So a long time ago, in a universe far, far away… I was in High School. Okay, 20 years ago. But whatever. I remember sitting in Spanish class while the teacher yapped to the administrators about some such thing, during which the class predictably descended into chaos. Theoretically, we were supposed to be discussing certain words relating to government, but somehow the topic went into politics, and not, I should note, in Spanish.
Somebody accused me of being “Republican” and suddenly conversation stopped, and all eyes turned to me. Now, since we were all in high school at the time, saying one is a member of a political party was academic at best. But in those days, as now, being called “Republican” might as well have meant being called a Neo-Nazi. I said that I was too young to be in a party, but that I considered myself somewhere in the middle, politically. I was not really Republican, but neither was I a Democrat.
“So you’re against helping people,” the accuser replied. To him, membership in the Democratic party was a prerequisite to not being a hateful bigot. And bear in mind that this was the 90s. I imagine today’s schools suffer much worse, now that Social Justice rhetoric has had more time to breed. We went back and forth for a time, and it was a remarkably civil debate for being a bunch of high schoolers talking about political matters they knew nothing about. But those inclined to watch the debate nodded and agreed that if you’re not a Democrat, you’re at least suspect in this matter.
And so the notion stuck with me. “You’re against helping people.” It’s the most common rhetorical charge laid upon anyone who is not a radical Leftist. We can go on about how the Leftists are wrong about this, and that we believe that it is best to help people help themselves, and that Capitalism is a wave that lifts all boats, and so on and so forth. But it never really penetrates, does it? All such replies fall on deaf ears, and even knowing these things as I do, I have a hard time considering my replies equal to the task of dismantling this myth. Matching dialectic to rhetoric doesn’t work.
But there is a response to this, one that is equally effective, equally simple, and perhaps even stronger, for it correlates with human nature well enough.
No. I’m against helping you.
That’s right. Does it sound harsh? Perhaps it is, but remember, they accused you of an untruth whereas you, at least, responded with a truth. I like helping people. I have helped my brother on occasion, and my father more frequently. I have helped friends, and they have helped me. I have done favors for my in-laws, and given money to friends when they needed help. Most of those in my life know that I can be counted on reliably even in the worst of times. I’m not against helping people as a principle. I’m against helping accusatory assholes. I’m against helping people I don’t know, people I have no connection to.
Or, aimed at my accuser, I’m against helping you.
If SJWs say that I’m against helping black people, or women, or gay people… wrong. I have helped people who are black, I have helped women, and I have helped gay people. But the difference is, those I have helped are people I know, people in my life in some capacity or another, and whom I know will help me in turn (or who may have already helped me in some capacity), should I find myself in a bad place. No, I’m just against helping you. If Black Lives Matter tells me that I’m against helping blacks… wrong. I’m against helping your group, specifically.
If a welfare queen with 15 kids (yes, one exists here in Tampa — she was big news for awhile) says “I want you to help me,” I will say no. And if someone holds a vote to determine if the government should reach into my pocket, and take money from me, and give it to her to help her, my vote will be no. I’m against helping you. If someone else wishes to help the woman, then that is their business. I will decline.
It’s not because you are poor, or black, or a woman, or whatever other myriad of identities you may or may not have. It is because I don’t know you, you are not in my life in any capacity, and I’m pretty certain you would not help me, were the situation reversed. So no, I’m against helping you, specifically.
I prioritize helping my family, and my friends, and business partners, and so on, over helping random people I don’t know, and with whom I have no dealings. Yet even so, there are times I have chosen to do that, on my own account. I donate time and money to a local cancer patient charity, because it pleases me to do so. But that is my business, and you don’t get to force me to do it. Indeed, if I were forced to give money to the charity, the act would lose its luster for me. I am for helping that group, specifically.
So next time an SJW says something like that to you “you’re against (x)” just shake your head sadly, and tell them that they are mistaken. There are plenty of people in the world whom you would help, some whom you may even give your life for. It is just simply that the SJW and his preferred victim groups are not among them. “I like helping people,” you might say, “I’m just against helping you. Sorry, bub.”
It’s been awhile since I last posted, for things have been very busy for me of late. It is mostly good, mind you, for I have completed a lot of work and obtained more clients. I have no cause for complaint. But a lot has been on my mind also.
In a conversation with one of my clients who is, shall we say, not particularly enamored with Hillary Clinton, I was told a story of her corruption during her Senate days. The gentleman was, at the time, engaged in consulting work for a major health insurance provider. He was tasked to find examples of egregious fraud and put a stop to it. Simple enough work, right?
Anyway, he discovered one example where a man was claiming back pain, and was receiving expensive cancer treatment medication to the tune of over $1 million a year. Given the obvious nature of the fraud, the man went to his employer and informed them of it. Case closed, right?
Not so fast. Attempts to rectify the situation resulted in a personal letter from one Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, exasperated with the “continuing harassment of constituents with clear health conditions.” So the fraudster continued with his scam, bilking $1 million worth of medication each year from the insurance company and doing who-knows-what with it.
Soon after, the man was let go from his consultation gig. I suppose there is such a thing as being too good at your job, when you uncover connections with the Clintons. Like the Kennedy family, the connection with organized crime is no coincidence. Hillary is, in effect, a mob boss.
If you wonder why health care costs keep going up, just imagine how many such cases of fraud go unnoticed. My father-in-law owned a pharmacy business for many years, and related stories of how Medicare scams would result in truckloads of drugs going into shady cargo vans. And he was powerless to put a stop to it if he wanted to stay in business, the regulations being what they were.
How much of that cash went into Hillary’s pocket, I wonder? The Boss always gets a slice of the action. She will need more Armani jackets, I am sure.
Over the course of the last two weeks, I found myself musing over the unique blindness of Americans in general, relative to everyone else on this ball of dirt. Somehow, most Americans are fundamental optimists in matters of government and leadership. Sure, we speak of voting for the lesser evil and regularly insult our politicians. But at the same time, throngs of enthusiastic masses are always available to fill the stadiums. People will “feel the Bern” or chant “Hope and Change.” America will be made great again, and so on and so forth.
Few understand how corrupt these people are, how near to cartel bosses they are. They don’t understand that the default model for human governance is not democracy, nor the teeming masses having any say in anything at all. Corrupt aristocratic elitism is, and always has been, the default mode of human societies.
With great effort did the Founding Fathers reverse this fundamental human tendency and set up checks and balances to delay the reestablishment thereof. But that time passed a long time ago. First the Civil War established the primacy of the Federal Government over all things, then did Woodrow Wilson tie the nation to the affairs of Europe, and finally did Hoover and FDR eliminate the last vestiges of limited government.
The Republic fell a long time ago and nobody noticed, for the outward forms of it yet remained. It was the same with Rome after Augustus.
There is a quote, the source of which I have long forgotten, wherein Hell is described as a place that with extreme effort can made good and comfortable for awhile. But as that effort abates, and the will of the people to continue it fails, Hell will return to the horror which normally governs it. It is the same with America, and the West in general. For a time, through some extreme effort, progress toward freedom was won at great cost. But the will to sustain it is gone, and Hell is returning to normalcy.
Trappings of freedom remain, but they are shallow, ephemeral things, and easily countered by the new nobility.
Growing up, my stepmother was every evil cliche imaginable, and then some, but from her I learned how fault can be found with anything, and how things can be easily twisted and spun. I would be told to clean the bathroom, and with her that meant no speck of dirt, nor single hair or smudge could be found anywhere, on anything. I would spend hours cleaning it, and at the end she would ask me if I were done. Upon answering yes, she would hunt for any flaw, and inevitably she would find one. A hair would have settled from the air, or a speck would have been missed.
And she would say “you lied to me, you were not done. You see? You can’t do anything right. Now, are you done?” And, invariably, I would clean the speck and nod and agree that I had missed the spot and was, in fact, not done. The routine of humiliation repeated for every task, and every thing I ever did. I soon learned that it was not about the cleanliness of the bathroom, it was about raw power, about breaking me down so that I would view myself as beneath her. The new nobility does that to Americans every day.
Our government is much like my stepmother in this. Take any freedom you now possess. The possibility exists that some will misuse it. Some will use their freedom to speak to spout ugly, nasty things. They are the speck in the bathroom. Then they are brought out and paraded before the populace as reasons freedom isn’t good. The bathroom is not clean, they will say, for this flaw was found in it. Then laws will be proposed to regulate the speck, and to combat it, and soon all freedom to speak is lost.
It’s an ugly form of gaslighting. Consider our rights to own firearms. Mass shootings will be brought out to explain that gun ownership is a terrifying thing, and fuck those evil NRA gun nuts. Yet no NRA member has ever been involved in such a crime, and the vast majority of the violent mass shooters are those with clear liberal sympathies. The LA cop that went on his shooting spree went so far as to criticize the right to own guns while shooting innocent people.
Not only are they pointing to the speck in the bathroom, they are the ones responsible for the flaw in the first place. I know for a fact that my stepmother would, on occasion, plant an errant hair during her inspection, if no natural flaw could be found.
Those same elites bilk you for money, for their perceived due. Your taxes go mostly to them and their friends, in some fashion or another. If you point out the theft, you will end up as my client did, out of a job. I suppose he was lucky. Others wind up dead. The Mob is alive and well, but where the old Mafiosos could be counted upon to generally keep their bargains, Hillary feels no such obligation. You are a tool of her will, or you are nothing at all.
