Archive

Archive for the ‘Freaks!’ Category

RIP, BSA

October 15th, 2017 1 comment

Aesop knows Full Convergence when he sees it. And he knows what’s behind it, too.

Surrendering completely to the hopelessly polluted cultural tides, the Boy Scouts of America announced they will start letting girls into the organization next year.

Of course this is an asinine, self-destructive, and completely wrong move for the organization, but it’s just another proof that it needs to crawl under the porch and die.

First is was the atheists pushing back against reverence, then it was the gay Scouts and NAMBLA would-be scoutmasters pounding out any notion of a scout being “morally straight”.

Both of those are a problem for a post-Christian society run by the most toxic iteration of secular humanism, and now we can add feminism to the list of afflictions.

Because a large swath of bitter, ugly, misandrists is perpetually offended at the idea of boys being boys, and growing up to become men. “We can’t be having any of that.” they say with an upturned nose, and a chip the size of Gibraltar on their shoulder. In a way, it was inevitable, as fathers have been relentlessly pushed out of the home by one-sided divorce courts where due process goes to die, aided and abetted by no-fault divorce, and most boys are lucky if they even know their own father, let alone have one around to go to a scout troop meeting or outdoor adventure.

We can’t let boys be boys, and we certainly can’t have them hiking, running, building muscles and healthy bodies, climbing rocks, shooting bows and rifles, and slingshots, learning responsibility, self-reliance, masculine strength, personal and physical courage, whether on a swim across a lake, or learning to save lives at the pool or when someone is injured, or learning how to do 87 different things to such a degree that most Eagle Scouts should probably be given a college associate’s degree on the spot. They’ll get all self-assured, they’ll tussle, they’ll skin their knees, break some bones, get dirt on the carpet, and generally become the men that women of today still long for (in vain, mostly) if the ratings for Mad Men and Daniel Craig’s rebooting of 007 back to Connery levels were any indication. The sisterhood won’t allow that, for it swims upstream against the currents of the depraved culture, and one glimpse of it undoes hour of tedious lectures on diversity and metrosexuality, while making the buckets of Ritalin and Prozac and Paxil heaped into and hurled at normal, healthy school-age boys a total waste of money.

We have a society of harpy man-hating women, and pussified metrosexual males, that go pale at the thought of raising boys who’d climb mountains, sail around the world solo, join the military and kill people and break things, find buried treasure, hunt pirates, or go to the moon. Only women and people of color should do that, because they’re better than the rich white old male patriarchy that carved the greatest nation on earth out of harsh wilderness with two hands, a strong back, a sharp mind, and guts. Oh, and while we’re at it, stop singing the praises of your mother country. It triggers the snowflakes.

Society now wants boys to shut up, check their privilege, wallow in their race guilt, genuflect to defective dystopian savages, and go sit on the couch in their footie pajamas sipping cocoa. Not bring groceries to a widow and her kids, or mow an old woman’s lawn, or – God forbid! – go to church or synagogue and read a Bible.

We can’t have them building things, building strength, building their minds, building their confidence, and learning to Be Prepared. O hell no! They need to learn to depend on government, and its endless soul-sapping bureaucracy, to let it be the same fount of plenty it is for millions of welfare moms married to the government in fatherless homes, once a rarity, but now, the near-universal norm across all races and every level of economic status.

And the same things that have pussified the rest of society will now become the norm in the troops, as they have in the military, and business, and school, and churches, and in short order, only the pussified priggish beta males will be left there, along with the militant recruiting LGBTEIEIO contingent, and in a few short years, everything the girls who wanted into the Boy Scouts to find will have been driven out of it, by the herds of clueless feral shitting and scratching-up-everything hens that they are, like their mothers before them were.

The men will leave, and the boys, forced into a game where they can’t win, will quickly lose interest, and quit in droves. And so, a once-proud and honorable organization, that had raised millions of exceptional scouts into Star, Life, and Eagle Scouts, and millions more boys into simply decent, confident, and competent men, will fade into obscurity and irrelevance. Which, after all, was the whole point of the exercise driving all the pressure on them in the first place. Mission Accomplished, ye shitweasels of cultural decay, you’ve felled another oak, and rotted another pillar of society.

Ah, but all is not lost. After the final Moslem victory over us, the harpies will be subjugated, LGBTTSTVTPXQ39 will be mouldering in mass graves, the Commie Left will be cowed and its media propaganda arm silenced, and the rest of us will be forced to toughen up a great deal if we’re to manage any sort of effective resistance at all. The BSA won’t be a part of that, alas. But I’d bet a good many troopers from the Old Scouts will.

Share

Sad!

October 13th, 2017 2 comments

Just…sad. And THESE are the pathetic slime-molds we let take over and destroy our civilization?

At breakfast, in the glass-towered city of Vancouver, five-year-old Abigail looks glumly at her half-eaten bowl of cereal.

“What is it, honey?” I brush the bangs back from her face.

She lets out a big sigh. “I wish I wasn’t white.”

I start. Nothing in the parenting manuals has prepared me for that.

“All we’ve ever done is hurt people,” she continues. “I wish my skin was dark and that I had a culture.”

We live in a part of the city where immigrant families abound. Our neighbours are homesick, first-generation Mexicans, which means that salsas and pinatas and Aztec legends feature prominently at shared social gatherings. Our family regularly eats in Little India where we gush over the flavours of curry and dhal, and every February, we attend the Chinese New Year parade in the slanting rain. Plus, my husband and I are children of missionaries and harbour an acute guilt for the cultural imperialism of our forebears. To compensate, we’ve raised our children with a deep appreciation of non-Western cultures.

So when Abigail laments the colour of her white skin, part of me is programmed to protest. Is it not my moral obligation to tell her that her feelings of poor self-worth are nothing compared with the psychological ruin of real racism? Girl, everything about Canadian culture weighs in your advantage and you have no right to snivel!

The very fact that such dimwitted twaddle would be the first thing to spring to this useless bint’s mind—putting her insipid liberal politics above her own fucking child, to that child’s obvious detriment—tells you just how despicable she is. Her kind deserves absolutely everything they’re going to get, from Moslem rape gangs to their violent demise at the hands of whatever roving bloodthirsty mob their weak-kneed political-correctness inspires to ultimately come for them. The sight of their charred corpses piled in heaps or their heads on pikes scattered throughout the urban shitholes they infest will inspire nothing more than scornful laughter and a hearty “good riddance” from saner sorts.

Instead, I feel a sadness settle over me. We thought we were raising the enlightened child of the 21st century. We thought we were doing our part in setting the history record straight.

You weren’t setting a damned thing straight, you were leaving out the bits that offended your vapid Progressivism to assuage your own crippled conscience and bolster your overweening smugness. You weren’t teaching history, nor were you “correcting” it. You were corrupting it.

Yet, in doing so, it seems we have robbed our oldest child of something primal to psychological health, something elemental to her well-being as a human being: cultural roots.

I don’t know what to say.

After decades of hectoring, nonstop lectures aimed at your actual moral betters, that would have to be a very welcome first.

Via Vox, who says:

The word “fundamentalist” stems from those who go back to the basics of the religion, back to the fundamentals. It is time for us to become cultural fundamentalists, and our roots are Christianity, the Greco-Roman legacy, and the European nations.

The alternative is this societal suicide in the name of not being called racist. Of all the reasons for a society to die off, this simply must be the most utterly stupid ever witnessed on this planet.

Ain’t THAT the miserable truth.

Share

(Non)Sense and (In)Sensibility

October 11th, 2017 No comments

Our self-styled “elite” emperors aren’t wearing any clothes. In some cases, literally.

Amid the condescension, there are contradictions. So a century-old statue of someone dead a hundred and fifty years who does not conform to the identity-group pieties of 2017 must be torn down – whereas an actual flesh-and-blood human being who does not conform to the identity-group pieties of 2017 can stagger around Hollywood and New York and London and Rome treating women like garbage.

And, more specifically, I see from this week’s Multiplex releases that Hollywood is so exquisitely sensitive that, when it options a novel called The Chinaman, it feels obliged to change it to the far more insipid The Foreigner, lest any, er, man from China take offense at the word “Chinaman”. Is that a Weinstein movie? Did he modify the title? “Geez, we can’t call it The Chinaman, are you crazy? Gimme a minute, I’ll think of something – I’m just finishing up with a Chinabroad from the Shanghai accounts department…”

Once upon a time, the elites chafed under middle-class morality, and found sly workarounds for their darker appetites. Then came liberation. And in the ruins of bourgeois society a new moral hierarchy arose: Dreamers trump citizens, sexual identity trumps religious faith, female empowerment trumps the manly virtues…

And yet, as the case of Harvey Weinstein suggests, in the end nothing much has changed: As the old elite declined to be constrained by middle-class morality, the new elite decline to be constrained by their own purported morality. In the end, it’s still about who has power, and who is disposable. As Lee Smith points out, the truth about Weinstein is only in the papers because Hillary lost. Were President Rodham in the Oval Office, this story could not run – because the First Gentleman has done everything and more that their longtime donor has done.

But then Hillary’s very candidacy makes the same point as Harvey’s drenched pot plant – for, if Democrats believed their own pap about “glass ceilings”, they would have found an Angela Merkel or Helle Thorning-Schmidt or Theresa May or Julia Gillard or Helen Clark or Portia Simpson-Miller, rather than nominating not merely the wife of a former president (which is pure banana republic) but the creepy enabler of the most sociopathic exerciser of droit du seigneur in the modern era (which is even more pathetic). And, as the cherry on top, they saddled her with a slogan that sounds like a pledge of solidarity with sexual-assault victims – “I’m With Her” – but is, in fact, the precise opposite: I’m with Hillary, and Hillary’s with Meryl, and Meryl’s with Harvey, and Harvey’s with that gal from the TV station in the corridor to the kitchen, but once he’s zipped up and returned to the fundraiser, he’ll be with Hillary, too.

