With the fight surrounding Trump’s 90-day travel ban from certain Muslim countries in full swing, public attention is, for the moment, rather distracted. But from the #NoBanNoWall hashtag, we can infer that the Left hasn’t forgotten about the illegal immigration invasion, and can be expected to mobilize its full resources in defense of the practice.
One of my detractors once explained to me that we don’t really need a wall, and that Democrats have been very much in favor of securing the border through other means. That, of course, is a blatant lie. At any time, Democrats could have reached across the aisle and found, if not robust support for securing the border (some Republicans like the cheap labor), at least enough support to make it happen, if they truly desired it.
The only answer that makes sense is that they want illegal immigration to continue. Their defense of the practice went to absurdity during the election. We all remember this little gem:
Most videos of this are focused on Trump. But I like this one, even if it’s of relatively poor quality. Here we can see the reporter’s smug, self-satisfied air of superiority, as if he is the great arbiter of moral authority. The press has grown too big for its britches. Rather than simply reporting on the news, or even engaging in editorial spin, the press now demands compliance with its dictates.
You better say it this way, or else.
Trump, naturally, declined. And you can almost see the wheels spinning in the reporter’s mind. Time to call him a racist, we warned him it was offensive, so now he’s a racist, and we’ll destroy him. Of course, if Trump had submitted, and spewed the line “American born child of an undocumented immigrant,” a heap of worthless, kludgy Newspeak straight out of Orwell’s book, then the press would have laughed at him, and put out a piece saying “Trump didn’t even know anchor baby was offensive, lololol.”
The only way to win is not to play. Of late, I’ve been convinced that arguing with these people is futile, because their attacks are Kafkan in nature. They are traps, from which there is no escape except abject submission to the Narrative. And, invariably, the attacks will focus on the person, rather than the issue. You are a racist, sexist, homophobe, islamophobe, or whatever. You are stupid, ignorant, and uneducated. You need to educate yourself, but in our manner, and with our books, and with our concepts. Yours, of course, are anathema. Wrongthink. If you study them, you are stupid.
I remember Phil Sandifer, the self-described Marxist Occultist (whatever that’s supposed to be), lecturing me on the need to educate myself. If you’re brave, you can see the utter dreck he writes, trying to interpret old console video games with Marxian dialectic, or trying to defend self-admitted incestual pedophiles because the Right-wing had no regard for Sarah Nyberg’s relative status and fame. Yes, to a Marxist, status within the party trumps any actual crime, and spinning a 16 bit video game as fundamentally Marxian is accounted an intellectual matter of some importance.
It reminds me of a relatively rare book my father-in-law gave me to read once. I was Castro’s Prisoner, by John Martino. In it, we get a first hand account of an American trapped behind the revolution, betrayed by his own government, and left to rot in prison. But the fascinating thing to note from it is that the author described Castro releasing many criminals, people convicted of theft, murder, and other such things. Instead. Castro filled the prisons with political prisoners, like the author. Wrongthink was a great crime, in the minds of Marxists, worse than actual, physical crime.
So we shouldn’t be surprised that they apply this same standard to illegal immigration. To them, the breaking of our laws is a mere trifle. It doesn’t matter at all. I remember when Michael Brown’s theft at a convenience store, not long before his encounter with police, was hand waved away with the statement that “a few cigars isn’t worth a young black man’s life.” Well, clearly Michael Brown thought otherwise. If the Left is okay with the theft and assault, then crossing the border illegally wouldn’t faze them in the slightest.
They want illegals because they are politically useful. Don’t let them fool you about morality or compassion. Perhaps some of the rank-and-file liberals believe this, but the ones calling the shots certainly don’t. For them it is about obtaining political control over America. Mexicans are useful idiots, in their view. There is speculation that as many as 800,000 illegals voted in the last election, though it is unconfirmed at best. But it is known for certain that some illegals did vote. Yet that’s not the primary boon illegals grant to the Left.
Amnesty is the great prize. Ann Coulter put together some rather convincing figures in her book Adios America, in which the 11 million illegals we think are in the country may actually be closer to 20 or 30 million. But whatever the number, once the Left gets amnesty and eventual citizenship past the goal line, there will never be a Right-of-center President in America ever again. They’ve made sure minorities who step off the ideological reservation are branded Uncle Toms, Uncle Changs, and traitors to their race. So the vast majority will be good Socialists, even if they were otherwise inclined.
And on top of that, the political usefulness of decrying anyone who fights illegal immigration as racist has been immense. Opposition can be spun as hatred of Mexicans, racism against brown people (even though many Mexicans are essentially fully Spanish in descent – just look at the Mexican first family). It’s another bludgeon that can be deployed against the Right.
