Fear of the Stranger

Sarah Hoyt wrote an excellent piece this morning describing the Leftist view of racism as, in essence, fear of the stranger. Fear of the stranger contains a strongly rational component, in that, as she puts it:

In pre-human times, with many bands and tribelets living close enough for kids to stray, the name for a kid who thought that his family or strangers were equivalent was — at least if we go by how our closest relatives, the chimps, treat young from other bands — “dinner.”

Oh sure, in times of stress and famine, the chances that your own band would tuck in were fairly high, but still the chances that dear old mom would eat you were not nearly as high as that a stranger would eat you.

In other words, the in-group was more likely to protect and cherish you — and less likely to eat you — than the out-group. So fear of the stranger was rational, and selected for.

That isn’t to say you cannot regard someone of a different background as part of the in-group. Over time, as individuals prove themselves and you get to know them, the fear of the stranger will ease because the individual is no longer a stranger to you.

My in-laws are of Cuban ancestry, and their culture is somewhat different from the one in which I was raised. But having lived with it for near to a decade now, it is very familiar to me. It is not strange or odd.

But therein lies the distinction. You get to know someone first. And if they prove themselves, then they are no longer regarded as strangers.

Instead of rationally determining which individuals and groups are good, and offer no threat to you, then acting accordingly, Leftists demand that you display a knee-jerk reaction every time fear of the stranger comes, and immediately accept that person into your home, regardless of what they say or do.

The Syrian migrant/refugee business is a great case in point, as is illegal immigration. The Left thinks it a crime to ask the stranger what his business is, and why he wants to enter our community. They think it is a crime to not immediately give the stranger every possible honor, a seat at our table, a home in our village, a position of power in our councils, and then demand nothing from him in return. We don’t even demand that he obey our laws, or speak our language.

It’s absolutely insane.

Their position is beyond stupid. Any species that acted this way in the wild would be rendered extinct within a generation. They would be eaten by everyone. They would be gullible fools, easy snacks for any predators.

A Leftist sees a sketchy van roll into his neighborhood, and in order to virtue signal his moral superiority over us, he immediately dismisses his fear of the stranger, and offers his children to the sketchy van owner, heedless of any threat or danger (because recognizing any threat is discriminatory). He asks the sketchy van owner to come into his home, eat at his table, and give company to his wife. It doesn’t even matter if the van owner speaks his language. In fact, the more difference he has from you, the stranger he is to you, the better for the moral preening.

Any hesitation to do this immediately and reflexively is racism/sexism/homophobia/islamophobia/whatever.

It’s knee-jerk moral preening, and if it weren’t moderated by a fair amount of Rightist common sense, it would have already destroyed the country, and then the Leftists themselves, in short order.

There’s a reason, of course, why Stalinists shot gullible true believers. They didn’t want those idiots around either. They were useful for destroying the old order — because they bring civilizational extinction wherever they achieve power — but they are useless for any other purpose.

Leftist anti-racism is a knee-jerk reaction to a survival instinct. If the choice is dismissing the stranger, or doing whatever the Left is doing, dismissing is the superior choice, because it at least concedes survival. The best position, of course, is a healthy skepticism of the stranger, until he proves himself adequately, upon which he is no longer strange to you.

But nothing other than civilizational hara kiri is acceptable to the political Left.

Implicit Bias: A Fool’s Errand

I posted this in reply to a woman’s assertion that everybody is a racist because everybody is biased. But, of course, she naturally claimed she had less bias, and was a good Progressive, and thus excused herself as less racist than evil Trump voters:

She sees a technicality as a greater truth. Technically speaking, everyone is biased because they are not gods, they must make assumptions based on incomplete data because they cannot be fully objective about the entirety of the known universe. Only Progs are foolish enough to think such objectivity is possible in a human being.

The question becomes, are the assumptions 1) unfounded, 2) pathological in some way, and 3) measurable at any kind of net level? If, for instance, a woman grasps her purse when a black man in a hoodie walks by late at night, is she unfounded in her assumption? No, she isn’t. Statistically speaking, she’s more likely to be assaulted by a man fitting that description than, say, a Chinese guy dressed in a bespoke tailored suit.