Oog. I just threw up in my mouth a little at the very thought of it. Note to all the liberal rapists, molesters, pederasts, gropers, abusers, and general perverts, all of whom tend to be physically as well as morally repulsive: put the damned clothes back on, please.

Share

Where’s your Pussyhats NOW, Leftards?

October 10th, 2017 Comments off

Yes. Yes. A thousand times yes.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape. (I know. It feels more like 10 years ago.)

For days, Americans were subjected to an ongoing audio loop of a private conversation in 2005 between Donald Trump and the show’s co-host, Billy Bush. I don’t need to remind you what Trump said because anyone with a pulse can probably recite it verbatim. Some gals even have hats to commemorate Trump’s secretly recorded, indecent remarks.

The ensuing outrage should have been a clue of how intense, consuming, and exhausting the daily political climate would be under a Trump presidency.

Now, here we are, one year later, and the New York Times just published a bombshell expose about one of Hollywood’s most powerful men, Harvey Weinstein. The lecherous behavior of this disgusting man is one of Hollywood’s worst-kept secrets; no doubt the Times could have an ongoing series of articles about this movie-making, sexual predator. Like many Hollywood moguls, Weinstein parlayed his fortune and influence into political power, becoming a major Democratic party donor and fundraiser. Since 1990, he has contributed more than $1 million to Democratic PACs, officeholders, and candidates, many of whom must have been aware of Weinstein’s reputation as a first-rate vulture.

So, let’s take a little trip down Social Media Lane and see how our virtuous, high-minded celebs who wanted Trump charged with rape a year ago have reacted to the Weinstein story.

Do you hear the crickets? I sure do.

And that’s absolutely ALL you’ll hear, too. Read all of it; Kelly’s conclusion is dead on the money, as is all the rest of it. Limbaugh, too, sees the bigger picture clear as crystal:

But let’s just look, from Ted Kennedy to Bill Clinton to Woody Allen, Bill Cosby to Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner to Eliot Spitzer, they all exploited women without consequence because they were card-carrying members of the liberal establishment, which includes the media and Hollywood and Washington.

Not only are prominent Democrats guilty of egregious hypocrisy when it comes to feminism, they are equally guilty when it comes to environmentalism. Leftists denounce carbon footprints. They denounce the overabundant use of CO2. They routinely shame people for their lifestyles and yet produce volcano sized carbon footprints themselves.

On practically every seminal issue, the Democrats mandate, the left mandates a certain behavior for everybody but themselves. They are always exempted from the punitive policies that they want imposed on everybody else. They claim the sea levels are rising. They’re apoplectic in public crying about rising oceans. They shrewdly buy up beachfront property when the cameras aren’t looking. They live in the very places they claim are going to be underwater in a number of years. They know the sky isn’t falling, and they know the oceans aren’t rising.

Liberalism is a con game. They have no intention of using the same health care system they devise for everybody else. They do everything they can to make sure no law affects them. Affordable health care is the kind of stuff they give us. It’s neither health care nor affordable. It’s a sop to their donors. And it turns out they’re bullies, sexual bullies in the workplace.

Equal pay? Equal pay for women, equal pay here, equal treatment there, look at the way they treat women in Hollywood. Equal pay at the Obama White House? That was a joke. Equal pay at the Clinton Crime Family Foundation? We find out that there is no equality in any of these institutions that the left run. There’s no equality, and there’s no safety. Look at Chicago, look at Detroit, look at places they run.

It’s a giant con game that liberalism has going.

It certainly is. Trust me folks, you’re gonna want to read all of this one too.

Share

Live by the liberalism…

October 5th, 2017 7 comments

Die by it.

Football players who call for equality are throwing rocks from a glass stadium. The NFL’s high-paying jobs are only given to men with specific physical skills, while the rest of the people are pushed aside.

It’s time for the league to start leading by example. The time is right for the NFL Equality Plan.

The first step in the plan is to guarantee everyone’s right to participate in the games.

Every player in today’s NFL is male, which is obviously unfair. The new balance will be 51% women, 47% men, and 2% transgenders. This means the 53-player roster of every team will have 27 women, 25 men, and one transgender person. Each team shall have 32 Caucasians, seven African-Americans, 10 Hispanics, three Asians, and one person of Native American heritage. At least three players will be gay.

Nor can we ignore age discrimination. Each NFL roster shall include seven players between ages 19 and 25, eight from ages 26-34, seventeen from 35-54, nine from 55-64, and ten players who are 65 or older.

The disabled will be fully represented in the new, inclusive league. Every team shall have no fewer than ten players with physical or mental impairments that significantly affect their major life activities.

The Office of Player Equality will monitor the composition of each team and assess penalties for non-compliance. Temporary, minor variations may be allowed – requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The demographic ratios will be regularly adjusted to stay current with population trends.

Next summer, the NFL will host gala events in every stadium to celebrate and welcome the newcomers, who will be called “rainbow players” to honor the complimentary aspects of humanity they represent.

To make room for the rainbow players, many current NFL players will be released from their contracts. This should not be a source of regret, since all these men have benefited unfairly from their physical privilege. The former players will be provided with job-placement services and exit counselling.

Nothing reveals the preposterous unworkability of the central tenets of liberalism better than highlighting them.

Share

And THESE cupcakes are the people who are going to take our country from us by force?

September 3rd, 2017 2 comments

Okay, they’ve gone way beyond merely pathetic at this point.

A Greek Life retreat at the University of Mississippi (Ole Miss) was promptly cancelled this weekend after a banana peel was found hanging in a tree.

“To be clear, many members of our community were hurt, frightened, and upset by what occurred at IMPACT,” Interim Director of Fraternity and Sorority Life Alexa Lee Arndt remarked in an email between Greek leaders, according to The Daily Mississippian. “Because of the underlying reality many students of color endure on a daily basis, the conversation manifested into a larger conversation about race relations today at the University of Mississippi.”

Yeah, an “underlying reality” that must surely include being taunted by every white person they ever encountered or heard tell of as watermelon-eating, fried-chicken-chasing ape-men—darkies who are most likely tormented more by the absence of a banana in that peel rather than the empty, discarded peel itself and whatever delusion it represents to them. I mean, I know that’s the sort of thing I always assume about them thar “people of color,” at least.

Idiots.

There’s only one little problem for the hypersensitive little twinkies:

Apparently, student Ryan Swanson admitted to discarding the banana peel in a tree after he was unable to locate a garbage can, and it was later spotted by Alpha Kappa Alpha President Makala McNeil, who leads one of the campuses historically black sororities.

“The overall tone was heavy. I mean, we were talking about race in Mississippi and in the Greek community so there’s a lot involved,” McNeil recalled, later adding that she and her friend were “all just sort of paranoid for a second” after spotting the banana.

After word of the banana spread throughout the retreat, leaders decided to end the event early. Arndt explained that she “felt it was imperative to provide space immediately to students affected by this incident.”

Oh, good God. Note to overly delicate, mollycoddled American Negroes like these self-absorbed children: Get over yourdamnedselves already, you fucking feeble freaks. My sarcastic and intentionally offensive riposte above aside, the truth is that white people don’t care about your neuroses; white people spend very little time even thinking about you at all, and certainly aren’t spending their every waking moment plotting ways to insult you, assault you, and freak you out over meaningless trivia. Trust me, white people are perfectly content to leave you the hell alone and let you get on with your day, as they want to be left alone to get on with theirs.

A little harsh reality: yes, there are indeed an insignificant handful of white people who DO fret themselves over their own neuroses about black people; there are also those who don’t like Asians, Jews, Hispanics, New Yorkers, Canadians, or (probably) Eskimos. These people are never going to be your brothers, no matter what you do or how hard you try.

However, I assure you most sincerely: absolutely none of the rest of us—the HUGE majority—give a shit about them, and don’t waste any time bothering ourselves about anything they might do or say. They have absolutely NO institutional power in this country; they haven’t for decades, and our national past notwithstanding (which is not significantly different in this regard than that of almost any other country or society you could name) they never will again. Their opinions matter to no one but themselves. There will always be a handful of them around, sure, and there’s not one damned thing you, I, or anybody else can do about that. I recommend you ignore them, just like the overwhelming majority of the rest of us do. They will then fade into just so much background noise. I promise you, you’ll be a whole lot happier for it, and you won’t end up making yourselves look nearly so foolish, hysterical, and weak in the future as you assuredly do right now.

And a necessary word about that darker past: the people who lived in those times (and, yes, systematically oppressed and mistreated people “of color,” along with plenty of lighter-complected sorts as well) were acting in accordance with the universally-accepted standards of the era. They also believed that leeches were a good treatment for all sorts of diseases; did not understand anything at all about bacterial and viral infection; did not have air conditioning, electricity, indoor plumbing, deodorant, or toothpaste. They had to make their own soap. If they wanted chicken for dinner, they had to chase it down and wring its neck themselves, then pluck it, dress it, and cook it, sometimes over an open fire (my own grandmother did this). They did not have access to cars, supermarkets, Wal Mart, motorized lawnmowers, the internet, or cell phones. In fact, many of them didn’t have phones at all. A now-shockingly large percentage of the women died in childbirth; many of their children didn’t survive past the age of five. Diseases that we now consider little more than a minor nuisance were life-threatening then; a toothache or common stomach bug could be a death sentence, and quite often was. The average life expectancy for them was about half what it is now.

They weren’t evil, or most of them weren’t. They were just ignorant. Just as future generations will likely feel we are now, about all kinds of things we can’t even begin to imagine.

The drudgery, difficulty, and danger they faced every minute of their daily existence was incomprehensible to us now; their acceptance of those difficulties and their determination to just get on with it ought to be instructive and inspirational to every one of us. Judging those people by our own standards, therefore, is foolish, unfair, and unhelpful. It is a mistake, and a peculiarly petty one—not least because it leads us to disdain our forebears, who can’t be fairly said to have been wrong about everything, and whose every idea should not be dismissed because of a few outdated or unenlightened ones they hadn’t quite gotten figured out yet.