Not only are the new nobles corrupt, they are also incompetent. They may know how to be corrupt, and to obtain their slice of our labors without providing anything in turn, but they are very poor at being human. Look at the Clintons’ horrible Forrest Gump impersonation. It’s hard to even think they are human beings at all. The level of fakeness is comical:
They will give everything we own to foreign powers, and give over our country to terrorism and to mass migration, and profit from all of it in the same manner that they profit off of healthcare fraud and a thousand other such things. These they regard as their personal demesnes. America is fast becoming no better than any third world toilet, with its gated islands of relative noble prosperity amid ruinous poverty.
SJWs believe, of course, that the Socialist Utopia is coming. But soon it will be like Venezuela, where malaria reigns, where slavery is found renewed in gold mines for the nobility, where peasants are scratching a living barely sufficient for survival. SJWs wring their hands over slavery conducted centuries ago, but ignore the slavery their own ideology perpetuates across the world today.
They, as early Marxist intellectuals did a century ago, will find their reward bitter in the end, as they taste the same lead the nobility will use against us. Once a tool’s usefulness has expired, they are quick to dispose of it. I wonder if the man bilking cancer meds for the Clintons is even still alive today.
I would sooner have a Mafia don in office, than Hillary Rodham Clinton, for at least some honor may be found in them, some scrap of understanding that screwing their people too much will result in the death of the host. Hillary has none of this. I doubt she even cares for her own daughter, or her family line. It is all about today, and she could not care less what happens after she is dead. The entire species could be rendered extinct, and what would it matter to her? She got what she wanted, in the end. The new nobility has none of the restraint of the old order.
Either way, though, America’s inner rot has already killed the nation. The outer shell endured for a time, but now that too is creaking. Collapse is imminent. But given all of that, I am sure it is time to start worrying about the gender of horses in the Olympics, as SJWs are wont to do.
So I’ve been semi-absent for the last week or so, and for that I must beg your pardon. I have, in recent weeks, picked up a relatively large body of work (I’ve been doing very well this year, but ‘very well’ also means ‘very busy’), and am also handling some more personal matters. Unfortunately, this means the blog and my Twitter ranting have both suffered somewhat.
I should be back among the living sometime next week. In the meantime, I heartily recommend this gem over at Liberty’s Torch:
An Overwhelming Question
It ties into something that has been bothering my for awhile. Why does the media lick the boots of the powerful? What hold do the powerful have over them? Part of it, I suspect, is simple sociopathy. But Francis explores a different avenue. It is a great read.
More to come soon.
Yes, I know, the idiocy of the Left ought not to surprise me so much. But occasionally even I am taken aback by the reality-defying notions they manage to dredge up out of their anal cavities. Remember, one paragon of Leftist Social Justice stupidity thought reality itself was racist, and that it was bad enough to somehow ruin the experience of playing Pokemon (like it needs help in that regard).
As Europe falls victim to Islamic terror attacks on a daily basis, the latest of which is an apparent mass stabbing (but muh gun control!), SJWs are desperate to stop Trump, and his rhetoric surrounding a ban on Islamic immigration. Americans, you see, might fail to see the benefits of importing millions of Muslims into their country, which include bombings, stabbings, shootings, an attack with a cargo truck, and a greater propensity to live on welfare.
So for the DNC, SJWs managed to dredge up a Muslim who died in the service of America, and then rattle off some stats about how some others did, also. I wonder if they included the Fort Hood shooter in that calculation… Anyway, let’s be fair to Humayun, the man who died. Let us assume that he was everything the Democrats claimed he was, and that he was a good Westernized, American Muslim.
Okay. So if all is true, then we can appropriately honor that man, and speak no ill of the dead. But this brings up a few interesting sidebars. Does this exempt his parents from political criticism? If you go to a political convention, and speak there, and insult the opposing candidate, is it wrong for the candidate to respond? Is it wrong for him to insult you, in turn?
No, I’m sorry. If you stick your dick in a hornets’ nest, expect to get stung. The service of your son is not an unlimited shield against this. Remember St. Cindy and her crocodile tears of doom during the Bush years? This is merely weaponized empathy in the service of the Clinton agenda. If anyone has made a mockery of the death of this man, it his own parents. Maybe his son was a better man, I don’t know, but his parents are fools, and pawns of the Clintons.
But then we find that the father ran an Islamic immigration website, and was a lawyer involved in these matters (the site has since supposedly been deleted). So what we have here is a lawyer, politicking for the Left from the DNC in favor of a matter he personally profits from, insulting the opposing candidate, and expecting that he will endure no counter-attack. There’s a word for that: moron.