Your opponent would consider such a thing to be racism, or at least “implicit bias.” And that may be technically true, but it’s also a fallacy. She’s missing the forest for the trees.

Also, we have to ask if the bias is pathological. If said woman clutches her purse, true, she may have bias. But does clutching her purse harm the black man in a hoodie? Not a bit. Maybe the bias would be pathological if a perfectly qualified black man in a suit and tie was at her desk for an interview, and she was an HR rep, and she dismissed him because his skin was darker than hers. But let’s be honest here: that’s far more likely to win him extra points in our current political climate, than to detract from his hiring chances.

Finally, is the bias measurable? One of the fascinating things most Progs fail to realize, is that bias often cancels out. Sure, a white person will have biases. But so does the black person. How does that figure into the calculus? And sometimes the biases people have are not in favor of those like them. Even if you’re a tall, talented white basketball player, you’ll have to fight the bias that blacks are better than whites at basketball (a bias, mind you, that’s not without some truth to it – but most biases often contain some truth). That’s even when the coach is white!

We can eliminate obviously unfounded and pathological discrimination when the government is the purveyor of those things. That’s how we eliminated slavery, Jim Crow, and a host of similar ills. We can prohibit the government from having the power to do those things.

But can we (or should we even if we could) control the minds of each American, so as to fully remove from him each grain of bias? Every assumption? Each generalization? No. It’s not possible. It’s a fool’s errand. It can never be, and the price for attempting it is the fabric of our entire civilization. And even the dumbest hick in redneckistan instinctively knows that at some level. Only the intellectual can fool himself into believing otherwise. Only the intellectual has such a high opinion of his own wisdom, that he believes himself to be the equal of God, who alone could do such a thing.

It is, in an odd way, a sort of cosmic Dunning-Kruger effect, where these people fail to understand how small and insignificant they really are.

Do Conservatives Hate Helping People?

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.”

Idiot of the Week: Reality is Racist

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:

CnKlBuJWEAA4r_v

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.

turds

An Open Letter to Gays and Trans Folks

As someone who exists somewhere on the Right-wing spectrum, I am often asked how I could be so homophobic, or hateful to trans folks. SJWs and other radical Leftists think that to be Right-wing means you hate (in no particular order) women, non-whites, gay people, trans people, poor people, and pretty much everyone on the planet. Of course, this doesn’t even pass the sniff test. If anyone on Earth perpetrates crimes against the aforementioned peoples, it certainly isn’t Conservative white guys.

Nonetheless, the perception remains. And worse, even those of a generally moderate or Left-wing persuasion who even listen respectfully to a Right-winger are denounced as hateful bigots. I know many moderately Left-wing people who are denounced just for talking to me. Especially if they are of the aforementioned demographics. Social Justice demands that each group stay on its assigned ideological reservation. They call it “staying in your lane”. Here is a classical example, sent to someone who is trans:

ClbQUwvVYAAu6K9

The SJW admits something fascinating here: they legitimately think they own people. In other words, they demand absolute compliance, a form of slavery. Original Reddit Post Here.

Now, an SJW might say something like this: ‘well, Dystopic, you are a Christian and so you hate gays and want to hurt them. You are transphobic because you are cisgender.’ The thing is, I have DJed for the gay community for most of my adult life. Not because I am particularly supportive of gays, mind you. But rather because I just don’t care enough to make an issue out of it.

SJWs think each individual is either an absolute ally, entirely with the preferred narrative in all respects, or they are a hateful enemy. Yet the vast majority of human beings (in the West, at least – the Islamic world may be a little different) just don’t care strongly one way or another. Are you gay? Good for you. Mind your own business, and I don’t care. I will neither praise you incessantly for your gayness, nor lob you off of a building for it. I think likewise of trans folk, or any number of other demographic groups. I have friends who are gay, even one or two who are trans (or at least perform in drag shows, anyway). Their gayness, or transness, or whatever you want to call it is irrelevant to me one way or the other, because they posses other characteristics that make them worthy of friendship.