The thing too many of our present-day whiny losers seem to prefer to forget, deny, or not even to know: IT’S NOT LIKE THAT ANYMORE. It truly isn’t. Things are different now. Very much so. The people whose distant and long-dead ancestors were slaves here whining as if they themselves were currently enslaved ought to:

  1. Reflect for a single fucking moment that there are plenty of countries—most of them in or near Africa, most of them run by Muslims—where chattel slavery is still accepted practice
  2. Grow a pair and give thanks they don’t live in any of those places
  3. Shut the fucking fuck up already

Alternatively, you could all go right on making yourselves look like pussified jackasses, weeping bitter, salty tears and having a psychotic break over a fucking discarded banana peel. Believe me, if some one of the handful of real white racists out there wanted to insult you, they aren’t going to be oblique or subtle about it, and there won’t be much room for any mistaken interpretations of the event. You’re going to know it, and won’t have to make any labored assumptions about what they’re doing or why they’re doing it.

Until then, let’s just all take a breath and calm down, ‘kay? We’ll deal with that if and when we come to it, and in the meantime your silly-assed assumptions about how all white people must surely feel about you have a certain whiff of, umm, racism to them, to be blunt. These little tantrums aren’t helping anybody…least of all yourselves. To tell the truth, we’re all more embarrassed for you than anything else at this point.

Share

The Democrats haven’t been this pissed off since Republicans made them give up their slaves

August 21st, 2017 3 comments

Let’s ban all the things! And I do mean ALL if them. Starting here:

As an African-American, Sharpton believes that using federal tax dollars to subsidize the Jefferson Memorial is wrong. And even though the flames of Cultural Revolution are burning hot, you can understand this.

History is important, but history can also be quite offensive.

But there’s one thing wrong with Sharpton. It’s not that he goes too far. It’s that he doesn’t go far enough.

Because if he and others of the Cultural Revolution were being intellectually honest, they’d demand that along with racist statues, something else would be toppled.

And this, too, represents much of America’s racist history:

The Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party historically is the party of slavery. The Democratic Party is the party of Jim Crow laws. The Democratic Party fought civil rights for a century.

And so by rights — or at least by the standards established by the Cultural Revolutionaries of today’s American left — we should ban the Democratic Party.

Not only get rid of it in the present, but strike its very name from the history books, and topple all Democratic statues of leaders who benefited, prospered and became wealthy by cleaving to the party. And shame Democrats until they confess the truth of it.

the new Cultural Revolution was serious, wouldn’t it also demand that the Democratic Party be put in a museum somewhere, away from decent people, along with those Confederate statues?

We could put Democrats in exhibits, behind glass, watching white political bosses chomp cigars and pass out goodies for votes, as minorities were relegated, as they are today, to failing schools and lost educational opportunity and neighborhoods that have become killing fields for the young and old.

And in great museums, the Democrats could be studied, safely, without endangering the sensibilities of the children.

Of course, the Democrat-Socialists, being fucking lunatics to a man/woman/amorphous non-gendered blob/thing, are well on their way to rendering themselves electorally extinct anyway. But why shouldn’t decent Americans express their disgust with the Party of Slavery by making it legal and official through a legislative ban?

Share

Can’t appease them, can’t accommodate them, shouldn’t try

August 15th, 2017 4 comments

Worse than a waste of time.

I’m gonna tell you this. It isn’t gonna be over. This is not gonna stop, the haranguing. And what does that mean? It means even though the president gave these groups that have been bellyaching the exact words they want to hear, they’re not going to stop, which means they’re actually after something else. And whatever it is, it isn’t peace, and it isn’t justice, and it isn’t freedom, and it isn’t tolerance in America. And they’re going to continue because their objective is to totally turn things upside down. They’re not interested in resolutions.

And on the other side of this where you have the Nazis and the white supremacists, they’re told every day that they’ve benefit from white privilege. That’s the latest rage on campus, white privilege, understanding your whiteness, understanding the problem. These people can’t even find jobs, for crying out loud, and they’re being told they’re benefiting from white privilege, so they’re ticked off. And there are people benefiting from both sides of this being ticked off. Find them. Find who benefits here. Financially, politically, however it happens, somebody is benefiting, somebody wants these kinds of things to happen.

There IS no appeasing or placating them; even this wouldn’t do it.

I’ll tell you what else let’s do. Let’s not stop at Robert E. Lee statues. Let’s ban Gone With the Wind. Let’s ban the book, and let’s make sure the movie can no longer be purchased, rented, or exhibited anywhere. We will get rid of not just Robert E. Lee. We’ll tear down anything that tells anybody where Gettysburg is and what happened there. (interruption) Well, now wait. No, Gettysburg will stand.

Gettysburg will stand ’cause that’s where they had their lunch handed to them, so Gettysburg will stand. But we’ll go all the way back to Lincoln. We’ll take Lincoln’s name off of Mount Rushmore and we’ll put Trump up there. (I’m only kidding.) But, I mean, let’s do this. Let’s get rid of all of these outdoor signs of the nation’s injustice and unfairness. Get rid of everything so that American slavery is never known to have existed in any way. All monuments, all battlefields, all reenactments will be erased.

We shut down any restaurant that serves chicken fried steak, that serves biscuits and gravy. I mean, anything that can be traced back to that evil heritage of the Confederacy. Get rid of all of it! That would make everybody shut up, right? That would just silence everybody about the inherent evil of the United States related to slavery. Make it disappear, and then everything would be okay, right?

Of course not. But therein lies the beauty of it, if there’s any to be found: the Left has been reduced to a constant state of abject, perpetual misery and fear. Consider: they’re afraid of internal combustion engines. They’re afraid of guns. They’re afraid of the naturally-occurring and unalterable condition of climate change. They’re afraid of storms, and believe they must certainly herald planet-wide doom and disaster. They’re afraid of violence—when they’re not perpetrating it themselves, usually in massive groups against a handful of people.

They’re afraid of red meat. They’re afraid of genetically modified vegetables, even though every vegetable currently extant is genetically modified to one degree or another. They’re afraid of literature that contains words or concepts they disapprove of. They’re afraid of large corporations, especially pharmaceutical companies. They’re afraid of tobacco. They’re afraid of the Russians—for now. They’re even afraid of their own bloated government, in those periods when they’re not actually in control of it.

They’re afraid of Donald Trump, Rush Limbaugh, Republicans, and conservatives generally. Deathly afraid. It’s why they hate them all so implacably, of course.

They’re afraid of coal-fired power plants—and nuclear ones too, and pretty much any other kind that can actually provide enough energy to be effective. They’re afraid of cops. And soldiers. And Christians. Deep down, they’re actually afraid of Muslims too, which is why they so obsequiously suck up to them. In truth, they’re actually deathly afraid of men—the ones they haven’t emasculated, feminized, and steercotted, that is. The ones they have managed to de-ball, they’re contemptuous of. Which is an especially fine sort of poetic justice if you ask me.

Strangely, the one thing they don’t seem afraid of is Nazis. But then, since 1945, there’s always been too few of those around to really matter much anyway. Being so close together ideologically, maybe there’s a familiarity there that they find comforting, who knows.

With all that fear and angst driving them, they’ll never run out of things for their Big Daddy Government to protect them from. Which is exactly where their tremulousness becomes OUR problem, too. But it’s also what makes observing their now-daily nervous breakdowns so much fun.

Can you smell it update! A certain stench is a-rising.

Details remain thin. It is not clear, for example, how many alt-right demonstrators were there, though many reports indicate that they were substantially outnumbered by counter-demonstrators, largely drawn from the same crowd that has been rioting at the drop of Donald Trump’s name since November 9.

So, obviously, this was a fraught moment. But what would have been the outcome had the police and the Virginia National Guard—both on hand in strong numbers—done their duty, enforced properly obtained demonstration permits, and preserved the right of the warring parties to make their respective points without being physically attacked, one by the other and vice versa? It’s worth remembering that Charlottesville did everything it could to prevent the demonstrations, issuing permits only after being sued by the ACLU. And when push came to shove—literally—on Saturday, police and National Guardsmen were to be found only on the periphery of the brawling. Indeed, the Virginia ACLU reported that police were refusing to intervene unless specifically ordered to do so.

Almost at first contact, Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe declared a state of emergency and cancelled the demonstrators’ permits, whereupon police began funneling the alt-right protestors away from the designated demonstration site—and, some reports have it, toward the counter-protestors. The carnage followed in short order. Whether the breakdown in police protection was purposeful—that is, intended to quash a constitutionally protected demonstration and provoke a violent confrontation—is a question unlikely to be pursued in Virginia’s present political environment. As partisan eye-gougers go, Governor McAuliffe, a Democrat, is near the top of the list; Mayor Signer, also a Democrat, seems to be cut from the same cloth.

But deliberate or not, the effect was the same: when the sun went down over Charlottesville Saturday, the First Amendment was lying in the dust, and the civic ties meant to bind all Americans were just that much weaker.

Thanks to the unbridgeable chasm between Statists and lovers of liberty, those civic ties are all but extinct anyway, and rightly if tragically so. The First Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, isn’t far behind. Scapegoat them all you may like, but it wasn’t the Nazi boobs who killed ’em off, either. As Limbaugh says above, somebody wanted this to happen, and from the official maneuvering before and during it seems to be fairly clear who. The question we need to be asking is: why?

(Via Insty)

Share

Embrace the hate!

August 9th, 2017 Comments off

This one starts off with a GREAT quote from the esteemed and estimable Dr Helen Smith:

Liberals do not believe in the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which are American ideals, or at least they used to be. If you love freedom, then you will be hated by the modern liberal who believes that government should regulate individual freedom. If you love freedom and believe that the state does not own you, then leftist hate should be a goal, not a fear.

You said a mouthful there, Doc. Hawkins goes on to make an essential point: they ain’t exactly helping those they claim to love, either.

Meanwhile, how do liberals “help” minority Americans? How’s Compton looking these days? How about Chicago? Flint, Michigan? Liberal “help” means living in poverty in terrible neighborhoods, but always having someone else to blame for your failed life. It means feeling angry, victimized and hated by people who’ve never thought twice about you while liberals promise to help you by tearing down statues of Confederate generals. That doesn’t put money in your pocket, but it makes cosmopolitan liberals feel better about themselves.

This is usually how liberal “help” turns out for people.

Transsexual men, you don’t have a mental illness! Mutilate yourself through surgery and libs will claim that the guys who don’t want to date you and the women who don’t want to share a bathroom with you are bigots! Lord knows you wouldn’t want to suggest mentally ill people get psychological treatment instead of life-altering surgery.

Liberals “help” the poor by raising the minimum wage, but shrug their shoulders when it inevitably causes large numbers of poor Americans to lose their jobs. Conservatives who quite correctly predicted that would happen are called heartless.

It’s just charades, dumbshows, and misrepresentation all the way down with these people. in fact, there are two rules of thumb to bear in mind when analyzing their statements and proposals, both of which are invariably true: 1) for everything they say, the opposite is going to be the truth, and 2) whenever they complain bitterly about something our side is supposedly doing, a la the Trump/Russia nontroversy, it’s actually going to be something they’re doing themselves.

Share

Why you don’t put mentally disturbed people in foxholes

August 1st, 2017 3 comments

Not if you actually want to win wars, you don’t.

  • Guys would literally snap over a dear John letter. Their personal issues came out and they were instantly combat ineffective.
  • Now take someone confused about whether they are a man/woman. Take those psychological and emotional issues and put them in that environment
  • Take someone who is right off the bat not uniform or part of the same team. Give them special treatment because of their identity.
  • Take that person, put them in that stressful war environment and watch what happens. It’s a fucking ticking time bomb.
  • You have to be incredibly tough mentally, physically and emotionally. War is not a fucking video game. It tests every ounce of your being.
  • You can’t teach someone to be a fearless warrior in a fucking PowerPoint. You either have it or you don’t. You can hack it or you can’t.
  • We had guys who couldn’t. When faced with combat situations they crumbled. They had mental and emotional issues. They were a liability.
  • To be successful at war, you have to become a warrior mentally, physically, and emotionally. You can’t fake it and go through the motions.
  • In war if it comes down to kill or be killed, and you hesitate, you’re dead. It’s a simple as that. It’s not a fucking video game.

No, it certainly is not; hell, boot camp isn’t, much less actual war. The idea that every precious snowflake has some kind of natural right to be in the military is horseshit. Fallen arches can keep you out; asthma can. And mental illness can too, which is exactly what “transgenderism” is. Also horseshit: the idea that the military is some kind of social-justice-oriented cultural leveling device, or Welcome Wagon with guns. The military is for killing people, breaking things, and enforcing our national will on adversaries. Anything inhibiting its ability to do those things needs to stay well to the other side of the barbed wire, and should stick to spitting on soldiers at airports instead. That comes more naturally to them anyway.

Share

Another small victory for common sense

July 26th, 2017 2 comments

The whole country ought to be breathing a sigh of relief at this undoing of another of Obama’s sneaky attempts at hamstringing the military one small, umm, cut at a time.

President Trump tweeted on Wednesday that “transgender individuals” should not be allowed to serve in “any capacity” in the US military.

“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow …,” he wrote on Twitter.

“Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military. Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming…”

He finished up by writing: “victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you.”

Needless to say, the Hitler comparisons and general hysterical hyperbole are flying thick and heavy on the deranged Left over this. Which as far as I’m concerned is an added benefit. As Bill says:

First, enjoy the sound of nuclear-level splody-heads among the usual suspects.

Second: Note that he’s not banning actual gays, (or bisexuals) only various forms of drag costuming. I’ve never thought that people who want to cut off their plumbing or put on dresses and wigs should be a civil rights issue in the first place.

Nope, it ain’t. It’s a mental health issue; “transgenderism” is a psychological disorder, yet another in a long list of non-issues that the Left has tried to use to further undermine and demoralize mainstream America, deploying the power of tyranny to force the hated Normals not just to tolerate and/or benignly ignore, but to wildly celebrate.

So-called “transgenders” are, put plainly, sick. There is absolutely no reason whatever to hand them rifles and stick them into the ranks, and plenty of reasons not to. Ordinary people not pimping a hate-America agenda know this full well; you can bet your life that the overwhelming majority of our much-put-upon soldiery does too. They also know full well who has supported them all through the years…and who has lined up at airports on their return home from every conflict in the last five or six decades to spit on and obscenely berate them.

Share

Delenda frigging EST

July 19th, 2017 5 comments

Just when you think they’ve reached Peak Lunacy.

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture.

Well, actually, ummm, no. Most parents know that “rape culture” is complete fucking horseshit—the sane ones, that is. Or so I would hope.

One of my sons was hurt by my words, although he’s never told me so. He doesn’t understand why I lumped him and his brother together in my essay. He sees himself as the “good” one, the one who is sensitive and thoughtful, and who listens instead of reacts. He doesn’t understand that even quiet misogyny is misogyny, and that not all sexists sound like Twitter trolls.

If he’s at all intelligent, he understands that not all of what a twisted freak like you calls “misogyny” is actually, y’know, misogyny.

He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

“Ungrateful”? No, not so much that. Demented, hate-filled, obsessive Feminazis like you, yeah.

I teeter frequently between supporting my son and educating him. Is it my job as his mother to ensure he feels safe emotionally, no matter what violence he spews?

What “violence” he “spews”? I’d really have to see an example of such before I’d believe it. As for translating the rest of it: For “supporting my son,” insert “being an actual loving mother.” For “educating him,” substitute “lecturing, hectoring, bullyragging, and intimidating him out of any trace of normal masculinity.” Your “job as a mother”? You haven’t the vaguest fucking clue, you sick bint.

As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become.

Of course they don’t. That’s because the “men” you hope they become aren’t men at all; they’re emasculated, steercotted little pussies, pushed around and bullied out of any truly masculine identity at all. I repeat: sick bint.

I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true.

How very sad for you, you weak, pathetic freak. Every single premise presented in this paragraph is simply fucked beyond redemption. And with that, we draw near to the nut of things.

My sons won’t rape unconscious women behind a dumpster, and neither will most of the progressive men I know.

Neither will most of the men you know, period, de-balled Progressivists or otherwise.

I love my sons, and I love some individual men. It pains me to say that I don’t feel emotionally safe with them, and perhaps never have with a man, but it needs to be said because far too often we are afraid to say it. This is not a reflection of something broken or damaged in me; it is a reflection of the systems we build and our boys absorb.

And there it is: it most certainly IS a reflection of something broken and damaged in you. This whole wretched screed is nothing BUT a public display of just how badly damaged, how completely broken, you are.

This deranged bitch is a perfect exemplar of the dank, twisted hole into which Progressivism drags everything within its reach. Pity the poor boys raised by such a diseased mind; what hope have they of ever leading a normal, sane life after having been endlessly harangued during their formative years by the kind of woman who would put her petty politics ahead of properly nurturing her offspring?

It’s easy enough to mock a sicko like her, sure enough, and it should surely be done every chance we get. But we should never lose sight of an important fact: the damage done by her despicable ilk is real, and most likely irrevocable. Her sons may have the strength to rebel against her, and throw off her malignant influence in the end. But it’s likely going to cost them. And in the end, it will cost all of us.

Share

The identity transaction

July 3rd, 2017 2 comments

Haven’t looked in on Eric Raymond in a while. I have been remiss.

There was a very silly news story recently about “Claire”, a transsexual “girl” with a penis who complains that she is rejected by straight guys for ‘having male parts’. Er, how was “she” expecting anything different? By trying to get dates with heterosexual teenage boys using a female presentation, she was making an offer that there is about her person the sort of sexual parts said boys want to play with. Since “she” does not in fact have a vagina, this offer was fraudulent and there’s no wonder the boys rejected it.

More to the point, why is this “girl” treated as anything but a mental case? Leaving aside the entire question of how real transgenderism is as a neuropsychological phenomenon, “she” clearly suffers from a pretty serious disconnect with observable reality. In particular, those delusions about teenage boys…

I can anticipate several objections to this transactional account of identity. One is that is cruel and illiberal to reject an offer of “I claim identity X” if the person claiming feels that identity strongly enough. This is essentially the position of those journalists from The Hill.

To which I can only reply: you can feel an identity as a programmer as strongly as you want, but if you can’t either already sling code or are visibly working hard on repairing that deficiency, you simply don’t make the nut. Cruelty doesn’t enter into this; if I assent to your claim I assist your self-deceit, and if I repeat it I assist you in misleading or defrauding others.

It is pretty easy to see how this same analysis applies to “misgendering” people with the “wrong” pronouns. People who use the term “misgender” generally follow up with claims about the subject’s autonomy and feelings. Which is well enough, but such considerations do not justify being complicit in the deceit of others any more than they do with respect to “I am a programmer”.

A related objection is that I have stolen the concept of “identity” by transactionalizing it. That is, true “identity” is necessarily grounded not in public performance but private feelings – you are what you feel, and it’s somehow the responsibility of the rest of the world to keep up.

But…if I’m a delusional psychotic who feels I’m Napoleon, is it the world’s responsibility to keep up? If I, an overweight clumsy shortish white guy, feel that I’m a tall agile black guy under the skin, are you obligated to choose me to play basketball? Or, instead, are you justified in predicting that I can’t jump?

You can’t base “identity” on a person’s private self-beliefs and expect sane behavior to emerge any more than you can invite everyone to speak private languages and expect communication to happen.

The self-contradictory madness of Progressivism has reached its end-stages. There really isn’t a whole lot further for it to go, and it needs to be put out of its—and our—misery, before it can do any more damage.

Share

The latest imagined, nonexistent “right”

June 29th, 2017 3 comments

And trust me, it’s a doozy.

Vice, known lately for covering super serious news, published a 2,000-word probethis week by Meredith Talusan, a writer who doesn’t identify as either a man or a woman. The central existential question: “Why can’t my famous nonconforming friends get laid?”