Beyond all this, though, we have to look at why the Left does this shit. Take a look at this little gem I found on Fecalbook this morning:
Why people are upset about the police shooting of Korryn Gaines — even if she shot at cops
You know, my libertarian instincts make me pretty damn wary of police myself, at times. And I’m no fan of this trend of micromanaging the civilian populace. But if you barricade yourself in your apartment with a shotgun, and then shoot at the cops… well, your chances of being shot yourself skyrocket. That ought to be common sense. Then SJWs moan that she got shot… I mean read that headline again and see if it gives you an aneurysm.
This is Leftist logic, that somehow quid pro quo is wrong. They have rewritten the Golden Rule thusly:
We can do whatever we want to you, but you must treat us with the utmost respect all times. What we do to you, you cannot do to us. We may insult you, but you can say nothing back. We may shoot you, but you cannot shoot back. Any dirty tactic we use against you cannot be used in turn against us.
Turnabout, apparently, is NOT fair play. I remember one Black Lives Matter activist proclaiming on Fecalbook that “Black Lives Matter even when we shoot first.” Translation: you can shoot as many cops as you like, but cops can’t shoot back.
Going back to the Islamic issue, we are faced with a contradiction. The West must be tolerant, multicultural, and bend over backwards for Islam. But Islam is not required to do anything in return, not even make a meaningful attempt to curb the terrorism they tacitly support. If a Christian country sent migrants to Saudi Arabia, and asked the Arabs to pay for them, and to accept some increase in terrorism, and to build them churches and make citizens of them, the Saudis would laugh… and then probably kill the whole lot of them.
But, at a minimum, they practice none of the tolerance they demand of us.
The Left has one set of rules for the themselves and their favored special interest groups. And a very different, and far more stringent set of rules for everyone else. This selective rule-making falls just short of law, so as to give them a thin veneer of deniability.
But as the Khans found out after the DNC, and one Korryn Gaines found out after barricading herself and shooting at the cops, quid pro quo is the default operating status for most humans, and all the bleating of useless SocJus sheep in the world won’t change that. The time is rapidly approaching when terror will result in retaliation, where burned churches will result in burned mosques, where dead priests will be met with dead imams, and when Leftist snarky contempt will be met with the same.
An eye for an eye, as it were.
I don’t smile at this, nor desire it. Much of my political musing has been expended trying to take us off the path that would lead to this end. But my desires are irrelevant. We’re talking about human nature here, and so the backlash is inevitable. Somehow, I suspect SJWs would not like to be treated in the fashion they have treated us.
Tom Kratman is not exactly a subtle man, at least not when he’s speaking politics, anyway. And he knocks one out of the park here: Trumping Hillary. The one liner that ought to stick in your memory is this little tidbit:
Our choice is Hillary or Trump or a hopeless third party candidate, presumably Johnson and Stein.
But Hillary? Look, if Hitler and Hillary were on opposite sides on the same ballot, I’d have to say, “Well, I’m only a quarter Jewish; how bad could Hitler be?”
Of course, he is being facetious here, though only in part. The thing to note here is that if anyone has a record of racism, sexism, corruption, hatred of the poor, and a variety of other such ills, it is Hillary, not Donald Trump. Trump is an asshole and an egotist. And he would probably say just about anything if he thought it would grant him what he wants: a place in the history books as something other than slumlord to the elite. These charges may be justly laid at his feet.
But the trifecta of bigotry that the Left is fond of using as a political cudgel? No, my friends, that is Hillary. Neither of these candidates is a literal Hitler, and I’ve spoken of this Reductio ad Hilterum phenomenon before. But if any candidate is more likely to mutate into an omnicidal dictator bent on inciting a World War, it is Hillary, not Trump.
Nonetheless we have entered into the political Twilight Zone. Nothing makes sense anymore, the old alignments are collapsing and America is fragmenting along her ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines. Decades of divisive rhetoric from the far Left has exacerbated this, and accelerated the spiraling stupidity. We are here, at the event horizon, circling the toilet bowl of history, no hope in sight, only the slim possibility that a billionaire playboy with a penchant for bombastic speech could delay the fall awhile, perhaps long enough for someone more genuine to come to the fore. Then again, perhaps not.
All I know for certain is that a vote for Hillary is a vote for turning into that singularity of idiocy at full throttle, no brakes on this train, off the cliff, forever. I’ve never said this of any political candidate before, not even Obama, for Hillary has a level of control over the corruptocracy that even Obama could never manage.
Tom Kratman explains for us:
Conversely, I suspect Hillary intends to, and is sure she can, dictate what the history books will be allowed to say. Don’t think so? What about all those women politicians who walked point; Jeannette Rankin, Cynthia McKinney, Geraldine Ferraro, Lenora Fulani, Hattie Caraway, Linda Jenness and Jill Stein? They’ve been made unpersons, for all their contributions were recognized at the Democratic convention so that Hillary could look like the trailblazer. Why should Hillary worry about history books when she or her party can dictate their contents, their, for lack of a better word, Pravda?
“Call for Comrade Ogilvy. Comrade Ogilvy, Clinton Campaign Headquarters calling. Comrade Ogilvy to the red phone, please.”
Go forth and read the rest… I know, dear readers, pulling the lever for the militant hairpiece is about as unpleasant a thing as any man might do. Given the option of taking heavy grit sandpaper to my junk, and voting for this man… it’s a tough call, it truly is. But I say to you right now that there is a difference between them. They are not equally bad.
Some have said that Trump is equivalent to Saruman. Perhaps so. But if it is only Saruman, or Sauron, who then? Others have compared him to Darth Vader. Yes, Vader. But if given the choice between Vader and Emperor Palpatine, what then? There are those who even say that Trump is a Mussolini. Yes, yes, perhaps even that. But then, what if the choice is Mussolini, or Hitler? History is full of decisions of realpolitik, taking the situation for what it is rather than what we wish it to be.
Realpolitik says Trump, or Hillary. Consider that very carefully, and make your choice accordingly.
There was a scene in Tom Kratman’s Caliphate book where a priest was crucified, and speaks to a young boy, telling him to take up the crucifix on the ground. He speaks the words “Deus Vult,” which I am sure most of my readers understand well enough.
The implication was, of course, that the boy, who had converted to Islam under duress, suffered less than the priest nailed to the cross. And, naturally, he should not renounce his faith for such if the priest could keep his under such circumstances.
Contrary to the beliefs of Leftists, being Christian has, historically, meant accepting a great deal of persecution. The followers of Christ, not unlike the Jews, have suffered under great persecution from other faiths. The Romans killed them (until converting). Then the Muslims came, and did likewise.
But the day came when Christianity was ascendant and unchallenged in the West. And so it is easy to forget that, as a Christian, persecution is not so far away as we often think it is. We’ve suffered comparatively little in recent years. The worst we’ve had to deal with lately is militant atheists with their smug, Jon Stewart liberal grins and airs of superiority. Easy enough to suffer that.
The killing of the priest, during Mass, tells us that a new round of persecution may be beginning. I honestly didn’t think I’d see that in my lifetime. But, here it is. In a sense, it is worse than the other terror killings. Not in number of bodies, of course, but in the brazenness of the act, and in the specificity of the target. Where you could theoretically lump other Islamic terror attacks in the West into some kind of general malaise, and excuse it by some sort of twisted Left-wing, secular reasoning, this attack smacks more obviously of religious war.
I feel a sadness for it, and wonder if the priest thought similarly as he died. And I wonder, also, if the militant fire which had been extinguished long ago in Christianity will now begin to resurface. I mourn this greatly, for the end of goodwill between faiths fast approaches.
If it must be religious war, then let it be as they say, even if this is a terrifying thing. If the cross falls to you, take it up. If it falls to me, then I will take it, also. I implore the Islamists to remember this, however: we truly wanted peace, with all of our hearts, and you could not leave well enough alone.
General Mattis put it succinctly, once: “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
I’ve come to realize that my personal Overton Window is much larger than most folks I come across. I can entertain and even understand ideas that are very different than my own. I loathe the term “open-minded” because that term has been twisted by the Left in recent years, but it also fails to fully encompass what I am talking about, anyway.
Some folks will say that they want to be proven wrong, or that they can be easily swayed by new evidence. I propose nothing of the sort. I am a curmudgeon and very stubborn. While it is possible to move me from my positions, and it has indeed been done before, it is not an easy task and I am not particularly amenable to it. You can prove me wrong, and if the quality of your proof is very high, I will move. Otherwise, no, I’m happy where I’m at, thank you.
Yet, at the same time I can understand how others arrive at conclusions I deem false, or misguided. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the notion that they are evil for having made a mistake, and I acknowledge that it is possible they are as stubborn and obstinate as myself. Thus the weight of evidence necessary to move them might also be very great, and simply beyond my skill to convey to them so that they can see things as I have.
So you can be very far from my position, and I will still respect you and treat with you, so long as that respect is returned. Quid pro quo, if you give no respect, you will receive none from me. But I am often disappointed in this. My Overton Window is wide and expansive, and only the most egregious of evils are wholly removed from it. But most people have very narrow windows, and there is a tendency for them to skew Left, such that any position to the Right is automatically suspect, but positions to their Left are deemed merely misguided.
Positions to the Right are commonly considered racist-sexist-homophobic. All signs that the Overton Window skews Left.
This, by the way, goes for Conservatives also. I have debated many of them who are only slightly to my Left, and treat me with disdain, presuming that being to the Right of them somehow implies the trifecta of racism-sexism-homophobia. That trifecta comes out, by the way, whenever someone is wholly removed from a person’s Overton Window. Consider it a stand in for “that opinion is not acceptable to me, you either need to change it, or I will deem you evil.”
I have no idea how to fix this on a meta level. And on an individual level, I am liable to treat such people with the same disdain and loathing they treat me, which probably doesn’t further my cause any. Nonetheless, there is the problem, for what it is worth.
Much hoopla has been made over the RNC and Ted Cruz’s speech, wherein he withheld endorsement of Donald Trump. But, in truth, I was more surprised that he bothered to speak at all. Look, the truth of the matter is that the limited government mentality that many Conservatives subscribe to doesn’t exist, not even within the GOP, much less the rest of the country. So all of this conflict in the GOP is academic, at best.
Francis explains it for us at Liberty’s Torch:
No politician will succeed in restoring Constitutional soundness to government in these United States in our lifetime.
At this point in our political degeneracy, elected officials possess far less power than what has been called the Deep State: the millions of unelected bureaucrats and functionaries who are the true rulers of our nation. It is they who set agricultural, industrial, commercial, and informational policy. It is they who determine what shall and what shall not be done. It is they who thwarted the efforts of Nixon and Reagan to reduce the burden of government on our long suffering backs. Remember this blatant statement of conditions:
[United States Senator from Oklahoma David L.] Boren, formerly a state legislator and governor, went to Washington expecting to make some changes. “What impressed me most is the great power of the bureaucracy compared to that of elected officials. All the talk about growing control by the bureaucracy is not exaggerated. The shift in power is very real…. There is almost a contempt for elected officials.”…Senator Boren found, to his surprise, that a Senator has great difficulty even getting phone calls returned by the “permanent” employees, much less getting responsive answers to his questions.
The voters can’t “throw the rascals out” anymore, because the main rascals are not elected but appointed….
Regulatory bureaucrats have extra power because they can outlast the elected officials. “Often,” Boren explains, “I’ve said to a bureaucrat, ‘You know this is not the president’s policy.’
’True, Senator, but we were here before he came, and we’ll be here after he leaves. We’re not in sympathy with his policy. We’ll study the matter until he leaves.’”
The unelected bureaucracy runs this country, and they answer only to themselves, and to cold, hard cash. The rest can be waited out, or bought, or blackmailed, or shamed into obedience. Others, like the Clintons, are deeply embedded within the bureaucratic state. They represent the Mandarins, so to speak, and are their preferred vehicles. But they can, and will, use anyone else.
Much has been made of Ronald Reagan and his reinvigoration of the country in the 80s, but Reagan’s influence was always mitigated by the bureaucrats, and they merely bided their time, surviving his rule to reestablish themselves after.
So in that context, Ted Cruz’s speech was wasted air. And even if Trump were to do all that he claims, the bureaucracy will merely hibernate for a little while, bide their time, and come back into the fore when they may. Constitutional government will be impossible so long as they remain in power.
The Mandarins clearly don’t like Trump, for whatever reason, but it’s not clear that he represents a genuine improvement of our fortunes, either. The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy, also. I don’t know. All I can say for certain is that the cause of freedom has been greatly diminished by factionalism in the GOP, and it’s my thought that this was an intentional ploy from the statists, a tune which both major factions of the party have danced to in predictable fashion.
At more or less the same time, we find that Milo and a host of other conservatives, have been banned from Twitter. Cristina Liala was one whom I had a lot of respect for. She was banned for being critical of Islam (she’s Armenian and has good reason, but that doesn’t mollify Twitter’s own Mandarins). The Mandarins and their bureaucracy have infested most of corporate America, also. Do not look to them for succor or support.
Milo was banned because he criticized the new Ghostbusters movie, and one of the actresses took offense. Leslie Jones told her followers to “get him”, and so Milo posted this call on his own feed. A host of people of indeterminate affiliation (trolls would be my guess) then piled onto Leslie’s Twitter page, and bombarded her with tweets about gorillas, bananas, and other offensive things relating to her race. But, and here’s the key point, Milo didn’t call for that, nor participate in it at all. And the only call to dogpile anybody was made by Leslie herself. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
Twitter, of course, disagreed and quickly banned him, this time permanently.
Now, Leftists have come out and said that Twitter has a right to ban people for whatever reasons they wish, because they are a private company. But where was this defense when they demanded that bakers make cakes for gay weddings? Or for when a pizza place declined to cater one? They say it’s not censorship, and that nobody has a right to Free Speech on Twitter, because they don’t own it.
This is fascinating, because I’m not sure if my readers are aware or not, but North Korea’s Constitution has emphatic support for Freedom of Speech. De jure, North Korea is a free and democratic country. Of course de facto we know that it is not. But therein lies the rub in this case. SJWs are de facto calling for the suspension and banning of Conservatives, or anyone who disagrees with them, frankly, but then hiding behind Freedom of Speech and Capitalism when challenged themselves. Suddenly private companies refusing service to gays is just fine, so long as the gay man in question is Conservative.
The Mandarins are everywhere, and not just in government, and they will twist anything to their liking, and obey those who pay them, bribe them, or control their employment (not us, by the way). They are good little stooges, and until they are gone, restoring a Constitutional government will be impossible.
Indeed, if we don’t remove them soon, they will successfully suppress Free Speech entirely, and reverse the Bill of Rights, the last remaining roadblock to their complete control of the country.
Next to that, I really don’t care if Ted Cruz doesn’t like Donald Trump, or vice versa.
Well, I picked an interesting time to step away from blogging and get some work done… We had three major events occur in quick succession.
First off, an Islamic terrorist did something I had been warning people about for years: he used a truck to bowl over as many people as he possibly could. I used to explain to people in debates on matters of gun control that plenty of weapons were available for mass killings even supposing a gun ban could work. My usual example was that a semi-truck could be driven into a populated place, and be used to kill as many (or more) than any AR-15 could. I didn’t intend for a terrorist to take the idea seriously.
But now the question is, will the Left demand an end to the easy sales and rentals of assault trucks?
Shortly thereafter, we had Black Lives Matter inspire another ambush of police officers. This time the nutcase responsible for it was clearly a Black Lives Matter supporter, and had repeatedly posted anti-white and anti-cop slogans all over his Twitter feed. His motivations are laid bare for us to see. TheRalph dissects the man’s motivations and connections to Black Lives Matter here. One of the interesting things to note, however, is that one of the three murdered cops was black.
Remember, Black Lives only Matter if they are thugs, and if they have a long records. Black cops, of course, are fair game. So are the blacks routinely killed in urban enclaves from Chicago to DC. Those lives clearly don’t matter to the protesters.
And lastly we had an attempted coup, or at least what looked vaguely like one, attempted in Turkey. On this matter I have little to add, except to note that Tom Kratman has covered the topic much better than I could. He suspects a degree of foreknowledge on the part of Erdogan, and I cannot help but agree. As someone of Armenian ancestry, I cannot say I’m exactly in the Turkish fan club, but it must be noted that a secular Turkey under the shade of Kemalism is somewhat preferable to a radical Islamist Turkey. Especially if one considers the NATO angle.
Can you imagine being pulled in support of a radical Islamist agenda because of NATO? Erdogan has always been something of a tyrant-in-waiting, but now it appears the waiting is coming to an end, and the tyrant will soon be laid bare.
I feel bad for the Greeks. The EU has screwed them from both angles.
Rant warning. This is going to be bad. You’ve been warned.
You know, I see a lot of stupid shit on the Internet. I consider it a service to scour the bottom of the intellectual barrel in search of prime examples of Social Justice idiocy. And so I have a relatively high tolerance for stupidity, borne out of necessity. But there are times even I recoil from the eldritch horrors I find in the festering, wretched hives of Social Justice.
Today’s example comes from one Emily Crockett, writing for Vox.com. It’s instructive that Vox.com, like The Guardian, often supplies material for us brave, intrepid explorers of rampant idiocy. It’s like the the Mordor of Social Justice. Here, just take a look at this screencap:
Reality is racist. Seriously. That’s the argument this captain of idiocy is spewing from her mouth-hole. I’ve taken dumps from which more intellectual truths could be divined.
Yes, the horror from the elder days of Marxist assholery has manifested anew in the form of Miss (I’m sure she’s not a Mrs., who the hell would put a ring on a finger attached to a creature this stupid?) Emily Crockett, Social Justice Warrior and minion of the land of Vox.com. Let’s fisk this sewage and learn what we may.
“Warning: Pokémon Go is a death sentence if you’re a black man,” Omari Akil argued in an essay at Medium over the weekend.
You know, I’m not exactly a fan of this Pokemon Go shit. I’ve seen full grown men (at least in body, anyway) wandering around like drooling idiots from a B-rate zombie movie, looking for Pikachu, or whatever. “Braaaaaaaains.” No, no brains to be found here, I’m afraid. But to call it a death sentence for black men? What do you even say to that sort of stupidity? Do black men spontaneously combust upon loading the app onto their phones? I found Jigglypuff! *BLAM*.
It’s an idiocy that has exceeded the dumbassery of lesser beings. It is the sort of intellectual diarrhea that could only be spawned from the mind of someone who thinks themselves educated and enlightened, for no lesser form of ignorance is sufficient to produce it. No, the sky isn’t blue, says the intellectual. Because blue is racist, since cops wear blue sometimes. If my ass had an ass, and that ass expelled a load of fecal matter which, itself, was able to take a dump, only then would you reach the level of mental sewage this creature has, somehow, managed to expel from her mouth, distill into typed form, and display on the Internet.
Does she take pictures of her turds swirling in the bowl too, I wonder? And does Vox.com post that, also? It would be a step up from this.
It’s a startling, even extreme-sounding claim. How could a virally popular smartphone game featuring adorable Japanese cartoon characters possibly endanger the lives of black men?
It doesn’t, at least no more so than it endangers the lives of other idiots wandering around like drunken zombies looking for Jigglypuff in between the legs of an Atlanta stripper at 2 in the morning.
But Akil’s explanation makes a lot of sense, and it is incredibly sobering. Akil says he rushed to download the game and try it out but quickly realized that its “augmented reality” interface also replicates the systemic racial inequalities of our regular, un-augmented reality:
Yes. I want you, dear reader, to let this one sink in. Pardon the shit analogies, both literally and figuratively, but I know of nothing more appropriate for this bile. This is a special sort of turd, the sort that, despite its foulness, and the gut-wrenching pain that led to its expulsion, must be grudgingly admired for its level of fecal perfection. What disgustingly unhealthy excuse for nourishment produced it? How, indeed, did something so flawlessly vile and nasty come out of a human being? What birthing pains were labored in its creation?
How, indeed, can any human being come to the conclusion that reality itself is racist? Let it sink in. Admire the perfect idiocy of this thing. Take it in. And then wonder how this human being can manage to put on pants in the morning, much less tie her own shoes.
Akil’s logic is simple: Black men are stopped more often by police for unusual or suspicious behavior. More police stops means a greater risk of violent interactions, and black men are disproportionately killed by police. Pokémon Go causes people to do unusual things in public spaces. Therefore, Pokémon Go poses a real risk to black men in America.
Why, I’m sure that police will be mortified to see an idiot staring into his cellphone, looking at stupid shit. Indeed, this could not possibly have ever happened before someone dumped this game onto the market, right?
Anyway, what does this tentacled, eldritch vagina want to do about it? If you’re black, no Pokemon for you?
A lot of people are making jokes about how the National Security Agency probably created Pokémon Go as a spy tool. Others are genuinely concerned about the potential ramifications for privacy and civil liberties:
Well, privacy concerns have some legitimacy here. I don’t want to install this crap on my phone either. But what the hell does this have to do with her premise that reality is racist, therefore no Pokemon for black people?
Another Pokémon Go user had a story about police and racial profiling in a viral post on Imgur. He said he’s a white man in his 40s who started bonding over Pokémon Go in a public park with two young black men — and was promptly questioned by police who thought they might be conducting a drug deal.
It ended happily, with the cop downloading the app himself. But it’s unsettling to think about how easily it could have gone the other way.
So an unconfirmed personal account of a police officer questioning people, who then decides to be interested in the game. THE TERROR. THE HORROR! JIM CROW! SLAVERY! POLICE BRUTALITY! How in the hell do these sorts of people manage to go anywhere, or do anything? Does Emily Crockett shiver in her boots when a policeman says “good morning”? Does she quake with fear if somebody talks to a black person in the park? Does tying her shoelaces fill her with dread and fears of racist oppression? Why, the shoelaces might be white!
But I suppose this is par for the course from people who consider “nice dress” to be rape, or who think that carting mattresses around campus, upon which you later decide to do a porn shoot, is somehow showing the eeeeevil patriarchy what’s what.
The level of stupidity these people call upon goes beyond the merely slow, or uneducated. It is a special brand of willful, knowing ignorance. And in the normal course of human affairs, this might be called a contradiction. A paradox of stupidity, as it were. And yet, there it is, before our very eyes, crawling up from the deep crevices of Karl Marx’s anus. Pokemon is racist. Reality is racist. Everything is racism, sexism, and homophobia. All of creation, the universe, and space-time itself has turned against black people. And for proof, we are supplied with a personal account of a cop asking about a crappy game from a couple of guys in the park.
I’ve seen more convincing fake-outs and exaggerations in soccer games.
I am reminded of the idiot who said calling a singularity a “black hole” is evidence of systemic racism in the academic community. Say what? No, the only singularity here is the hole inside your skull, which has sucked all possible intelligence into a parallel universe, and left nothing in its wake.
I took a breath this morning. Racist. My friend has a black car. Racist. Somebody right now is trying to find Pikachu in his toilet, and only succeeded in finding the floating relatives of one Miss Emily Crockett. Social Justice is an example of what one man termed a “Shit Midas”, a being which turns whatever it touches into excrement.
Miss Emily Crocket, congratulations on your achievement as Idiot of the Week, and Official Shit Midas of Vox.com. I proudly present to you four Golden Turds in recognition of this supreme achievement of cosmic stupidity.