Of course, such friends also know that I generally don’t want to hear about the graphic details of what they do at home, either. But, to be fair, I don’t want to hear about what my parents do behind closed doors either. Or anybody, really. It’s not necessarily a gay or straight thing so much as it is people these days often disclose more than they ought to about their sex lives. Generally speaking, I don’t want to know.

The problem, of course, is that SJWs categorically fail to mind their own business. The comic artist Patriarchie explains for us:

tumblr_nj6kkuwewl1u0r0dgo1_1280

Mind your own business and don’t act like an obnoxious asshole and most people won’t care what you do with your sex life.

Now, this is the part of the story where the SJW will assume that, because I am Christian, I must hate gays. No. For one, that’s not how it works. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Christian faiths knows that the idea is to hate the sin, not the sinner. Sinners are to be saved, if at all possible. But there is a valid point in that Christianity doesn’t look favorably on the practice. The Christian will not kill you for being gay, or think of you as less human for your gayness. But if you ask him if he personally approves of the practice, the answer will be no. If asked to participate in your explicitly gay activities, he may decline. Then again, he might act as I have, and be perfectly happy to DJ a gay club for reasons unrelated to your homosexuality.

In my case, the clubs I have spun for have treated me very well, enjoy my music, and have been very loyal to me over the years — even when opportunities existed to screw me over. The music business is a tough, competitive world, and loyal people are very hard to find. Whether they are gay or not is meaningless next to that (and to be fair, a good deal of my club business is still from straight clubs, also).

The point being, the worst a Christian will do is suggest that promoting the behavior at church isn’t a good idea and, perhaps, he may decline to bake a cake for your ceremonies. Big whoop. Why do you need his approval anyway? None of these things hurt you. A Muslim beheading gays, or shooting them in a club, is a very different matter from a man who doesn’t want to participate in your ceremony.

Yet SJWs demand this approval. They require that I step off from my largely neutral position, and bow before them, dedicating my life to the pursuit of whatever political goal they fancy. Anything less is hateful, they say. Everything is black and white with them, no middle ground, no grey exists.

However, the truth of the matter is far worse. For where I may care little one way or the other about your sexuality, I am at least honest about this neutrality. SJWs pretend to care for these groups, but then kick them to the curb and purge them as soon as their political use has expired.

Consider that many decades ago, the political Left was very enamored with white working class union workers. These were manufacturers, makers of widgets and things. They were typically lower middle class, not wealthy, and were thus the darling of a Left that concerned itself constantly with the plight of the workers. Today, you will find SJWs decrying these evil, hateful bigots. Rednecks and trailer trash, they will be called. SJWs will suggest that they are racist, sexist, homophobic, backward troglodytes and if someone killed them all (or at least prevented them from voting)… why wouldn’t that be dandy?

This was once a group as adored by the Left as Muslims are today.

Today, we are seeing the first indications that white gay men are being expelled from membership in the oppressed classes club. They are still white, you see, and cisgender. And white gay men tend to make more money than women, so they must be sexist, also. It was even suggested that gay men refusing to date women is, paradoxically, discriminatory. Sorry gay white men, you are being expelled, just as white working class men were once expelled, likewise. Trans folks, how soon before your white members are expelled from the club? Or, perhaps, it will be black men who are expelled next. You never can tell with them.

This should come as no surprise to anyone with sense. Support for mass Muslim immigration is incompatible with support for gays, trans folks, and a whole host of other demographics anyway. The obviousness of this is overlooked constantly. Blacks suffer more from illegal immigration stealing jobs than any other demographic. So how can the SJWs simultaneously support both groups? The political Left cannot cater to all of these separate groups without contradicting themselves. But they try, so long as a demographic is useful to them politically. Whenever the inherent contradictions assert themselves, they just blame white men, a convenient scapegoat and perpetual boogeyman.

The point is, they don’t really care about you. All of this rhetoric about oppressed classes is just a tool to make you a slave of their ideology. Like the screencap posted above, they literally believe that they own you. When I say I don’t care, I genuinely mean it. When they say they do care, they are lying.

Who, then, is truly hateful? I speak truth to you. They speak lies, in the tongues of legalese and plausible deniability. And when you are no longer useful to them, they will dispose of you, treating you just as they now treat me.