Talusan describes the friends in question, Jacob Tobia and Alok Vaid-Menon, both outspoken activists with tens of thousands of followers.

Neither has undergone hormone treatment, so they have “visible body hair that marks them as more obviously trans.” Both have a five-o’clock shadow, high heels and lipstick, and “they” as a pronoun.

It turns out, Talusan says, that while the LGBT community is increasingly accepting of people with such specific and niche professed identities… no one really wants to bed them.

Go look at the pictures. Go on, I dare you. The conclusion of the article is hilarious:

From Talusan’s perspective, the fact that no one wants to sleep with Tobia and Vaid-Menon is a sign of injustice. “Jacob and Alok don’t need more claps or raised hands, more YASSSS’s or SLAY’s,” the article concludes. “What they need is to be found deeply, undeniably f*ckable.”

That’s right: Vice is now pushing pity f*cks for social justice.

They obviously are NOT “deeply, undeniably fuckable.” If they were, they wouldn’t have to be whining about not getting laid. What they actually are is spoiled, overindulged, mentally unbalanced freaks. And honestly? Neither of these two is even particularly good-looking, freakishness aside.

But there’s no laying the freakishness aside. What this is akin to is putting on a clown suit, makeup, a big red nose, a frightwig, and big floppy shoes, walking around town, and then complaining when people point and laugh and call you a clown. Ace points out another big problem here:

I ask this a lot but I’ll ask it again: If it’s fair game for George Stephanopolous to ask Mitt Romney, out of nowhere, whether he’d ban contraception– that is, to ask a Republican about an idea he’d never suggested, just to put him in the position of being associated with a fringe sort of position and also having to distance himself from a fringe sort of position that may be held by some of his potential voters — why is George Stephanopolous not asking prominent Democrats if they agree with the proposition that being “tolerant” of gay and/or trans people means that straight people should be willing to date them?

If we get asked such wedge issue questions about difficult, embarrassing, wedge-issue sexual topics, why the hell shouldn’t Claire McCaskill and Elizabeth Warren and Lord God King Barack Obama be asked if “Love Trumps Hate” means that straight people should repress their own “Born This Way” Sexuality and do some gay dating?

Oh, they’d never dream of it. They already had trouble enough dragging the country along for the gay marriage circus; if they think the Progtards are in trouble politically now, just let questions like that start getting asked on Good Morning America or the Today Show and see how Middle America reacts. The “liberal” media, firmly in the pockets of the Democrat Socialist Party, would never even contemplate doing something so prospectively harmful to their lords, masters, and partners in crime. Sure, they’d be happy enough to establish a double standard for Republicans and hound them about it if they thought it would get them anywhere, but who could possibly be surprised in the least by that, at this stage of the game?

Look, I’m willing enough to concede that gay people can’t really help who and what they are, that they don’t choose their sexuality; they’ve always been a part of the human parade, and always will be, and I’m not interested in persecuting them or harming them in any way. I have a handful of gay friends myself, and they’re great people, and I don’t bear them the least ill will.

But they have always done me the courtesy of acknowledging that I didn’t really choose my sexuality either—that it’s every bit as indelible a part of my makeup as their same-sex attraction is for them. As for “doing a little gay dating”, or bedding either of the two tragic psychological trainwrecks in the article: um, sorry, fellas, but…no. Not ever. Not interested, not under any circumstances. I really don’t care what you get up to among yourselves, it ain’t none of my business. But if the next step in societal evolution regarding gay rights is to insist that straight people MUST be willing to consider romantic and sexual relationships with their own gender—that we are somehow harming gays or are less “evolved” or “woke” because we aren’t interested in any such thing—well, you guys are going to find yourselves in for some pretty rough sledding. And if you think it’s a great idea to somehow push for legislation along those lines to force us into it (and as outrageous and absurd as it sounds, you already know somebody is going to, very soon now), well, that’s when your troubles will REALLY begin.

Trust me on this. Seriously, you guys.

Share

Another typical Democrat expresses his mainstream, moderate views

June 22nd, 2017 3 comments

Tolerant, broad-minded; capable of honest, reasonable debate while respecting the views of those who disagree with him.

Not Democrat Socialists, of course. Sorry, I was thinking of someone else there.

“I’ve seen the prayer ya’ll were saying at the baseball diamond … I think ya’ll better hit your knees and pray for the people that you’re screwin’ up their lives,” the message stated, according to a criminal complaint filed by Capitol Police in U.S. District Court in Columbus.

“We’re coming to get every g**amn one of you and your families. Maybe the next one taken down will be your daughter. Huh? Or your wife. Or even you.”

Yeah, well, better bring help, old man. There are a few of us out here who aren’t going to stand idly by and be your punching bags any longer. And the number is growing day by day.

E. Stanley Hoff, 68, is charged with threatening to “assault, kidnap, or murder a United States official.” He appeared in federal court wearing a Mickey Mouse T-shirt, jeans and sandals in addition to ankle and wrist chains.

No word on the source of the patchouli-and-unwashed-hippie funk wafting around the courtroom, but I think we’re all comfortable enough making an educated guess on that one.

I didn’t choose it as one of my categories for this post, but the question of “where do we go from here?” is becoming more pressing with each new attack or verbal threat. As I’ve said all along: they will NOT stop. They will NEVER stop. They will have to BE stopped. Deplore it if you like; agonize over it as much as you wish, it’s the ugly truth. Which leads me to revisit Steyn’s post as I said the other day I would, and continue my commentary on it. This was how Mark’s post concluded:

If you allow society to degenerate to the point where there is less and less in common to bind competing groups together, there will be action…but just as surely there will – slowly, eventually, belatedly – be reaction. And the most obvious reaction is to reach for the same weapon your opponent’s got on you: In the Cold War, the Communists acquired nukes. In the culture war, the right is storming the stage. In the jihad, the Islamophobe rented a van.

Mark says this with a tone of regret, and that’s appropriate enough; it IS depressing where the Islamist and Leftist scum have led us, how our society has been degraded by them while decent people exercised an unrequited forbearance and let it happen. It’s shameful, it’s lamentable—and it never should have occurred at all.

BUT. IT. HAS. We can argue till the cows come home about who’s ultimately to blame: them for doing it, or us for letting them. What we can NOT do is allow it to continue to progress. And I think it’s all too obvious by now where turning the other cheek and taking the supposed “high road” has gotten us.

No, I don’t want to have to shoot anybody; no, I don’t long for a second Civil War. But as with the Muslims, war has been brought to our very doorstep. And if we’re going to be left with no choice but to fight, well, I’d just as soon win this one, thanks. To misappropriate Sir Walter Scott: breathes there a man with soul so dead that he’s willing to stand meekly by and see his own, his native land stolen from him by despicable curs who loathe it to the darkest depths of their coal-black souls?

Secession, partition, division, whatever. Those all have heretofore seemed unlikely to the point of absurdity, and I’ve made those very arguments myself. But I’m not as sure about that now as I was even a few months ago; they’re beginning to look less and less so these days, seems to me. In fact, they’re coming to seem like the only way of averting a greater conflagration so dire as to be incomprehensible. If the old Chinese curse about living in interesting times is indeed apocryphal, well, it’s none the less apt for it.

Update! Jim Goad offers a useful suggestion:

Mind you, this happened right on the heels of the Kathy Griffin decapitation scandal and a Central Park production of Julius Caesar that’s a transparent excuse to stage another mock Trump assassination.

It happened amid an insane cultural climate where the day before Hodgkinson’s rampage, a black male shooter in Indianapolis fired at a truck that was flying a “Make America Great Again” flag.

Where on June 11, the Huffington Post ran an article that openly called for Donald Trump and “everyone assisting in his agenda” to be tried for treason and publicly executed. Where a successful TV producer can encourage Trump-haters to “pick up a goddamn brick,” and he doesn’t get fired. Where a college professor says that Republicans “should be lined up and shot,” and he doesn’t get fired, either. Where ever since Trump’s election—and, frankly, for about a year leading up to it—his supporters have had the living shit kicked out of them coast-to-coast, and all the media can focus on is “right-wing hate speech” and the dastardly specter of Islamophobia.

A climate where the left is so egregiously insane and vicious and bloodthirsty—all in the name of compassion, of course—that the incomparably wormy Jesse Benn, who has previously called for “white wounding” and for violence against Trump supporters, saw no problem with a fellow traveler “shooting a racist lawmaker in the hip” last Wednesday. It’s a climate where, after the shooting, an obese New Jersey Democrat openly calls for the murder of Republicans with the hashtags #HuntRepublicans and #HuntRepublicanCongressmen.

The extreme left has always been a Misfit Magnet, and James Hodgkinson was merely the latest disaffected mold inspector to allow blindly self-righteous and stridently humorless leftist propaganda to program the empty hard drive that was his brain. He was merely one in a confoundingly endless assembly line of losers who sought to blame “the rich” for what appears to be his own largely self-inflicted personal misery.

There’s nothing more dangerous than some unhappy idiot with a gun who is implacably convinced beyond all reasoning of his moral superiority. If this is going to end in a full-blown shooting war—and that’s where it seems to be headed—let’s shoot all the fanatics first. Once they’re all dead, we may not even need a war.

And it would have the added advantage of thinning the ranks of Democrat Socialist Party voters right into total irrelevance—not that they’re all that far from that devoutly-to-be-wished consummation already.

Updated update! Dutoit has a suggestion too, related but more specifically targeted:

Here’s my suggestion for first responders who are called to an inner-city (i.e. Black) neighborhood:

“If you see them drowning. If you see them in a burning building. If they are bleeding out in an emergency room. If the ground is crumbling beneath them. If they are in a park and they turn their weapons on each other: do nothing. Least of all put your life on the line for theirs, and do not dare think doing so, putting your life on the line for theirs, gives you reason to feel celestial. Save the life of those that would kill you is the opposite of virtuous. Let. Them. Fucking. Die. And smile a bit when you do.”

Actually, those aren’t my words. They’re the words of some Black dude, talking about how first responders should let White people die.

Thing is—UNEXPECTED!—it’s already happening, in Chicago at least:

Chicago is having a bloody year.

Already since January, more than 100 people have been murdered in the city — double the number of homicides in Chicago during the first two months last year. The number of shooting incidents is also up by 120 percent compared to the first nine weeks of 2015.

The spike in violent crime comes at a time when the police in Chicago are under increased scrutiny for misconduct.

Interim police Superintendent John Escalante acknowledges there might have been a “Laquan McDonald effect,” where police officers are less aggressive and even somewhat passive in pursuing criminals.

“There’s a little bit of an effect,” says Escalante. “Every officer I think, not just here in Chicago, but every police officer around the country does not want to be that next viral video.”

Police in Chicago made 30 percent fewer arrests in the early part of this year compared to last year. Street stops are down more than 80 percent so far this year.

Couldn’t happen in a nicer violent shithole, and I don’t blame the cops one fucking bit. Stay well back, guys; the vicious, retarded creeps aren’t worth a single drop of either your blood or your sweat. Let them police themselves…or drop dead.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along. It’s just another “liberal”-run city descending into Detroit status, that’s all. There will assuredly be more.

Share

Shatner gigged

May 15th, 2017 1 comment

By pigs.

Writing on Twitter—which, for better or worse, is the closest the public has to an agora these days—Shatner was responding to some foo-foo pseudo-academic essay regarding what Star Trek’s Captain Kirk character can teach us about gender equality in a postmodern/post-gender society, or something like that, because I have to confess I didn’t read the article and would frankly rather have long knitting needles shoved forcefully through my ears than ever have to read, or even ponder the existence of, such an article again. Apparently the term “toxic masculinity” reared its stinky head in the article, to which Shatner responded:

Feminism is great but terms like toxic masculinity are degrading. It borders on that imaginary concept to feminists: misandry.

This toxic idea that Shatner shat out chafed the ample thighs of one Mari Brighe, a dude who thinks he’s a woman and who’s pursuing a career agitating for the imaginary “rights” that he imagines are being denied to the people who share his delusion. Mari—again, a white dude who for some reason has taken it upon himself to speak for white and nonwhite women against white-male pathologies—denied that “misandry” even exists:

“Feminism is great except that part where it criticized men.”

“Misandry is about as real as Klingons, Bill.”

All things being equal, I would say the idea that Mari Brighe is a woman is roughly as real as Klingons. On the other hand, I think “misandry”—a generalized hatred for and/or disparagement of males as a group—is as real as testicle cancer.

The snowflakes’ idea that they can alter biology, economics, culture, political power structures, relationships between sexes, ethnicities, hostile religious groups, and just about everything else simply by wishing it so and torturing language and the meaning of certain words, is what guarantees the eventual downfall of Progressivist folly every time. As I’ve said so many times, here and elsewhere: their argument isn’t with us. It’s with reality.

Chant the mantras and misappropriate the words all they like, that will never, ever be an argument they can win. Holding their breath until they all turn blue would be about as effective. More in line with their level of emotional and intellectual development, too.

Share

IMPEACH TRUMP NOW!!!

May 12th, 2017 3 comments

Well, that’s it. They’ve finally convinced me, and I’m done with Trump. He has to go; this is a bridge too far for even me.

The waiters know well Trump’s personal preferences. As he settles down, they bring him a Diet Coke, while the rest of us are served water, with the Vice President sitting at one end of the table. With the salad course, Trump is served what appears to be Thousand Island dressing instead of the creamy vinaigrette for his guests. When the chicken arrives, he is the only one given an extra dish of sauce. At the dessert course, he gets two scoops of vanilla ice cream with his chocolate cream pie, instead of the single scoop for everyone else. The tastes of Pence are also tended to. Instead of the pie, he gets a fruit plate.

Follows, a truly pathetic freak-out which not only includes the usual deranged and butt-hurt liberal sore losers, but also the neo-“conservative” likes of David Frum and the execrable Jennifer Rubin, who characterizes Trump based on this latest hairball yakked up by the Insane Left as “a man unable to restrain his urges.” I’ll let Bre Payton handle the obvious response to such dementia:

This brings me to the obvious question: WHO CARES? Who cares if the president’s waitstaff are able to anticipate his preferences and have a Diet Coke or a second scoop of ice cream ready? That’s called good customer service! The White House waitstaff serve Trump nearly every day, so of course they know what kind of dressing he likes on his salad or what his beverage of choice is. And why are we all assuming that the other dinner guests couldn’t just ask for another scoop of ice cream if they wanted it? I have a hard time imagining the White House kitchen staff denying someone more dessert.

But that’s not how the inside-the-Beltway folk see it.

Well, naturally not. They’re incapable of seeing anything other than a curtain of purest blood-red when it comes to anything Trump says, does, or attempts.

And that’s the beauty of it, see. He’s got the Beltway cattle in full stampede now, and in true bovine fashion they’re lowing and bawling in confusion and fear as they run they know not where just as hard and fast as their spindly legs will carry them. May their hysteria continue to blind them to the reality that they’re being carefully driven…right off a cliff.

May they continue to find themselves unable to contain their raving madness, and may the sane population see it unleashed in all its repellent pathos. And may that stupid, ignorant, stupid, incompetent, stupidstupidSTUPID swine Trump continue to run rings around their asses, until their options are reduced, literally, to: A) shit, or B) go blind.

Two scoops of ice cream, instead of just one. My God, it’s like Watergate, or the Holocaust, or something. Clearly, the man is unfit to be President.

Heh. I’ll say it again: Most. Fun. Presidency. EVER.

(Via Ace)

Share

Hey, it’s SCIENCE!

May 8th, 2017 4 comments

Hoist by his own petard.

Disney and Netflix officials said Friday they’re not sure why references to chromosomes and gender were removed from a 21-year-old episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” which is available now for online streaming.

The 1996 episode, “Probability,” originally featured a cast member saying, “I’m a girl. Could have just as easily been a boy, though, because the probability of becoming a girl is always 1 in 2.”

“See, inside each of our cells are these things called chromosomes, and they control whether we become a boy or a girl,” she added. “See, there are only two possibilities: XX, a girl, or XY, a boy.”

That segment has since been removed, and it is not available in the version that is now streaming on Netflix, the Washington Free Beacon was first to report.

Nye’s new program, “Bill Nye Saves the World,” which is exclusive to Netflix, departs from his old television show’s position on gender.

“Gender is like sex, it’s on the spectrum,” Nye said in one of his newer episodes.

News that Nye’s old television program has been edited for Netflix comes on the heels of the premiere of his new online show, which takes a very progressive approach to a number of issues, including climate change, world population and gender.

Well, nothing says “science” more than hiding the facts to fit whatever political narrative is currently popular and maintain the approval of your fellow Progressivists, right?

Hey, balance the ball on your nose now, Science Guy, and clap your flippers together; maybe the libtards will throw you another fish. MJ has a couple of pertinently impertinent questions:

Shower thought: Doesn’t discussion of the wage gap assume someone’s gender?

Shower thought II: Does the B in LGBT assume there are only two genders?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe we could get a real scientist, instead of a PC douchebag like Bill Nye, to address those sometime.

Share

Thank GOODNESS

April 20th, 2017 1 comment

The unofficial state government of North Carolina—the NCAA, ACC, and various other sportsball entities—is pleased with our capitulation to the now-unquestioned right of perverts to take advantage of our flaccid acquiescence to having them share bathroom space with our young daughters.

SAINTS BE PRAISED! Our long national nightmare is at last over, and there will no longer be any distinction made between the men’s and the ladies’ bog!

GREENSBORO, N.C. (theACC.com) – As announced previously by the Atlantic Coast Conference Council of Presidents, contracted league championships will return to neutral sites in the state of North Carolina, beginning with the 13th annual Dr Pepper ACC Football Championship Game on December 2 at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte.

“Neutral sites”? What in the hell does THAT mean?

The ACC Council of Presidents voted last September to relocate neutral site championship events in each of those sports for the 2016-17 academic year. The Council’s decision to return neutral site championships to North Carolina, beginning with the 2017-18 academic year, took place on Friday, March 31. 

“We are pleased that ACC neutral site championships will return to the state of North Carolina beginning with the 2017-18 academic year,” said ACC Commissioner John Swofford. “We value all of our partners in North Carolina and appreciate their support and cooperation. We are thrilled to renew our relationships with so many terrific people, outstanding cities and first-class venues.”

There that “neutral sites” thing is again; I can only surmise that it’s an inside-sportsball term that denotes someplace where there is no home team, rather than a site as yet unscorched by the hot cultural civil war currently raging between sane people versus determined Progressivists and their useful-idiot freaks-of-the-week.

Admittedly, I do still look forward to the day—coming really, really soon now—when I walk brazenly into the ladies’, whip out my schlong, piss in the sink, peer under a few stalls, and then declare over the very first objection anyone dares utter: I FEEL PRETTY! I expect to have plenty of company—not from the transgenders, Lord help them, but from the straight pervs who will eagerly take advantage of the new opportunities handed them by untrammeled idiot PC. And, in fact, already are.

Any society willing to completely upend its most basic strictures to accommodate the merest handful of pitiful, disturbed sickos is not a society that will long endure. Nor does it deserve to.

Why, it’s almost enough to make me welcome our new Muslim overlords; they’ll put these people, umm, straight, I’m guessing. And with a quickness, too. Hey, nobody is wrong about everything, right?

Yeah, I know, I know. I denounce myself.

Share

Why the hell not?

April 7th, 2017 1 comment

I’m pretty sure I could guess who she would’ve voted for last time around.

Mermaids do exist – in California.

A woman with webbed toes identified herself as a mermaid named Joanna after she was found mostly naked and walking along a dark road in the middle of the night in Fresno County.