All three things have great utility to the Left. The illegal votes they get today, the greater number of votes they’ll receive if they can push amnesty, and the ability to deploy Weaponized Empathy for the poor, oppressed brown peoples of the world, terribly maligned by white Right-wing racism.
No papers, no fear. And by the way, everybody coming into your country is guaranteed to be a beautiful butterfly. Of course there are no terrorists, no criminals, no extremists, no drug dealers, no welfare moochers… all beautiful butterflies.
Remember, to these people borders are nothing, and jumping them is fine. Laws don’t matter. Only wrongthink matters. No amount of welfare statism, terrorism, drug smuggling, or otherwise is enough to even allow the questioning of this practice.
Migration is a human right? You do mean invasion, don’t you?
You’re going to see a lot more of this propaganda soon. Be ready for it.
This shouldn’t come as much of a shock, although the numbers reported in the article are very small at the moment. Of course, the shock is inflated with the headline: “Worried about Trump, asylum seekers walk cold road to Canada.”
Manitoba’s Welcome Place refugee agency helped 91 claimants between Nov. 1 and Jan. 25 – more than the agency normally sees in a year. Most braved the freezing prairie winter to walk into Canada.
“We haven’t had something before like this,” said Maggie Yeboah, president of the Ghanaian Union of Manitoba, which has helped refugees get medical attention and housing. “We don’t know what to do.”
They braved the freezing prairie to walk into Trudeau’s Liberal Paradise. Now imagine for a moment that this trend continues, and that maybe even some of the illegal Mexican immigrants get in on that Canadian action, once Trump turns his attention to them? How soon before Canada kicks out Trudeau & co., and builds a wall of its own?
Yeah, the title is long. The post will be mercifully short.
So here’s a sampling of Progressive stupidity in no particular order. First, in Canada, a female MP from Alberta takes issue with the loss of jobs in her province, and delivers a speech that contains the word “fart” in it. Another MP, with the sort of pompous, perpetually-offended scowl reminiscent of every Gender Studies professor you’ve ever seen then declares how offended she is. The SJW cannot even bring herself to say the word “fart” and must, instead, spell it out to protect her delicate sensibilities. Take a look for yourself:
All I can say is, thank God I am not a Canadian MP. My language would trigger Miss Cat Lady into conniption fits.
For our second display of Progressive idiocy on this Monday, November 28th, I present the following: Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, a blog that, many moons ago, once made a lot more sense than it does today. Ole CJ used to be something of a center-right kind of guy, until he had an epic meltdown that resulted in the banning of something like 75% of his readership (including yours truly).
Today, he takes offense with people saying mean things about Castro. I, naturally, had feelings about this which resulted in my immediate blocking:
Feel free to go to his Twitter to see the originals – blocked from my feed. He was taking offense that Trump said “assholish” things about Castro. He was also hurt that Hillary lost.
But today’s winner in the contest of who can be the biggest Progressive idiot goes to whoever was responsible for this headline:
The problem? Machete-wielding guy had no gun. He tried to run people over, and resorted to the machete after crashing his Honda 4-banger. The gun graboids were practically drooling… and were resoundingly disappointed by the result. Also, said terrorist turned out to be a Muslim Somali immigrant, instead of the militant Amish gun owner the media was praying for.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. [Constitution of the United States, Article III, Section 3]
Isabel Paterson noted the treason clause, in combination with the Constitution’s prohibition of bills of attainder and “corruption of blood,” as supremely important protections for the lives and property rights of Americans. Understanding this requires knowledge of how charges of treason were used by monarchies to destroy those who opposed the king. For all practical purposes, if the king charged you with treason, you were automatically guilty – and no one dared object, for reasons that should be obvious. “Corruption of blood,” another monarchical practice banned by the Constitution, extended the penalty from the accused to his family: it “justified” the attainting of the accused’s relatives, seizure of all family property, and in some cases the enslavement of all family members.
But these provisions, though critical to attaining a grasp of the mindset of the Founding Fathers, are of less interesttoday than the three words “War,” “Aid,” and “Comfort.”
Yes, Gentle Reader, those specific words are of vital importance to us today: the twentieth of June in the year of Our Lord 2016. There are several reasons, but the one I have in mind at the moment is Islam.
Now the interesting thing here is that Francis immediately brings up Islam. And he is not wrong to do so. Those who give Aid and Comfort to our Islamic terror enemies are among us. They are in our government. They are among the civilian population, also. Members of Omar’s family had reason to believe he was planning an attack, and did nothing. Are they traitors, then? A Court of Law should decide this, but certainly they should be charged. It appears his wife will be charged with accessory to murder, but this is too small a thing.
