting” with such useless skinbags for any purpose at all seems fanciful beyond even the wildest science-fiction these days. Not even something as cataclysmic as the events in John Ringo’s Posleen War series could do it, seems to me. I know that whenever a gaggle of ’em goes out to attempt a “dialogue” with the Posleen in hopes of finding a “peaceful resolution of our differences,” “compromise,” and “reconciliation” with them—and you know damned well they would—I won’t be making any attempts to talk ’em out of it.

(Via KT)

Share

Socialism gets RESULTS!

Posted on      by     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regrettably, the Left has largely succeeded.

THAT’S gotta be the understatemen of the century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

MORE collusion!

Posted on      by     

You just gotta love these gormless, hapless clowns. For certain values of “love,” natch.

A coordinated campaign by more than 100 newspapers Thursday will see publication of a wide variety of editorials, all condemning President Trump for his attacks on the press and pretty much anything and everything. (Update: Reported number now over 300.)

This is what fellow recovering journalist Kerry Dougherty so astutely calls “briar-patch-level genius.”

Here we have a president attacking the mainstream media as lying “enemies of the people” and “fake news” trying to bring him down. And over there we have a significant chunk of the mainstream media publishing a nationwide coordinated campaign of collusion to bring him down.

Trump was not elected despite his often outrageous behavior and statements. He was elected because of his outrageous behavior and statements.

They promised drastic change and profound offense to so many establishment types, especially in the East and the media, who in their self-satisfied position of power and comfort had for so long patronized and ignored the complaints and pleas of that plurality.

Had those elites of both parties paid genuine attention to flyover country’s concerns, frustrations and fears, as silly and stupid as they seem to disconnected Beltway know-it-all’s, they would not be in today’s baffling, powerless position. There would have been no need for a Trump. And by the way, isn’t it strange how a billionaire from a New York high-rise could detect the heartland’s hurt better than those elected from that region?

Actually, it isn’t strange in the least; since they are the authors of that hurt, and the perpetuators of it, it’s no more than obvious and inevitable. It’s not so much that they can’t detect it as that they hope like hell we can’t detect their disinterest in it, and most especially their role as creators of it.

Trump did not invent many Americans’ visceral dislike of the media. He’s using it, exactly as these 100+ newspapers will use their readers’ visceral dislike of Trump to influence a large audience on this day. It’s all fair game in a free society, even one as bitterly splintered as ours these days.

Many silent Americans see a Washington paper, for example, chronicling in excess of 4,000 Trump exaggerations and lies. Fair enough.

Where was that passion for lie detection during Obama’s endless reign of error when he spewed serial untruths about, among others, Solyndra, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, Benghazi’s video roots and how Americans could keep their insurance, doctor and about $2,500 in savings under Obamacare?

Oh, we all know well enough where that “passion for lie detection” was—which is a YUGE part of their problem now. Limbaugh knows it too:

Now, let’s go to this media-coordinated effort started by some editorial writer at the Boston Globe to have America’s major newspapers unite and run anti-Trump editorials today while maintaining that they are not united in opposition to Trump! While trying to maintain that they are not the enemy of the people — which, by the way, Trump has never said. He said fake news is the enemy of the people.  He never said the media in toto or the media at large. My point is they’re proving everything Trump’s alleged about ’em with this little scheme that they’re trying.

But here’s the thing about this: They’re not gonna persuade anyone. This is gonna backfire on them because you know what it’s proving?  It’s proving something very simple. It’s proving the media is biased — and of course, they maintain that they aren’t. But you can’t get a more classic definition and illustration of media bias than this.

Trump has always said the fake news is the enemy of the people, but not all the news, not the entire news media. But for some reason all these news people think that he is talking about them. Now, from a couple of days ago Little Brian Stelter at CNN: “More than 100 Newspapers Will Publish Editorials Decrying Trump’s Anti-Press Rhetoric — [Marjorie] Pritchard said. ‘We have some big newspapers, but the majority are from smaller markets, all enthusiastic about standing up to Trump’s assault on journalism.”

I can’t tell you what a majority of the American people — how big a majority — agree with Trump on this. I cannot tell you how many Americans are fed up with the media, with the unfairness, with the bias. You know it as well as I do. Maybe even better. Trump is more accessible than any president has ever been.  Trump talks to the media more often than any president ever has. Trump lets them into cabinet meetings. He lets them into little meetings that go on in the Oval Office when foreign leaders are in town.

He sometimes conducts entire meetings at the White House with the media present. He stops on the way to Marine One — the helicopter or wherever. He stops, and he’ll talk to the press for 15 or 20 minutes. He just happens to call ’em out on their BS! Trump has not spied on them the way Obama did.

All of which adds up to make their fearful caterwauling and indignant protestations over Trump’s bluntly accurate characterization of them all the more amusing. Back to Malcolm for the closer, whose own contempt for Trump is apparently uncontainable:

As part of their drift off into monopoly arrogance, newspapers in general and editorial pages in particular somehow came to think and lecture like they knew better than the readers who paid good money to read their words. They were pharmacists handing out a daily dose of the news they prescribed. Not a good attitude for any business to have toward customers, especially in an era of expanding free choices.

And now these same editors and publications will again lecture the country about the dangers and evils of the man they didn’t like 646 days ago, who punches back and got elected by millions who didn’t read those lectures then either. Other media, righteously nodding their heads, will cover it conscientiously and copiously as if it’s important medicine and of no self-interest.

By Friday, those pages will be in the bottom of recycle bins and bird cages. And in their cozy, mutual isolations, millions on both sides will feel sure once more that they’re in the right.

Ahh, but there’s the rub, see: one side IS in the right. And it ain’t the side trying to bring down a duly-elected President with lies and skullduggery, however one Andrew Malcolm (or anybody else) may feel about the guy.

Share

Sympathy: limited

Posted on      by     

More cheese to go with all that whine, stat!

The media keeps claiming that President Trump is encouraging violence against them. But the media are not the true victims here, and they will largely have themselves to blame if violence does befall them.

Talking about Trump, MSNBC’s Katy Tur said last Friday: “Yeah, we get it, you don’t like us. Fine. But do you have to put our lives in danger?”

The New York Times’s Bret Stephens even wrote a piece over the weekend titled: “Trump will have Blood on His Hands.”

“I warned that this inflammatory language [by Trump] is contributing to a rise in threats against journalists and will lead to violence,” said New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger. CNN’s Jim Acosta echoed that warning: “I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in the conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt.”

The solution, of course, is very simple: they can stop being out-and-out Democrat-Socialist propagandists and start working as actual journalists. Unfortunately, that appears to be another of those jobs Americans, or American liberals at any rate, just won’t do. But Lott has another angle to cover here:

Mass public shooters may begin to realize that shooting up a liberal media outlet would create a publicity firestorm. These shooters crave attention and pick targets where they can cause maximum casualties and gain maximum notoriety. Let’s hope that people don’t get to thinking that killing people in the media is a special ticket to notoriety.

Of course, this is no different than the impact that the media has on these attacks by continually mentioning these killer’s names.

Reporters decried the Capitol Gazette shooting as “one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in US history” and said it “may be the worst mass shooting of journalists in the country.” While understandable from the media’s perspective, giving so much excited coverage creates an incentive for someone else to come along and try to cause an even bigger sensation.

Compare for a moment the news coverage given to the Republican congressmen who were shot at last summer or the threats of violence against the daughters of Congressmen Jason Lewis (R-MN) or Lee Zeldin (R-NY) with the coverage that the media gives to vague threats of violence against them. In Lewis’s case, the threats against his daughters came immediately after completely dishonest attacks by CNN and others in the media that he was disappointed that he could no longer call women “sluts.”

If you were a killer who craved attention, who would you attack? A Republican congressman or someone in the media?

There is surely no symmetry here. The media doesn’t acknowledge any responsibility for threats on congressmen and the attack on Republican congressmen last year.

There was also no similar mainstream media outrage when President Obama accused Fox News of being “destructive” to the country or said that his administration needed to “pretend” that Fox is a “legitimate news organization.” The Obama administration even spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen and also CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson. But the mainstream media acted like it was Fox News’s fault for being in Obama’s crosshairs and they ignored Attkisson’s case.

Obama expected the mainstream media to be nice to him. In 2008, he kicked newspaper reporters from the Dallas Morning News, New York Post, and Washington Times off his campaign plane because their coverage wasn’t favorable enough.

Obama could have clapped half of the whores of the White House press brothel in irons and tossed them into a dungeon and the rest of them would have gone right on fellating him just as enthusiastically as before.

With the mainstream media’s constant false claims about supposed lies by Trump (see here, here, here, here, here, and here) and the frequent allegations that he is a racist, one can only marvel at the media’s self righteousness and thin skin. Many reporters have made it their jobs to lie about Trump, and when he calls them out for it they accuse him of endangering their lives.

Last I looked, I saw no mention whatever in the Constitution of any right to constantly, relentlessly lie about a sitting President in the hope of bringing him down or making it impossible for him to govern according to the will of the people as expressed by their having elected him. Nor do I recollect any right to pose as impartial reporters of the day’s news while acting as shills and cheerleaders for one party.

When Trump calls the media out for being exactly what they are, we Normals out here in bitter-clingerland enjoy it tremendously and consider it no more than their due. Then, when the pompous blowhards tremble and quake in fear, whining about being “endangered” after having shamelessly encouraged hatred and violence against us for so long, we find it amusing.

Somehow, I seem to recall an old saw about the inadvisability of sowing the wind, as well as the unpleasant consequences of having gone aheand and done so anyway. Maybe some shitlib journo-hack could look that one up for us sometime, in between bouts of making stuff up about Trump, then jizzing himself over the weekly “OH, WE GOT HIM NOW!!!” ploy. Failing that, we can all just sit back and watch as certain chickens come home to roost.

Frankly, if anybody’s ass just HAS to be beaten and/or shot, I’d just as soon it be them instead of us for a change.

Share

Acosta doubles down

Posted on      by     

And steps in it again.


The truth IS prevailing, Jimmy boy. That’s what’s happening right now…and it’s driven your side right into daylight barking madness.

Pro tip: you and your faux-journalist ilk aren’t supposed to even HAVE a side, Jimbo. But you do, and we all know you do. Hannity gets the last word:


Bang fucking ZOOM.

(Via Breitbart)

Share

SOS

Posted on      by     

They never change, do they?

“Is he gonna blow us all up?”

So inquired one of Elisabeth LaMotte’s patients recently, fretting out loud about the volatility of U.S. President Donald Trump’s actions during a therapy session at her Washington practice.

It was a rhetorical question — one that predated Trump’s threats of a showdown with Iran this week. But if the question wasn’t meant in earnest, the politically induced anxiety LaMotte is hearing about from her clients certainly is, says the founder of the D.C. Counselling and Psychotherapy Center.

She refers to it as a “collective anxiety” among patients who feel on edge about how potentially dire the president’s decisions could be.

“There is a fear of the world ending,” she said. “It’s very disorienting and constantly unsettling.”

These mewling, fragile feebs (or their parents, in some cases) whined like this—in the exact same words, no less—back when Reagan was sworn in, too. As Glenn says, they’re batshit crazy—so hey, why not put them back in charge of running the government?

It’s a damnable mystery how such contemptible specimens ever managed to steal the country from us in the first place.

Share

Running scared

Posted on      by     

Not the meagerest drop of sympathy from me.

WASHINGTON — New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said he warned President Trump at a face-to-face meeting July 20 that Trump consistently referring to the media as “the enemy of the people” will lead to violence.

Sulzberger said he attended, at the request of the White House, along with NYT editorial page editor James Bennet.

“My main purpose for accepting the meeting was to raise concerns about the president’s deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric,” Sulzberger said. “I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.”

“I told him that although the phrase ‘fake news’ is untrue and harmful…”

“Untrue” it demonstrably, provably is NOT. With that blatant, self-serving lie, we got nothing more to talk about here as far as I’m concerned.

“I made clear repeatedly that I was not asking for him to soften his attacks on The Times if he felt our coverage was unfair,” Sulzberger said. “Instead, I implored him to reconsider his broader attacks on journalism, which I believe are dangerous and harmful to our country.”

Know what really IS “dangerous and harmful to our country”? The raw propaganda the “broader” range of “journalists” have been fobbing off for years and years as “honest,” “balanced,” “unbiased” reportage. Just how many years am I talking about? Oh, ’round about a hundred and fifty, give or take:

The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an “Independent Press”! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

That’s a quote from a famous speech made by John Swinton, a NYT op-ed writer and hardcore Leftist himself, in…1883. The more things change, the more they etc.

If Sulzberger doesn’t want to be referred to as an “enemy of the people,” he should start doing his level best to stop acting like one.

Share

Hysteri-cal

Posted on      by     

The Trump Death Toll continues to mount.

Trump’s death toll is staggering. It’s one genocide after another — net neutrality, tax cuts, pulling out of the Paris “climate accords,” Brett Kavanaugh, the Muslim travel ban, ripping children from their mothers’ arms, etc., etc.

Who knew that full employment, a roaring economy and the destruction of ISIS could lead to the premature deaths of tens of millions of Democrats? But that’s what they’re saying on social — or should I say anti-social — media.

I just stumbled across a Twitter thread in which assorted moonbats are commiserating with one another over the assorted epidemics that have apparently devastated the non-working classes since Nov. 8, 2016.

It’s amazing there’s anyone even left alive to cash their trust-fund checks in places like Nantucket and Northampton, the plague is so pervasive.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the “freshman 15” — the fact that kids going off to college often put on weight. Now I read that physicians have isolated a new outbreak of obesity.

A woman named Catherine tweeted, “My doctor said, ‘Oh, I see you’ve gained the Trump 20.”

In other words, across the land, menopausal women in pink hats are having this conversation with their spouses: “Honey, does this president make my rear end look fat?”

Follows, a whole litany of syndromes, pathologies, and complaints declared by shrieking moonbats because they lost a damned election. Strangely, it doesn’t seem to have occurred to a single one of them that the real problem just might be that they’re simply neurotic, obssessive, whiny sore-losers. But it ought to.

Share

Tired of all the winning yet?

Posted on      by     

From his lips to God’s ears.

GRANITE CITY — Donald Trump is a charming man, and people like him.

Up in Chicago we forget that. Between the attacks on immigrants, on Democrats, on the press, and the FBI, and the Justice department…well, the list goes on and on, doesn’t it? We see the damage, to our institutions, to our social fabric, our nation’s reputation, to groups and individuals, and assume he’s a reviled figure, ripe to be driven from office.

He hasn’t attacked “immigrants,” bub; it’s illegal aliens—criminals, border jumpers who flout our laws and take advantage of the American welfare state—he’s gone after, and rightly so. As for Democrat Socialists, the press, the FBI, et al, sure he has…but they all attacked him first—fraudulently, dishonestly, shamelessly, under false pretenses, in an outrageous attempt at overthrowing the duly-elected President.

Their problem is really that he hasn’t just folded up like a cheap accordion and begged their forgiveness, like they’re long accustomed to from Republicans. THAT’S what really frosts ’em. The rest of the paragraph is just the usual shitlib horseshit and hysteria, after which we finally get to the good stuff.

Not true. Not down here, at U.S. Steel’s sprawling works, Trump embraces and is in turn embraced.

“The moment of a lifetime,” said millwright Earl Evans, one of about 400 workers who came in on their own time to hear the president speak. “Finally someone doing something for America.”

No foolin’ there, buddy.

Before going, I felt squeamish at being in the crowd scene at a party for the man who kicked open the Pandora’s box of American fears. Almost afraid. But hearing him, I better understood his appeal. He has a vulnerable charm, at times a humanity.  He pandered shamelessly to his audience.

“We need steel,” he said. “We need steel plants. And to see an old, big monster plant like this re-opening — that is an honor. I look at the faces of you people; I could be one of you. I like you guys. I could be one of you.”

That struck me as either sincere or an amazing facsimile. The workers, for their part, couldn’t give him a standing ovation because they never sat down.

I left the hall thinking: Donald Trump is going to be re-elected in 2020. The Democrats don’t have anyone who can touch him. Bank on it. Don’t hate me for being the one to tell you.

No problem, Poindexter. Of course, I’m sure you’ll consider it fine to hate us for being the ones who make it happen. But that’s okay too; it ain’t as if we give a damn anymore what you think or who you hate anyway.

(Via Ed and Newsalert)

Share

Trump babies

Posted on      by     

London Squalling.

The “Trump Baby” balloon was the most visible symbol of the days-long diarrhea fest that the haggard and perpetually sourpussed English left dubbed a “carnival of resistance” shat out in petulant protest of the fact that the world’s most powerful man would even DARE to set foot in their resolutely suicidal nation. London’s Muslim Mayor Sadiq Khan temporarily refrained from jailing indigenous Britons for saying unkind things about immigrants on Facebook to OK a permit for the Trump Baby to float, because after all it was a “free speech” issue, and he’d never think of standing in the way of free speech.

“We realized the only way to get at him was to ridicule him,” said one of the Trump Baby’s creators Max Wakefield.

Has Max ever pulled his head out of his rectum long enough to realize they’ve been ridiculing him at maximum intensity for three years and he hasn’t batted an eyelash? Does Max realize he’s constantly laughing at them while they never stop crying about him? If Trump was the baby they insist he is, do they think he could stand a minute of this shit, much less an incessant hurricane of it? And is Max so bereft of insight that he can’t see what so many others see—that he and his ilk have been publicly losing their minds for three years and predicting all sorts of implausible doomsday scenarios simply because he got elected?

In the days preceding Trump’s first-ever UK visit as president last week, the mentally disorganized and physically inactive community organizers and activists who populate the modern decaying left arranged for at least 60 separate events designed to harass, mock, malign, and dehumanize the president because, well, he harasses, mocks, maligns and dehumanizes everyone and everything that they, in their endless capacity for pious delusion, hold sacred. The pre-visit hysteria was so intense that the US Embassy cautioned American tourists to “exercise caution if unexpectedly in the vicinity of large gatherings that may become violent.”

One of the main events, the Together Against Trump march and rally last Friday, was organized by a group called Stop The War Coalition. According to vice-chairman Chris Nineman, the group’s main aim is “opposing the West.”

Let that sink in for a moment.

No need, really; that much has been disgustingly apparent for all too long now, at least to me. Yet somehow, despite “opposing the West,” not ONE of them seems to be in any great rush to shag their useless asses on off to Cuba, China, Venezuela, or some other commie shithole where they can truly Live The Dream at last. Curious, that.

As has always been the case with Trump, his fiercest critics are merely only projecting their own inner turmoil onto him. Everything they say and do is far more hysterical and childish than anything he’s ever said or done.

So why are they so hysterical if Trump isn’t?

Mostly BECAUSE he isn’t, I’d guess. They can’t touch him; he keeps right on running rings around them, he doesn’t give a tinker’s damn what they think or say, and it’s driven them all crazier’n a shithouse rat.

Again: it would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the miserable tapeworms. And laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

Share

Cry, baby, cry

Posted on      by     

A good start, I guess.

Rep. Maxine Waters warned supporters on Wednesday of potential “armed protests” against her after an extremist group called for ongoing demonstrations outside her office in Los Angeles.

In a lengthy statement issued late Wednesday, Waters, D-Calif., said she’d been notified about forthcoming protests by the Oath Keepers, which she described as “an anti-government militia” that’s staged armed protests in cities across the country.

She warned her supporters against being “baited” into counter-demonstrations or confrontations with the organization, which she said has a track record of “violent and provocative behavior.”

Umm…the brain-dead blot on the idea of evolutionary advancement DOES know these guys are mostly cops and soldiers, right?

“This is the launch of an ongoing protest that may go on for several weeks. Other patriotic groups are welcome to join us,” the group’s statement said. “This is both a protest against Maxine Waters’ incitement of terrorism, and a stand for ICE and the Border Patrol, as they enforce the perfectly constitutional immigration and naturalization laws of this nation.”

Waters, 79, ignited controversy last month when she called on her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration in response to the zero-tolerance immigration policy that led to the separation of families at the border.

Well, that sounds mild enough, right? Maybe we ought to go back and review what she actually said, just to clarify matters:

She explained, “Already you have members of your cabinet that are being booed out of restaurants. We have protesters taking up at their house who are saying, ‘No peace, no sleep. No peace, no sleep.’”

She concluded with a call to action, encouraging the crowd to go out and repeat what had been done to White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. She said, “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!”

Now a little compare and contrast:

Not so fun when you’re the one being “hounded” now, is it? But it’s also worth noting that there’s a key difference between what the Oath Keepers are planning and the liberal tactics Maxine Waters has publicly endorsed. The Oath Keepers want to protest outside of the congresswoman’s office. That’s her official place of business where she’s supposedly engaged in her job. Provided they keep to the sidewalks, don’t block traffic or prevent constituent access to the office, it’s nothing more than a typical political protest.

Conversely, Waters specifically endorsed tracking and chasing down members of the Trump administration when they went out for a meal, to go shopping, at their homes and in every other moment of private time they have outside of their government jobs. That’s not a political protest. It’s harassment.

Oh, it’s a lot more than just that; as I said at the time, it’s incitement to riot at the very least.

You want to defeat arrogant, fascist Lefty scum, be they the violent Antifa IRA-analog or the Democrat-Socialist Party’s Sinn Fein? This is how you do it: you use their own rules against them, up to the very fucking limit and beyond. You cram a triple helping of their own bullshit right down their throats, until they’re choking, gagging, and begging you to stop.

Like it or not, that’s how it’s done. That’s the Chicago Way.




The Oathkeepers’ move is a step in the right direction, if only a mild, tentative one. There needs to be lots more, until the message is received and the Left’s intolerable behavior modified.

(Via Ed)

Update! Our esteemed bud Aesop begs to differ, the critical part of which is this:

What is going to happen outside her office is waste-of-time street theater on hostile territory, in the wrong neighborhood, where the LAPD will studiously look the other way if the protesters are attacked, while arresting them if they so much as drop a gum wrapper on the sidewalk.

It is, in short, a stupid, pointless, and criminally negligent waste of time.

There are better and saucier ways to make a point, all within the law, and none of them so Casper Milquetoast as waddling around the offices Mad Maxine never visits, to stage a rally the MSM will never report on, and do nothing but annoy the local folks and provide a juicy target for hoodrats and her minions to exploit.

Sticking your head in the lion’s mouth may look badass, right up until the lion pride goes all Siegfried’s Tiger on you.

We’ve tried even less than that in the past, to no affect whatsoever, but if this is the best they could come up with after two weeks’ careful deliberation since her public meltdown, they need to go sit down, and have that other think they’ve still got coming.

This is the definition of lose-lose warfare, conceived of by people who haven’t the first effing clue what they’re about, since ever, as far as I can tell.

He’s right about all that, I must admit; if I remember right, Oathkeepers has been taken to task by some for exactly this kind of kabuki theater before. In my own defense, though, I didn’t mean to imply that their action was anything at all akin to “the Chicago way” as enunciated in the video clip. In fact, I was trying to make clear that the Oathkeepers’ protest was at most a modest first step, one which will have to be expanded upon greatly if we’re ever to get these fascist assclowns out of our affairs for good. Either way, Aesop has more points to make at his joint, all of them right on the beam.

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