The young brunette was wearing only a black sports bra and had wet hair when cops found her near Millterton Road and Brighton Crest Drive in Friant around 3:15 a.m. Tuesday, the Fresno Bee reported.

She told cops she was a mermaid who’d just been in the water. But she answered “I don’t know” to most of their questions.

“There are some strange things that happen up here,” said neighbor Karon Renwick. “We’re in the mountains.”

Well, one thing is clear anyway: we must ensure that she, and all other mermaids, has free and open access to whatever bathroom facilities they all feel most comfortable with.

Via Glenn, who quips: “That’s where you usually look for mermaids, the mountains.” Heh. Indeed.™

Share

Crony socialism, anyone?

April 6th, 2017 Comments off

Well, it’s official: the government of the state of North Carolina has been replaced by the NCAA, and the will of the people as lawfully and properly expressed through their elected representatives be damned.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – The NCAA says it will consider North Carolina as a host for championship events again after the state rolled back a law that limited protections for LGBT people.

In a statement Tuesday, the governing body said its Board of Governors had reviewed moves to repeal repealed the so-called “bathroom bill” and replace it with a compromise law. The NCAA said the new law “meets the minimal NCAA requirements” while expressing some concerns about provisions within it.

The statement says a majority of the board “reluctantly voted” to allow for consideration of bids from North Carolina during current deliberations for sites running through 2022. Events for the 2017-18 season that have already been awarded to the state — such as opening-weekend men’s basketball tournament games in Charlotte — will remain in place.

“We are actively determining site selections, and this new law has minimally achieved a situation where we believe NCAA championships may be conducted in a nondiscriminatory environment,” the board’s statement reads. “If we find that our expectations of a discrimination-free environment are not met, we will not hesitate to take necessary action at any time.”

You will be made to care, and Badthink will be punished by the duly authorized officials of the State of NC(AA).

It’s been sick-making to watch as political and business leaders here have crawled on their bellies to avoid offending various corporate entities promoting the cause of allowing mentally disturbed men access to women’s bathrooms. They can take their sportsball games and jam ’em up their flue for all me—all the way up, as far as it will go. But then again, I haven’t paid the slightest attention to any of that crap in decades, so they’re not likely to care much what I think anyway.

Share

Burnout!

March 13th, 2017 1 comment

Y’know, if you had asked me twenty or even ten years ago (hell, even five) I’d have sworn that I’d never, ever get tired of women talking candidly about, showing off, or otherwise calling attention to their, uhh, naughty bits—much less confirmed hotties like Gwyneth Paltrow, Cate Blanchett, and Emma Watson. But man, I just gotta say it: between all that and the relentlessly revolting pig Lena Dunham added in for what seems to be nothing but pure spite on somebody’s part, and…man, I wish they would all just dry up and blow away already.

And just don’t let’s get started on “pussy hats,” awright? Jeez.

Yep, at this point I’d have to say the mystique and fascination are gone for good, and if I never see another one—be it artistic representation, photograph, or in the flesh—well, honestly, I’m good with that. Never thought I’d say that, or could even imagine saying it, but there it is.

Thanks a pantload there, “ladies.”

Share

Delenda est

March 13th, 2017 Comments off

Yes, they are in fact completely nuts.

As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.

That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.

This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.

This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.

Okay, that’s from Part the First. This is a very careful, well-thought-out thesis intended not to lay out an effective method for debating Leftards—which I’ve long posited is a waste of time anyway—but for destroying them, for reducing them to a quivering mass of blubbering confusion incapable not just of debate but of even coping with reality at all, on any level. Case in point:

In this video, Mike Wallace will make the mistake of trying to assert intellectual superiority/dominance over Peter Jennings by asserting that a real reporter would leave a US combat Patrol to be ambushed and killed, so he can get “the story.” Few others on the panel truly believe this to be noble, and many offer spirited logical arguments focusing on the value of soldier’s lives, the morals involved, and other logical arguments. Wallace repels them all, and then becomes even more assertive of his position.

After almost ten minutes of successfully fighting off polite, logical criticisms, Col. George M. Connell, USMC, is asked his opinion. He sneers with disgust and slowly and angrily says,

I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can’t have it both ways.

As a hard-core Liberal ideologue, Wallace was undoubtedly programmed to betray his in-group, of course. Have no illusions, as a Liberal, he was subconsciously programmed to betray our nation and our people. If a war would benefit us with cheap oil, he would oppose it, saying, “No blood for oil.” If a war had no benefit to us but would kill our troops, he would have no problem sending our military men to some place like the Sudan or Somalia, to die for outsiders who wouldn’t even appreciate their sacrifice. He would have wanted deeply (though he was probably ignorant of the urge’s existence) to betray the US and his fellow in-group members.

Here, Colonel Connell presents an image of Wallace as weak, cowardly, and helpless, and he presents it as ancillary to the main argument.

This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine. Here, it affected his mood and his ability to focus, in a way which a person without such a disorder couldn’t possibly imagine. His false reality was attacked, and he didn’t even get a chance to defend it. Even worse, in his mind, everyone else now accepts that he is inferior, on the word of another. Someone has done to him what he is programmed to do to others. He has been inferior-ized, and the group is now focused on him, his aberrance, and his weakness.

There’s much, much more here, and I can’t possibly do it all justice with mere excerpts, no matter how lengthy; you really gotta read it all. But the denouement of the Wallace segment is just too delicious not to share with y’all:

This interview is interesting in the context of our national debate over politics in that it highlights two different styles of debate with Liberals. For the first seven and a half minutes, debaters treat Mike Wallace as a reasonable equal, and seek to sway his opinion with logic. In response, Wallace becomes ever more forceful in his treasonous assertions, even as he trips himself up with his own arguments. Of course, this is exactly what our reasonable and respectful treatment of Liberals in our national political debates has gotten us today, on the national stage.

After seven and a half minutes, one man utters a few contemptuous sentences, reducing Mike Wallace to a traitor whom everyone should ignore. And Mike Wallace’s response to this contemptuous dismissal of his views?

A chastened, hand-wringing coward, saying, “It’s a fair reaction,” followed by a complete cessation of his traitorous Liberal assertions. If you examine the video at 42 minutes and 57 seconds, Mike Wallace’s face actually contorts into a micro-expression of extreme agony. Pause the video, and it is astonishing. I have seen that expression in real life myself – this was not a once in a lifetime event. All Liberal ideologues have that pain inside them. In a state of nature, that force within their brain probably kept them alive, by forcing them to swallow their pride, and avoid confrontations at all cost. Today, it lays there within them dormant, waiting for a Conservative, with sufficient testicular fortitude, to step up to the debate, and use it to modify their behavior, and train them to not espouse Liberalism.

Of course the most important aspect of Colonel Connell’s response is that in arguing with emotion and crushing the Liberal, he has just set the course for the Lemmings within the group. Not a single individual on that panel will even begin to support Mike Wallace’s position at that point. Indeed, the issue would not even be raised again.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate a Liberal, and lead a movement. The Liberal is the example waiting to be made, not an equal. The Liberal is deserving of nothing more than passing contempt.

Now ask yourself how would the pansies who lead the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have debated Mike Wallace. Would they even consider doing anything similar?

This is our problem.

It damned sure is, and I still maintain that there’s a lot more behind that than mere coincidence, happenstance, or Republican incompetence. It’s collusion, plain and simple: the maintenance of a comfortable status quo between colleagues pretending to be adversaries for the sake of perpetuating their privilege at the expense of those they purport to serve.

How else to explain the Obamacare/Obamacare Lite debacle? These nefarious vermin maintain that 60 Senate votes are required to repeal the Obamacare trainwreck, but it didn’t pass with 60 votes; it was enacted by the underhanded “reconciliation” maneuver…and there is not one damned thing that says a repeal can’t be done the exact same way. Anybody remember the “nuclear option,” pray tell?

These Republican frauds act as if Harry Reid never even existed—as if Nancy Pelosi, of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” infamy, wasn’t now saying this:

The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.

Bold mine; blank, wet-brained, arrogant, downright depraved hypocrisy all Pelosi.

And not one Republican that I’m aware of—not ONE—calling her out on this, or even suggesting the reconciliation swindle as a prospective means to staunch the hemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Republic represented by Obamacare.

Forgive me, folks, for wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic of this post, but I think that ultimately, they’re at least somewhat related. Because the truth seems obvious: the Republican establishment never really was opposed to Obamacare, nor to any of a thousand other contra-Constitutional Democrat Socialist depredations. They never intended or desired to stop any of it. All they ever really wanted was their turn at the wheel.

How does this relate to my original topic here? Like this: if the Uniparty establishment that has done so much damage to our country over so long a period is to be stopped, it’s going to be up to us to do it. The above strategy for confronting and discombobulating Leftards is but the beginning. The election of Trump the Disruptor, against all odds and in open defiance of that same Uniparty establishment, was the opening salvo in a long war. These are but the first halting, staggering steps towards restoring our nation to its former greatness. In the end, it may not be possible without bloodshed; I pray that isn’t so, but I can’t say even now that I think that’s the way to bet.

But we have to try; we owe that to ourselves and our children, at the very least. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep right on rendering the liberal media irrelevant and speaking directly to the American people via Twitter; he needs to get out periodically for more rallies like he did in Florida a couple weeks ago, and let the harrumphing, naysaying propagandists suck a big, fat, hard one every time he does.

Most of all, we need to keep right on letting the Uniparty know that, warts and all, imperfections and all, We the People support him. Doesn’t mean we can’t call him out and press him when he’s wrong; doesn’t mean we have to agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says or does. But in my view, he’s done pretty damned well in these early days, and I’ll still take ten of him to any number of business-as-usual professional politicians you’d care to name.

I expect that somewhere in the Stygian depths, his pockmarked visage limned by the red glow of fire and brimstone, the eternally dysfunctional asshole Mike Wallace is groaning in agony as he watches our President try to alter our course. And that makes me happy. I want more in the long term, of course; we all do. But for now, I’ll take it. And so should you.

Share

Delenda est

March 13th, 2017 1 comment

Yes, they are in fact completely nuts.

As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.

That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.

This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.

This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.

Okay, that’s from Part the First. This is a very careful, well-thought-out thesis intended not to lay out an effective method for debating Leftards—which I’ve long posited is a waste of time anyway—but for destroying them, for reducing them to a quivering mass of blubbering confusion incapable not just of debate but of even coping with reality at all, on any level. Case in point:

In this video, Mike Wallace will make the mistake of trying to assert intellectual superiority/dominance over Peter Jennings by asserting that a real reporter would leave a US combat Patrol to be ambushed and killed, so he can get “the story.” Few others on the panel truly believe this to be noble, and many offer spirited logical arguments focusing on the value of soldier’s lives, the morals involved, and other logical arguments. Wallace repels them all, and then becomes even more assertive of his position.

After almost ten minutes of successfully fighting off polite, logical criticisms, Col. George M. Connell, USMC, is asked his opinion. He sneers with disgust and slowly and angrily says,

I feel utter contempt. Two days later they (the reporters – Jennings and Wallace) are both walking off my hilltop and they’re 200 yards away, and they get ambushed and they’re lying there wounded. And they’re going to expect I’m going to send Marines out there to get them. They’re just journalists. They’re not Americans. Is that a fair reaction? You can’t have it both ways.

As a hard-core Liberal ideologue, Wallace was undoubtedly programmed to betray his in-group, of course. Have no illusions, as a Liberal, he was subconsciously programmed to betray our nation and our people. If a war would benefit us with cheap oil, he would oppose it, saying, “No blood for oil.” If a war had no benefit to us but would kill our troops, he would have no problem sending our military men to some place like the Sudan or Somalia, to die for outsiders who wouldn’t even appreciate their sacrifice. He would have wanted deeply (though he was probably ignorant of the urge’s existence) to betray the US and his fellow in-group members.

Here, Colonel Connell presents an image of Wallace as weak, cowardly, and helpless, and he presents it as ancillary to the main argument.

This is devastating to the Narcissist’s necessary self-image of being the superior individual (a similar trait to the Liberal’s need to feel superior to the Conservative in some fashion, despite their laughable patheity). Notice, Colonel Connell presents this with no debate, as almost an irrelevant afterthought to another, more important issue. Most people wouldn’t even register it, but Wallace did, and even worse, he never even got to argue with the portrayal. Deep down, every Liberal ideologue knows they are a psychological pansy in a species which reviles such – and the characterization hurts them far more than we can imagine. Here, it affected his mood and his ability to focus, in a way which a person without such a disorder couldn’t possibly imagine. His false reality was attacked, and he didn’t even get a chance to defend it. Even worse, in his mind, everyone else now accepts that he is inferior, on the word of another. Someone has done to him what he is programmed to do to others. He has been inferior-ized, and the group is now focused on him, his aberrance, and his weakness.

There’s much, much more here, and I can’t possibly do it all justice with mere excerpts, no matter how lengthy; you really gotta read it all. But the denouement of the Wallace segment is just too delicious not to share with y’all:

This interview is interesting in the context of our national debate over politics in that it highlights two different styles of debate with Liberals. For the first seven and a half minutes, debaters treat Mike Wallace as a reasonable equal, and seek to sway his opinion with logic. In response, Wallace becomes ever more forceful in his treasonous assertions, even as he trips himself up with his own arguments. Of course, this is exactly what our reasonable and respectful treatment of Liberals in our national political debates has gotten us today, on the national stage.

After seven and a half minutes, one man utters a few contemptuous sentences, reducing Mike Wallace to a traitor whom everyone should ignore. And Mike Wallace’s response to this contemptuous dismissal of his views?

A chastened, hand-wringing coward, saying, “It’s a fair reaction,” followed by a complete cessation of his traitorous Liberal assertions. If you examine the video at 42 minutes and 57 seconds, Mike Wallace’s face actually contorts into a micro-expression of extreme agony. Pause the video, and it is astonishing. I have seen that expression in real life myself – this was not a once in a lifetime event. All Liberal ideologues have that pain inside them. In a state of nature, that force within their brain probably kept them alive, by forcing them to swallow their pride, and avoid confrontations at all cost. Today, it lays there within them dormant, waiting for a Conservative, with sufficient testicular fortitude, to step up to the debate, and use it to modify their behavior, and train them to not espouse Liberalism.

Of course the most important aspect of Colonel Connell’s response is that in arguing with emotion and crushing the Liberal, he has just set the course for the Lemmings within the group. Not a single individual on that panel will even begin to support Mike Wallace’s position at that point. Indeed, the issue would not even be raised again.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you debate a Liberal, and lead a movement. The Liberal is the example waiting to be made, not an equal. The Liberal is deserving of nothing more than passing contempt.

Now ask yourself how would the pansies who lead the Republican Party and the Conservative movement have debated Mike Wallace. Would they even consider doing anything similar?

This is our problem.

It damned sure is, and I still maintain that there’s a lot more behind that than mere coincidence, happenstance, or Republican incompetence. It’s collusion, plain and simple: the maintenance of a comfortable status quo between colleagues pretending to be adversaries for the sake of perpetuating their privilege at the expense of those they purport to serve.

How else to explain the Obamacare/Obamacare Lite debacle? These nefarious vermin maintain that 60 Senate votes are required to repeal the Obamacare trainwreck, but it didn’t pass with 60 votes; it was enacted by the underhanded “reconciliation” maneuver…and there is not one damned thing that says a repeal can’t be done the exact same way. Anybody remember the “nuclear option,” pray tell?

These Republican frauds act as if Harry Reid never even existed—as if Nancy Pelosi, of “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” infamy, wasn’t now saying this:

The American people and Members have a right to know the full impact of this legislation before any vote in Committee or by the whole House.

Bold mine; blank, wet-brained, arrogant, downright depraved hypocrisy all Pelosi.

And not one Republican that I’m aware of—not ONE—calling her out on this, or even suggesting the reconciliation swindle as a prospective means to staunch the hemorrhage of the lifeblood of the Republic represented by Obamacare.

Forgive me, folks, for wandering somewhat far afield from the original topic of this post, but I think that ultimately, they’re at least somewhat related. Because the truth seems obvious: the Republican establishment never really was opposed to Obamacare, nor to any of a thousand other contra-Constitutional Democrat Socialist depredations. They never intended or desired to stop any of it. All they ever really wanted was their turn at the wheel.

How does this relate to my original topic here? Like this: if the Uniparty establishment that has done so much damage to our country over so long a period is to be stopped, it’s going to be up to us to do it. The above strategy for confronting and discombobulating Leftards is but the beginning. The election of Trump the Disruptor, against all odds and in open defiance of that same Uniparty establishment, was the opening salvo in a long war. These are but the first halting, staggering steps towards restoring our nation to its former greatness. In the end, it may not be possible without bloodshed; I pray that isn’t so, but I can’t say even now that I think that’s the way to bet.

But we have to try; we owe that to ourselves and our children, at the very least. Meanwhile, Trump needs to keep right on rendering the liberal media irrelevant and speaking directly to the American people via Twitter; he needs to get out periodically for more rallies like he did in Florida a couple weeks ago, and let the harrumphing, naysaying propagandists suck a big, fat, hard one every time he does.

Most of all, we need to keep right on letting the Uniparty know that, warts and all, imperfections and all, We the People support him. Doesn’t mean we can’t call him out and press him when he’s wrong; doesn’t mean we have to agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says or does. But in my view, he’s done pretty damned well in these early days, and I’ll still take ten of him to any number of business-as-usual professional politicians you’d care to name.

I expect that somewhere in the Stygian depths, his pockmarked visage limned by the red glow of fire and brimstone, the eternally dysfunctional asshole Mike Wallace is groaning in agony as he watches our President try to alter our course. And that makes me happy. I want more in the long term, of course; we all do. But for now, I’ll take it. And so should you.

Share

An idea whose time is….

February 16th, 2017 1 comment

Coming soon.

Mind you, these insulated and boundlessly arrogant coastal creeps are so out of touch that they expected to be able to shit on the Silent Majority from here to eternity without the Silent Majority ever barking back at the ballot box. And they remain so encased in their opaque Rainbow Bubble that they appear to think that sooner or later, people won’t start punching back.

At this point, the psychotic hyperbole of the Antifa turds is so familiar as to be depressingly mainstream—SMASH the Nazis! CRUSH their skulls into the pavement! The only good fascist is a DEAD fascist!

Believe this—if they were truly under the impression that the “Nazis” were such a looming threat, they wouldn’t be acting nearly this bold. They act without fear, mainly because it’s been generations since anyone gave them a good reason to be afraid.

Enter the new Right Wing Death Squads, which don’t truly exist as anything more than an idea at this point. They are not organized and well-funded like Antifa are, and to my knowledge they are not responsible for any rioting nor even a single sucker punch…yet.

At the moment, it is not an organized movement so much as it is the sort of threat that a longsuffering parent may give to its misbehaving child—“If you keep it up, I’m going to really give you something to cry about.”

What could be more appropriate, for a bunch of misbehaving children?

Follows, a brief history of actual death squads, a good few of which it shouldn’t surprise you to learn were oriented Leftwards. Bottom line? This:

If the left keeps kicking the hornet’s nest, they shouldn’t cry if they wind up getting stung. Oh, they’ll cry—it’s what they do—but they shouldn’t.

For eight years—with all the flash mobs and Occupy protests and wide-scale looting and arson whenever a black criminal who fought with a cop wound up getting shot—the left threw Victory Riots. Now they seem hell-bent on at least four years of Defeat Riots.

But somehow I doubt they’d be nearly so brazen if they feared that down every street across America, their violent shenanigans might be met by self-styled Right Wing Death Squads who are willing to fight back. Ronald Reagan was clearly not yet senile back when he insisted that the only way to achieve peace is through strength.

Yep. As I keep saying: careful what you wish for, Leftards, lest you get it in the end—good and hard.

Share