Our political leaders lie about terror attacks, most notably Hillary lying about Benghazi. Is this treasonous, via Aid and Comfort to the enemy? Again, quite possibly. She should have been charged.
But it goes beyond Islam. While Francis does an excellent job of laying out the case for those who support Islamic terror, what of those La Raza supporting Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) who have been spotted at Trump rallies assaulting American citizens, burning the American flag, and then holding up signs saying “Make America Mexico Again”? They are, in effect, demanding that America cede the Southwestern states to Mexico.
We are not at war with Mexico, yet Mexico sends us millions of people through illegal channels. In normal times, this would be called an invasion. It would be grounds for war. If millions of Americans illegally crossed into Mexico, certainly the international community would condemn it as a warlike act. Are those within the government that support this via aid and succor treasonous? I don’t know the jurisprudence to make such a decision, naturally, but I do suggest that this should be investigated. If they are illegal immigrants, the decision is simple: deport them. They are active agents of chaos and destruction and have no right to be here. If they are legal immigrant citizens, then the charge of treason should be investigated. They have violated their oaths.
Are these traitors? If they are illegal, then no, they have taken no oaths — but they must be deported. If they have taken an oath, then consider the possibility that they have violated their oath.
Now, naturally, I have no issue with those legal immigrant citizens who are good American citizens, and do not demand that America be given over to Mexico, or make claims of racial superiority over Americans (La Raza does this). They are most welcome. And for their part, I have seen several Americans of Mexican ethnicity fighting back against these people. But those among them who make demands like these have violated the oaths taken to the United States. Is it treasonous, or do we account it merely as a voluntary renunciation of citizenship via the violation of their stated oath? I don’t know. But again, the matter must seriously be considered. Otherwise the oaths taken to become a citizen of the United States of America are effectively worthless.
These are serious matters. Like Francis, I do not invoke the charge of treason lightly. But what else can the definition have, if not to deliver America and her citizens unto her enemies?
Virtue signalling is a form of Progressive magic, the thought that wasting time chanting and drawing chalk art on the driveway like a 3 year old will somehow banish the demons that afflict your society back to the Hellfires from whence they came. It is a belief in the supernatural sans God, that merely thinking something changes your reality, that all of reality is subjective, bending to the whims of your personal feelings at this particular moment.
Terrorist attacks deserve more than a bunch of people drawing hearts on the sidewalk, or putting flowers on some street corner. But meaningless gestures are all that the Establishment, Ivory Tower elites have left to a society more or less banned from doing anything that is actually effective. Discussing Islam and Weaponized Empathy critically is, of course, racist (this despite the fact that Islam is a religion and political ideology, not a race). They spread this hashtag “#BXLove” as if the ISIS-sponsored terrorists give a rat’s ass whether some effeminate Belgians make heart symbols with their hands and offer “love and support” to whomever needs it. To me, love and support means, perhaps, loaning me some ammo when I’m low.
“We are one” they say. As if ISIS wants to be one with any of us. They want us dead, and our possessions and lands in the hands of a world Caliphate.
If a terrorist attack resulted in the death of one of my loved ones, I would not be looking for love and support of the magical Progressive variety. I would be digging for my rifle and ammo cans. I would desire justice, vengeance even (they aren’t the same thing, but nevermind that). I would want to even the score.
But these people just sit around and cry, or pat each other on the back for holding candlelight vigils and putting flags on their Facebook profile pictures. Je Suis Charlie, they say, except that two weeks later it is all forgotten and nobody cares anymore. Meanwhile, those of us with even a cursory understanding of history are just waiting for the next Islamic terrorist attack. The question is always when, where, and how many bodies. We never ask if another Islamic terrorist attack will happen. That is as certain as the rising sun, if rather less predictable and regular in its schedule.
HuffPo shows us violinists playing in the streets, sad songs dedicated to the memory of victims neither the player or the crowd knew or cared one whit about yesterday. People hold each other, crying their crocodile tears, because a journalist is nearby, his camera there to chronicle the sadness, the hope, the solidarity and peace-love-understanding of the virtue signalers.
Look at me, says the subject of the camera, I’m sad because I’m supposed to be, because the TV told me to be sad, and come here, and hold candles.
Of course, the talking heads of the media Establishment are there to tell us that the terrorists did not represent Islam, that Islam is a religion of love-peace-understanding, and that the massive influx of Islamic refugees, of course, has nothing to do with anything. All of us mean-people-racists are, of course, ignored as the Right-wing bigots we are tarred as. So nothing changes. Refugees will pile into Europe, America will refuse to secure its own borders, and Progressives will hold their candles, crying because somebody told them that was the right thing to do.
Orwell told us of the Two-Minutes Hate. Today we have a new variation: Two-Minutes Love. It’s supposed to make all the bad boogeymen go away, banished by the power of solidarity, hashtags, and heart symbols written in chalk.
Progressives are, in simple terms, believers in magic. Magical chalk dust will banish Islamic terror from their shores. Chants and candles will extinguish 1,500 years of conflict. Virtue signalling will effectively replace soldiers, bombs, and bullets as the chief defenders of Western civilization. Except that they don’t even believe in that anymore. At some level, Progressives believe the West deserves exactly what it’s getting. If only, says the Progressive, the anti-Islamic bigots weren’t around, this wouldn’t happen anymore.
One Turkish fellow I debated declared that the attacks were revenge for actions of Western countries in the Middle East. I suppose he meant the Iraq war, or perhaps the war in the Afghanistan. In any event, he wasn’t clear. I countered by pointing out that the Persian and Byzantine Empires didn’t do anything to the Muslims (indeed, the Byzantines may have actually sheltered them for a time). Yet the Muslims attacked and subjugated all of one, and most of the other.
Our intrepid Turkish gentleman explained that it was “a long time ago.” Sure it was. But the modern media still has a rage boner for the Crusades, so why not go back that far? There is an easier explanation for all of this, one that doesn’t require cherry-picking from history or religious texts: we can believe ISIS and other Islamic terror groups when they say they want to kill the infidel, or make him pay the jizya, take his women, and establish a global Caliphate.
Will lighting the Eiffel Tower in solidarity with Belgium accomplish anything effective against that sort of thing?
But doing nothing and pretending to be important is the hallmark of Progressivism. After all, magic chalk dust will solve everything, right? And war, as they say, never solved anything at all, right? Justin Trudeau explains this ass-backwards thinking for us:
Progressive thinking in a nutshell.
The corollary to this in Progressive parlance would be that if you hug random people in the streets in front of a television camera, you win. It doesn’t matter if the hugger, or the huggee, was in any way tied to the attack. Nobody on the nightly news needs to have lost anyone, or been affected in any way whatsoever. All that matters is if you stand in “solidarity” and chant the right words.
One particular graphic making the rounds on Instagram tells us that Belgians need to “be strong” in the face of the attacks.
Being strong might mean killing your enemies. But not for these people. For them it means crying, and hugging, and posing for pictures.
Progressives wouldn’t know strength even if it blew up in their faces. Which, of course, it actually did in this particular instance. Say what you will about Islamic terrorism, but its practitioners have more strength than its victims.
HuffPo tells us that all this activity on the part of Progressives is how to properly “fight back” against your enemies. If Hitler were alive today, and invading Europe, his panzer divisions would be met not with inept British and French forces, but with crowds holding signs denouncing bigotry, and the trifecta of racism-sexism-homophobia. Dive bombers would fly above crying Progressives standing in solidarity with the dead bodies surrounding them.
They would continue to chant their magical chants, draw their childish “art” on the streets in chalk, seeking to banish the demon Hitlerites back to the nether-realm from whence they came. “It’s time to fight back,” HuffPo would tell us, “mobilize the divisions of the gender-confused otherkin, the purple-haired manhaters, the effeminate men unable to even conceive of holding a weapon in defense of their own lives.”
And then when the Hitlerites conquered the Earth, the remains of the Progressive movement would gather in the ruined, bombed-out town square and hold their candles to mourn the dead, still hoping their magic would work, like the Native American Ghost Dance movement. Dance in the center as the armed Cavalry surrounds you, and chant until the White Man disappears forever. After all, it worked well for the Native Americans, right?
Just replace Hitler with Islamic terror above, and you’ll understand what’s really going on here. And just as the Ghost Dance failed to reverse the conquest of North America by European colonists, so will the Magical Vigils of the Progressives fail to slow the tide of Islamic conquest in Europe. To quote one of the few TV shows I’ve enjoyed in the last decade or so: “all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.”
I, like many in my particular circle of political pundits and commentators, often think of myself as a recovering Libertarian. That is to say, my instincts are to live and let live, and to avoid enmeshing myself in someone else’s business. Those are very Libertarian instincts, when converted into political parlance.
Thus any alliance with the “Social Conservatives” has been one of convenience. We share a common enemy in Progressive Leftism, and that is all.
But as I’ve aged, I found portions of Libertarianism to be self-defeating. Namely, Libertarianism is chiefly defined by its opposite. What Authoritarian Socialists like, Libertarians dislike, and vice-versa. Given that Socialism is one of the most insidious and pervasive of society’s ills, that’s not a bad place to start. But it’s just that, a starting point.
But Libertarianism tolerates its own ideological destruction. It would sit idly by, for instance, while civilization tore itself apart so long as that destruction was not perpetrated by a government force. When Brenden Eich was ousted from Mozilla for his donation to an anti-gay marriage campaign, Libertarians shrugged. Let the market decide, they said, even though this was a gross and obvious error.
Libertarians thus allow de facto silencing and censorship, so long as the ruling class retains plausible deniability over its enforcement. If a government had demanded Brenden Eich’s resignation, they would have been rightly outraged. When a group of immature, anti-civilizational SJWs attempt to strongarm the overall culture, the Libertarians remain silent.
Libertarians have correctly identified the enemies of freedom in government (pretty much all of government, really). But they fail to understand that enemies of freedom can exist outside the bounds of government, also.
This is a fatal flaw. A Libertarian society is likely to fall victim to the quotation commonly attributed to Lenin: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
A better way to put it is, a smart Capitalist would use his brain and decline to sell rope to Communists who want to hang him. Libertarians are well-advised to consider this.
Or, to put it in a modern context, accepting illegals from a Socialist-leaning Third World country like Mexico is unlikely to further the interests of freedom in America. Soon, any nation that did this would be overrun with Socialists and would no longer be free in the American sense. The same could be said with large-scale Muslim immigration. The places they come from are not bastions of intellectual and economic freedom. Unless the individual immigrant is some kind of pro-Western, pro-Freedom revolutionary, they are unlikely to serve the cause of freedom in America.
But Libertarians often feel they must accept immigrants regardless of political leanings, culture, religion, origin, etc… Indeed, in debating with many of them, I find they are torn. Many of them see the results of this problem, but are unwilling to compromise their principles in order to fit reality. They will fuss and fawn over the poor, down-trodden migrants as much as any Leftist.
They dislike radical feminism but countenance its destruction of everything from higher education to toys for girls. They concede the other side’s right to disagree without understanding that the other side does not reciprocate. If SJWs ran the West openly — and weren’t merely subverting it — I’d be thrown into an oven before nightfall. Trying to have “meaningful” dialogue with such people is an exercise in futility.
Agreeing to disagree still requires, paradoxically, a certain level of agreement. Instead Progressives attack Libertarians incessantly, but when attacked themselves, retreat behind freedom of speech. It is similar to the Islamic way of fighting these days. They will murder, terrorize, and commit genocide. But when attacked themselves will revert to tearful denunciations of the evil Western Imperialists. We’re babykillers, they will say, or something equally offensive.
Too many Americans fall for this ruse.
I’m not sure what the proper response is. I don’t wish to destroy freedom in an attempt to save it from the clutches of the Progressive Left. But I can tell you that the Libertarian road leads to eventual defeat. And tolerance of the intolerant is a critical weakness of the West, as a whole.
It used to be understood in the laws of war that when an enemy took off his uniform, but continued to fight, he could be executed as a spy, tortured, and otherwise deprived of the usual protections applied to a prisoner of war. Wearing the uniform was a certain base level of agreement between the combatants.
Similarly, Progressives seek to destroy our freedoms and do not agree on our basic rights. But they will attempt to shelter themselves behind its protections whenever challenged. I said of the freedom of religion, once, that if you do not believe in freedom of religion yourself, you ought to be deprived of its protections. Let it be as you desire. If the Buddhist or the Jew will live with me, the Christian, in peace, all is well. If any should come along and suggest that I shouldn’t be allowed to practice my religion (or, worse, must convert or submit to theirs — see: Islam), why, then, is he allowed the comfort of his own? There are places in the world which function under religious tyranny and enforced orthodoxy. Go there, if this is what you want, don’t turn my country into that.
If I cannot exercise my right to freedom of speech, why, then, do we concede their right to speak?
It’s a dangerous road, one that Libertarians rightly fear, because it trespasses on the knife’s edge of freedom and tyranny. But where they won’t consider it, I must.
But nobody said freedom was easy, simple, or free.
I'm a DJ, developer, amateur historian, would-be pundit, and general pain in the ass. I still cannot decide on the wisdom of the Oxford Comma. These are my observations on a civilization in decline, a political system on the verge of collapse, and a people asleep at the wheel as the car turns toward the jersey barrier.