They claim to have fought and won rights for all the oppressed peoples of the world. But what have they done, truly? Was it illegal to be transgender before the SJWs came? No. Were gays lobbed off of buildings before the coming of Social Justice? Not in America. They may say that they have won for you the right to marry, but even this is, pardon the pun, a queer thing. You see, I long advocated that the government didn’t need to stick its hands in the marriage business in the first place. Why must I have the blessing of the State to marry?

No, many Conservatives and Libertarians would have been happy to expel the government from this thing, and let people do privately as they wished. Have a notarized and witnessed contract to handle matters of inheritance, property, contract termination, and who may decide for you life and death decisions at the hospital. The rest is a matter between individuals, family, God, or whomever you wish to involve.

This would have legalized gay marriage by default without requiring the tyrannical provision that others must participate against their will in the thing. They didn’t fight to grant gays the right to marry, they fought to expand the reach of the government into the lives of gays, where they already had such reach into the lives of straight people. Congratulations, SJWs subjected you to more government, then claimed this as victory.

SJWs might say, alternatively, that they have won acceptance for you. That now people are de facto forbidden from insulting you for your gayness, or transness, under penalty of denunciation, defriending, loss of job, etc… But is this a good thing? Those who don’t like what you do still don’t like what you do. You have not changed their minds through reasoned debate, you have merely forced silence upon them. Those who are neutral on the matter are still neutral on the matter. Indeed, the tyranny of SJWs forcing their opinions upon those who are not involved may have actually made enemies of some of those previously inclined to neutrality.

Consider this matter of trans folks and bathrooms. Previously, bathrooms were governed by a pretty reliable set of customs. If you were male, you went into one room. If female, you went into another. But small children were often exempted, and were customarily allowed to enter with either parent. Those individuals who might suffer rare genetic disorders (XXY or Intersex), or who were transgender, generally used the restroom which most closely corresponded to their appearance. This arrangement worked fine. If there was the occasional exception to the rule, well most people figured out how to get along anyway.

Oh, the occasional violent asshole might object. One of my friends related a story to me wherein he was at a biker bar in a bad part of town, as he was wont to frequent dive bars, and a very effeminate gay man wandered in. It was not a good place for an effeminate man of either orientation, but his gayness definitely did not serve him well in this place. When he went to use the bathroom, a trio of bikers went in after him. My friend knew well enough what that meant. He and a few others followed the bikers, and saved the gay man from a beat down.

But, answer me this SJWs, do you believe demanding special bathroom laws will prevent bikers in the bad part of town from acting this way? Or will your actions inflame them more, when the trans man, about to receive a beat down, states “but the law says I can go to the bathroom I want!” The fact is, as with anything, that the assholes who hate you are still going to hate you after such demands are made because your actions did not change their minds.

Meanwhile, my friend, an ex-bouncer, will readily defend a gay man under assault, not because he particularly likes them, but because he doesn’t think a man deserves to be beaten down just because he accidentally wandered into a bar full of assholes.

SJW demands are trivial. They change nothing. Every bit of progress they claim to have made is suspect. And you are not beholden to them for such marginal assistance, given grudgingly by a group of elitists using you to further their political agenda. They don’t own you. And they will betray you sooner or later. It’s what they do.

At least we are honest when we say that, while we don’t necessarily personally approve of all the things you do, we acknowledge you as human beings worthy of the same rights and responsibilities as any other of our countrymen. We don’t see you as political tools. And the people that truly hate you, those who want to harm you, are our enemies, also.

Don’t listen to the SJWs and other Regressives. Or, in a few decades, they will call you by the same names they now call me. You will be trailer trash to them. Scum. Bigots. Because they will have found a new class to pretend to agitate for, and you will be old news.

Meanwhile, us Right-wing folk will be in the same place we are today: “hey, I don’t really want to hear about your sex life, but if you need a friend, or maybe a good DJ… you let me know, okay?”

What is Treason?

Francis, over at Libery’s Torch, touches upon a very important topic in America, that frequently gets overlooked: treason. I will allow him to explain for us:

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.

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?

%d bloggers like this: