Category Archives: Commentary
The Harsh Dogma of Liberalism: Gays and Abortion.
If you want to prove you don’t hate gays, all you have to do is worship at their feet.
By Matt Walsh
I have never in my life encountered a religion as oppressive, cold, and stiff as Progressivism. I’ve never known a faith more eager to burn heretics at the stake. Even a fundamentalist Iranian Muslim would flinch if he came face to face with a western liberal’s rigid dogmatism. I imagine that even a Saudi Arabian Islamic cleric would take one look at how American left wingers react when anyone deviates ever so slightly from their established orthodoxy, and say to himself, “man, these people REALLY need to chill.”
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets, and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy. You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
Nothing less will be allowed…
So I suppose my point here is simple: if you aren’t willing to become a liberal, you might as well finally stand up and condemn it. There is no middle ground anymore. There never was to begin with, but even the illusion is fading. Either fight for life, family, and Truth, or else join the ranks of the nihilists and hedonists. The distinction between the two sides is not a murky no-man’s land colored in hues of gray; it is a stark and sudden line in the concrete. You are either for truth or you are not.
Either/or, black or white, right or wrong. Sorry, there are only two options, and you have to choose one. Progressivism says that you are either with it or against it, and on that point I agree.
Way back in the olden thymes, I hired a homosexual. Of course, this was the olden thymes so there was no mention of it. If anyone discovered a homosexual, they were required to report them to the authorities. The homosexual was then shipped off to one of the rehabilitation centers run by Pat Robertson. If that did not “take” then they were shipped to the lavender plantations in the South operated by Oral Roberts, ironically enough. As a result no one ever spoke of homosexuals in public or private. The subject was banned.
Ok, that’s nonsense, but not too far from the official narrative being developed by the usual suspects. The airbrushing of history with regards to this topic is not going to end until the past fits the fantasy. Anyway, in my case the guy was flaming, so it was obvious he preferred the company of men. That and he mentioned it in his interview. He wanted to make sure it was not going to be an issue. I told him he’d have to figure that out for himself, but as long as he did his job he’d have no issue with me.
That was the last time I had any reason to discuss the matter with him. Some of the guys gave him grief, but he was used to it and handled it without help from me. As is always the case, he fell into a role that suited him and everyone else. The point being that in the olden thymes, homosexuals had to put up with some mild inconveniences, but nothing significant. More important, normal people did not go crazy around them. Other than some mild discomfort, normal people got along just fine with homosexuals in their ranks. We were indifferent towards them.
Today, people all over the world are going insane over homosexuals. Throughout the Middle East and Africa, otherwise normal people are going berserk and attacking homosexuals. Uganda, for example, just passed harsh laws against homosexuality. They did it despite stern warnings from Obama, so you know they must have gone mad. Of course, we all know how countries in the Middle East have gone bonkers over this. Iran was driven to such madness as to bring back stoning.
OK, I’m kidding around again.
I wanted to check in on the sports world and I see this on ESPN. David Tyree is against gay marriage, like most everyone. Big deal. Why is this sports story? Every damned week the sporting press is running with a homosexual story. You just know they will make a fetish of Michael Sam this fall. They made fools of themselves hounding the gay basketball player last summer so you know they will go crazy over the football player. ESPN is the worst offender, but even sports radio can’t stop obsessing over the gays. There’s nowhere to hide from the constant chatter about homosexuals.
I’m all fagged out.
I want the love that dared not speak its name to go back to not speaking its name. Now it is the love that won’t shut the fuck up. You can’t escape it. If you watch TV, every show now must feature a homosexual, despite the fact only 3.4% of the population claim to be homosexual. There are more “little people” in this world than “trans” people, yet every newspaper in the country is running at least one tranny tale a week. If I were a midget, I’d feel like I was getting the short end…well…nevermind.
It is getting to the point where it is impossible to engage with popular culture. The preaching is unbearable. Preaching about homosexuals is even worse, given that no one, including most homosexuals, cares about homosexuals. Circling back (or reaching around if you prefer) to my story at the top, I remember a time when no one cared about the topic and they were generally decent enough to keep their feelings about it to themselves. Let’s go back to that.
But, that’s not how cultural genocide works. The lunatics give you two choices. One is you embrace their insane, ever shifting set of codes, or, else. ISIS is telling Iraqi Christians they must convert or die. The Greater American Lunatic is telling normals they must embrace and exult homosexuality or else. Well, nuts to that, as it were. I’ve had enough of the gays. I’m all fagged out and I don’t want to hear any more about the gays.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/
Posted on | July 23, 2014
“Can it be valid to conceptualize ‘girls’ as having certain personal attributes universally in common, except perhaps their youth relative to women? In grappling with this question, we need not to lose sight of the fact that, however different, girls’ actions are oriented toward the same or similarly structured objects that construct their bodies’ social meanings, values, and challenges as gendered. . . . Social rules and practices surrounding menarche construct gender as a principle both for division of labor and for compulsory heterosexuality, thus constituting girls in a relation of growing vulnerability to boys’ and men’s appropriation.” – Susan Laird, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” Philosophy of Education, 2002
“It has been the political policy of lesbian feminists to present ourselves publicly as persons who have chosen lesbian patterns of desire and sensuality. Whether as individuals we feel ourselves to have been born lesbians or to be lesbians by decision, we claim as morally and politically conscious agents a positive choice to go with it: to claim our lesbianism, to take full advantage of its advantages. This is central to our feminism: that women can know their own bodies and desires, interpret their own erotic currents, create and choose environments which encourage chosen changes in all these; and that a female eroticism that is independent of males and of masculinity is possible and can be chosen. We claim these things and fight in the world for all women’s liberty to live them without punishment and terror, believing also that if the world permits self-determined female eroticism, it will be a wholly different world.” – Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
Last week, I mentioned that the American Association of University Women (AAUW) is pushing to introduce “gender studies” to the high school curriculum, “creating innovative spaces for young people to engage in feminism and activism, equity, and social justice in today’s classrooms.” The symposium on this AAUW program featured Ileana Jiminez, a lesbian English teacher from New York. What this indicates is that the radical theories of feminist academics are ultimately destined for the K-12 classroom — and any parent who objects can expect to be condemned as a sexist homophobe.
Consider the phrase “compulsory heterosexuality.” This phrase entered the feminist lexicon via an influential 1980 essay by Adrienne Rich, “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence,” which I discussed at length in April. Rich’s essay, asserting that heterosexuality is not natural for women, but rather is imposed as a condition of male supremacy, has been widely anthologized and incorporated in Women’s Studies curricula.
The phrase turned up in a Google search I did, appearing as the title of a book chapter, “Compulsory Heterosexuality as Mis-education.” The author speaks of “the psychological damage inflicted [on gay adolescents] by years of bearing witness to, or experiencing, anti–lesbian and gay prejudice in countless forms”:
They are the product of a lifetime of learning in the hegemonic ideology of heterosexism. In practice, heterosexist ideology is instilled through numerous mechanisms. Family members initiate children into heterosexist ideology almost from birth, teaching acceptable gendered conduct as well as uneasiness with cross-gendered behaviors. This education is reinforced and expanded by religious institutions, peer groups, and the media . . . By the time children have reached first grade, they have already compiled a significant amount of data about what it means to be gay in a heterosexist society, even though much of what they have learned may well be incorrect, born of fear and prejudice rather than factual information. Schools are in a unique position to correct much of this misinformation at an early age before it ripens into anti–lesbian and gay prejudice and violence.
So, the public schools are to be enlisted to counteract this “fear and prejudice” of “heterosexist ideology”? What kind of lunatic gibberish is this, and who wrote it? This is from Rethinking Sexual Identity in Education, a 2004 book by Susan Birden, and it was originally her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education. Birden expressed her gratitude to her mentor:
While all my committee members have been engaged and helpful, I owe a life-long debt to my committee chair, Susan Laird, for she has been not only an advisor, but also a mentor of the highest caliber. A brilliant scholar, her expertise in guiding me through this entire doctoral process has been a testament to her great skill as an educator. From her comments on my first seminar entry, written some seven years ago, to her comments on the final draft of my dissertation, she has guided me through a maze of philosophic thought, nurturing my interests, pressing me to think more broadly, challenging me to think more specifically. Through it all she has demonstrated profound patience with my leaming, a committed focus and respect for my interests, accomplishing it all with the good humor of a “liver” of life. Susan Laird is both a fierce warrior and a kind soul.
Go read Birden’s dissertation, and you will find it is crammed full of quotes and citations from an all-star lineup of lesbian feminists — Mary Daly, Marilyn Frye, Janice Raymond, Charlotte Bunch, and on and on. Which brings us back to the question of exactly what the hell is going on in the University of Oklahoma’s College of Education, where Professor Susan Laird supervised this dissertation.
In addition to her position in the College of Education, Professor Laird has been a member of the faculty of the department of Women’s and Gender Studies since 1995. And her 2002 journal article, “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice,” is worth careful study. This eight-page article has 33 footnotes and cites numerous lesbian feminists, including Audre Lorde, Janice Raymond, Judith Butler and Marilyn Frye, the latter an author whose works I’ve quoted as examples of the anti-male/anti-heterosexual themes that have become commonplace in academic feminism.
“Fucking is a large part of how females are kept subordinated to males. It is a ritual enactment of that subordination which constantly reaffirms the fact of subordination and habituates both men and women to it, both in body and in imagination.” –- Marilyn Frye, Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory (1983)
“Men have been creating ideologies and political practices which naturalize female heterosexuality continuously in every culture since the dawns of the patriarchies. . . . Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction . . . Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices.” – Marilyn Frye, Willful Virgin: Essays in Feminism, 1976-1992 (1992)
Professor Laird cited Frye (although not these passages) in her 2002 Philosophy of Education article about “befriending girls,” an article which begins by relating the plot of a novel in which the young female protagonist “responds . . . with shock upon discovering this teacher who so generously befriended her is lesbian, but feels a new compassion that challenges [her] to unlearn her own heterosexism.” Did I mention that Professor Laird teaches in the College of Education, and that the title of that article is “Befriending Girls as an Educational Life-Practice”?
Yeah, Oklahoma, OK.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
The Cult of Leftism has many tenets,
and it demands full compliance with all of them, but nothing in its creed compares to the sanctity of their two great sacraments: child murder and sodomy.
You must not question these, but tolerance alone will not be good enough. You must celebrate them, too. You must worship at their altar. You must sing hallelujah at the mention of their names. You must fight for a society where infanticide and gay sex are awarded a protected and privileged position. When a man decides to kill babies for a living, you must call him a ‘health care provider’ and a ‘healer.’ When a man decides to announce to the world that he enjoys sex with other men, you must call him a ‘hero’ and a ‘pioneer.’ You must quite literally give him awards for his courage.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The nation thundered no. And Congress sustained the nation.
Indeed, with the massive media coverage of the crisis on the border, immigration, legal and illegal, and what it portends for our future, could become the decisive issue of 2014 and 2016.
But it needs to be put in a larger context. For this issue is about more than whether the Chamber of Commerce gets amnesty for its members who have been exploiting cheap illegal labor.
The real issue: Will America remain one nation, or are we are on the road to Balkanization and the breakup of America into ethnic enclaves? For, as Ronald Reagan said, a nation that cannot control its borders isn’t really a nation anymore.
In Federalist No. 2, John Jay wrote,
“Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs … “
He called Americans a “band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties.” The republic of the founders for whom Jay spoke did not give a fig for diversity. They cherished our unity, commonality, and sameness of ancestry, culture, faith and traditions.
We were not a nation of immigrants in 1789.
They came later…
Read it all at: http://www.vdare.com/articles/immigration-is-destroying-america
In our modern age, things no longer exist to perform their function. Washing machines aren’t designed to clean clothes, but to save water and energy. Food isn’t there to be eaten, but not eaten. And armies aren’t there to win wars, but to be moral. And the truly moral army never fights a war. When it must fight a war, then it fights it as proportionately as possible, slowing down when it’s winning so that the enemy has a chance to catch up and inflict a completely proportional number of casualties on them.
Forget charging up a hill. Armies charge up the slippery slope of the moral high ground and they don’t try to capture it from the enemy, because that would be the surest way to lose the moral high ground, instead they claim the moral high ground by refusing to try and capture it, to establish their moral claim to the moral high ground, which they can’t have because they refuse to fight for it.
Israel has been engaged in a long drawn out struggle for the moral high ground. The moral high ground is to the modern Israeli what the land of Israel was to their pioneer ancestors who drained swamps, built roads and shot bandits. Then some of the bandits were discovered to be the oppressed peoples of the region, fresh from Syria or Jordan, who then got busy retroactively protesting the settlements built on that stretch of swamp that had been set aside in their revisionist history as belonging to their great-grandparents while dangling oversized house keys to the swamp.
Sadly the only way to win the moral high ground is by losing. Just look at the massive Arab armies who repeatedly invaded Israel, did their best to overwhelm it with the best Soviet iron that the frozen factories of the Ural could turn out, and lost the bid to drive the Jews into the sea, but won the moral high ground. Then their terrorist catspaws spent decades winning the moral high ground by hijacking airplanes full of civilians, murdering Olympic athletes and pushing old men in wheelchairs from the decks of cruise ships.
All these killing sprees accomplished absolutely nothing useful, aside from the killing of Jews, which to a certain sort of mind is a useful thing in and of itself, but that failure won the terrorist catspaws the moral high ground. Their failure to win a war by hijacking buses full of women and taking the children of a school hostage conclusively established their moral superiority and nobility of spirit.
The world was deeply moved when Arafat waddled up to the UN podium, with his gun, wearing a mismatched cotton rag on his head that would decades hence become the modish apparel of every third hipster standing in line with a can of 20 dollar fair trade Lima beans at Whole Foods, because his commitment to killing people in a failed cause that even he didn’t believe in, in exchange for money from his backers in the Muslim world showed his deep commitment to the moral high ground.
In the seventies, after Israel had won a few too many wars, Henry “Woodcutter” Kissinger, suggested that it lose a war to gain the sympathy of the world. Golda wasn’t too enthusiastic about the idea, but with the old woodcutter in charge of handing out the axes, there wasn’t much choice about it. Israel came close to being destroyed in ’73, but just when it might have won the sympathy of the world, its armies of young men dashing from synagogues into overcrowded taxis to get to the front lines, turned the tide. Israel won. The woodcutter of Washington lost and Israeli scrapyards filled up with piles of Soviet steel, which was good news for the big sweaty guys who ran them, but bad news for those pining for the lofty fjords of the moral high ground.
In ’91 the Israelis went nuclear and decided to beat Arafat at his own game. Rabin and Peres talked the old terrorist out of retirement and down to Washington D.C. where they surrendered to him in an official ceremony at the Rose Garden overseen by a beaming Bill Clinton. Finally Israel had won the moral high ground. And the United States had carved off a chunk of that delicious moral high ground, even though Clinton was forced to fidget in his chair at Oslo when his Nobel Peace Prize went to the greasy terrorist, though perhaps he should have considered that defeat to be another victory of the moral high ground.
But the moral high ground proved notoriously elusive for the Jewish State. There was a brief lull when it seemed that the original sin of kicking ass had been atoned for in the Rose Garden, but then the terrorists started killing Israelis again and the Israelis insisted on fighting back. In no time at all the moral high ground was roped off with a special reserved section for terrorists and a sign reading, “No Israelis Will Be Admitted Unless They Renounce Their Government, Zionism and the Right of Self-Defense.”
Peace was the last best hope of the new Israeli Hatikvah, not to be a free people in their own land, but to be a moral people in a land that didn’t really belong to anyone in particular, but that they were optimistic everyone could live in harmony in.
But peace with terrorists meant not fighting back and there was a limit to what the 70 percent of the country that didn’t go to sleep fantasizing about peace would accept in the name of peace.
And so, terrorists killed Israelis, Israelis killed terrorists, that part of the world located in an ugly modernist building overlooking Turtle Bay, which the turtles would like to have back, condemned Israel and demanded that it resolve things peacefully by surrendering more land to the terrorists in order to build up their confidence in Israel’s commitment to a peaceful solution.
The terrorists were not expected to reciprocate and build up Israel’s confidence in their commitment to a peaceful solution because they already had the moral high ground by way of losing the last thirty engagements with the IDF, including the battle of the school they set up snipers in, the church they took over and the hospital that they used as an ammo dump.
The great quandary for Israeli leaders is how to win a war without losing the moral high ground. This is a tricky matter because it requires winning the war and winning the peace. And you can’t do both at the same time.
Israel’s solution has been to fight limited wars while remaining absolutely committed to peace. No sooner does a war begin, then it is pressed to accept a ceasefire. To show its commitment to peace, Israel is expected to accept the ceasefire. At which point Hamas will begin shooting rockets again and the whole dance will begin all over again. But Israel has trouble refusing a ceasefire because its leaders still believe that they can get at the moral high ground by showing that they are more committed to peace than the other side.
The peace is however unwinnable. It’s not even survivable in the long term. Peace either exists as a given condition or it is maintained by strong armies and ready deterrence. Peace cannot be found on the moral high ground, only the mountains of the graves of the dead.
Seeking the moral high ground is a fool’s quest. Wars cannot be fought without hurting someone and trumpeting your morality makes it all too easy for your enemies to charge you with hypocrisy. The man who spends the most time vociferously protesting that he isn’t a thief, that he has never touched a penny that belonged to anyone else and that he will swear on a floor-to-ceilling stack of bibles to that effect, looks far guiltier than the man who scowls and tells his accusers to mind their own business. The more Israel defends its own morality, the more it winds the chains of the accusers around its own neck.
Refining its warfighting with the object of fighting a truly moral war leads to refined techniques that kill terrorists but still cause some collateral damage, and to soldiers that are more afraid of shooting than of being shot at. And all this painstaking effort goes for naught since it really makes very little difference to Israel’s enemies whether they have one photo of a dead Muslim civilian to brandish or a thousand. Either one makes for the same manner of indictment. In aiming to win the peace, Israel instead, like all modern states, loses the war.
The father of an Israeli soldier told his son after he was called up for duty that he would rather visit him in prison than visit him in the cemetery. “If you are fired on, fire back.” That is good advice not just for that young man, but for his entire country, and for the civilized world. It is better to fire than be fired upon. It is better to be thought a criminal, than mourned in Holocaust museums. It is better to leave the moral high ground to those who worship the romance of endless bloodshed and defeat. It is better to lose the peace and win the war.
Ann Barnhardt Speaks Cold, Hard, Truth. The Kind We Should be Hearing from the Pulpit – But We Don’t.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
From American Power: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
I want to know where you live, Mark Zuckerberg
Like America, you’re rich. I don’t have a problem with that:
you earned your 30 billion dollars and the very nice house that you live in. But I want to know where you live – not just generally. I want the exact address. Because I want to put up flyers all around your neighborhood – and on the internet, so it can go all around the world – telling people that you don’t believe in borders, walls, locked doors or property rights. I want every homeless person in America – in fact, everyone in greater need than you – to know that they can come to your home, walk in the front door, hit the refrigerator and sit on the couch and watch your amazing home theater.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
5. So Valerie Jarrett, the black-hearted Iranian communist psychopath who is actually running the White House, tweeted this the other day in response to a picture of a picture frame with her picture in it that has little figurines of people bowing and worshiping in front of it:
Don’t worry friends, it was a gag gift. Us strong women don’t need worship — just an economy for the 21st century. #WomenSucceed
Yep. She really is that stupid. She used “Us” as a subject pronoun. This isn’t stylistic bad grammar as in item #1 above. Nope. You have allowed not just a conscienceless psychopathic Iranian communist fishwife and her gang of barely-mammalian hangers-on to overthrow your republic, but a conscienceless psychopathic Iranian communist fishwife who is also *teetering on the precipice of mental retardation* to overthrow your country. And you know what’s REALLY scary? Jarrett is, BY FAR, the brains in the Obama circle. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: These people have had the wild success they have had for one reason and one reason only. They are bold. They aren’t afraid. They are pro-active. Just like their father, satan. Compare that to “us”, who are timid, cowering, terrified of everyone and everything except God Almighty, and either convinced that “moderation” and “prevent defense” is the only way to go OR completely flaccid and supine. At least Hitler had a passing familiarity with the German language. What possible excuse will we have? None. Absolutely none.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
“Probable Cause” – Two words that allow law enforcement to do as they please. ZTW
1. Two hard boiled eggs, diced. A little mayo. A little sour cream (if you have it). Pinch of salt. Tablespoon of pickle relish. It’s the simple pleasures in life.
2. Paraphrasing a quote from Nicholas Cotoner, renowned as the father of the modern study of human anatomy: “It is essential to dissect the dead in order to heal the living.” Indeed. Pass the chainsaw, and lower your splash shields.
3. Yeah, it’s happening again. ZeroHedge has this up today. And I see that KD has picked it up, too. CYNK, a social media start-up (whatever that means) with one employee, no website, no revenue, no product, and no assets, is now booking a market cap of nearly FIVE BILLION DOLLARS. This is going to make the 2000 and 2008 crashes look like your sixth birthday party at McDonald’s.
4. So, yeah, in the interests of making sure everyone is arguing from TRUE premises and not FALSE premises, the whole Mexican border dissolution thing is 100% intentional and pre-planned. Saw it coming even before Obama officially usurped and the Republic was overthrown back in ’08. There are three main objectives achieved by this: 1.) Feed the Cloward-Piven overload and collapse of the FEDGOV by adding millions to the entitlement teat 2.) Expand the proletariat, which will agitate for and deliver more power to the oligarchy in return for empty promises of free shit 3.) Enable unfettered access to former-U.S. territory by musloids, with whom the Obama regime is saturated and explicitly allied with against Western Civilization. This is all exactly, precisely what they want and so therefore thinking that they are somehow embarrassed, ashamed or have any desire to “correct” or mitigate any of it is either dishonest to a gargantuan degree, or just flat stupid. You’re sitting around waiting for psychopathic arch-criminals who have taken over the largest economy and military in human history, and who are achieving absolutely every single one of their satanic goals with zero resistance, to slam on the brakes and voluntarily cease and desist because of an appeal to their conscience? Really? REALLY?
5. Yeah, I saw that bonehead Catholics are now working with the FEDGOV to traffic aliens into the country. Here’s what you have to understand. Most of the bishops today are stupid. I’m talking dumber than a bag of hair stupid. And, not surprisingly given that and given the Communist infiltration of the Church in the 20th century, most of them have Marxist leanings – even the so-called conservatives like Chaput in Philadelphia. Chaput agitated HARD for ObamaCare, even going so far as to force every parish in Denver to read a letter from him in which he declared healthcare a RIGHT. Rights come from God. Physical and service commodities are not rights, unless you subscribe to a materialist, Marxist worldview. But Ann, but Ann, I read Chaput’s book, “Render Unto Caesar”, and it wasn’t Marxist. Of course not. That’s because Chaput’s ghostwriter isn’t Marxist. She’s a very good Catholic lady, who delivered a fine book indeed to the Archbishop.
6. Oh, and yes, the “dumb” and “Marxist” labels apply fully to the Bishop of Rome, and Vicar of Christ, too. Francis is a Peronist-Fascist who is quite a dim bulb who has been built up from nothing by a fawning Marxist media – not at all unlike Obama. Listening to Progressive-Conservative (ProgCon) Catholics try to explain away the “Communists stole our (Christianity’s) flag” quote from last week is simultaneously amusing and nauseating. Communism, which reduces human beings to economic object/units, which it then slaughters by the millions, is just Christianity under a different “flag”, huh? I cannot put into words what an abomination and desecration of the memories of the millions of martyrs to Communism that statement is. The Communists who tortured Cardinal Mindszenty were not “closet Christians”. The torturers of the Romanian and Vietnamese Catholics were not “closet Christians”. Believe me, when I call Pope Francis stupid, it is from the bowels of charity, because the alternative is that he is malevolent, and for full disclosure, I bought an at-the-money call option on “malevolent” within minutes of his election.
7. Remember, Our Lord is angry with us. Very, very, very angry. And so, it is time for this again:
“The most evident mark of God’s anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people and is visiting His most dreadful wrath upon them.” –St. John Eudes
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
I’ve been sent this story a few times by friends who know my thoughts on gluten intolerance. I never thought it was real. Food allergies are real, but rare. When all of sudden half the population suddenly becomes allergic to bread, you should know it is hysterical bullshit. I know exactly one person with celiac disease. I know dozens of people claiming to be gluten intolerant. The fact that all of these people were eating bread with no problem until this fad came along is what the empirically minded call a clue.
That’s according to an academic study that effectively overturned the results of a previous one in 2011, which had served as evidence that non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a real condition, Real Clear Science reports.
Peter Gibson, a gastroenterology professor at Monash University in Australia, conducted the original study, but was not satisfied with its results.
So he and a group of researchers carried out a new one, giving 37 people with a declared gluten sensitivity and irritable bowel syndrome four separate diets. Participants were first fed a baseline diet that was low in FODMAPs (fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates) for two weeks.
The subjects then were blindly assigned one of three diets for a week: a high-gluten diet, which had 16 grams per day of added gluten; a low-gluten diet, which had two grams of gluten and 14 grams of whey protein per day; and a control diet, which had 16 grams of whey protein isolate per day, according to the study.
Subjects reported worsening gastrointestinal symptoms no matter which diet they consumed. Data from the study suggested a “nocebo” effect, similar to when people feel symptoms from Wi-Fi and wind turbines, Real Clear Science reported.
It should also be noted subjects reported feeling fewer gastrointestinal symptoms after eating the baseline diet, low-FODMAP diet, which includes many foods from which people abstain when taking on a gluten-free diet, such as breads, beer and pasta.
This reminds me of the peanut allergy hoax popular last decade. All of a sudden. 20% of the nation’s youth was allergic to nuts. Basic science said this could not be true, but parents convinced themselves their little snowflake was allergic. Then the kids got to the age where they could pick their own food and magically they were no longer allergic. I knew a woman who swore her kid was allergic until one day he came home munching a peanut candy of some sort. He did not die and she realized the nut problem was between her ears.
Of course, all of this is an off-shoot of the victim culture. Everyone is looking for a clever way to prove they are up against it. The greatest displays of public piety are those that involve the suffering of the pious. Instead of nailing themselves to the cross, bourgeois bohemian mothers pretend their otherwise mediocre offspring have an exotic disorder. That’s run its course, so now, in middle age, those same moms claim cupcakes give them the runs.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/
Kerry: ‘I’m Working Hard to … Have Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Ambassadors’
Wonderful. America is going to be represented abroad by a freak show.
The country is going to hell, sissified neocon Tamerlanes in panties bankrupt us with brainless wars they don´t understand, the schools make us an international joke, but the Secretary of State rushes to fill the consulates with sexual abnormalities. Washington begins to make a Weimar bordello look like Mormon Sunday school. I picture myself showing up at some embassy for an interview and being told, “The ambassador will be with you in a moment. Just now, he’s fucking a sheep.”
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Imagine if the most brilliant comedians in history were working today.
They’d never stop apologizing. Charlie Chaplin would have to apologize to all the homeless people he belittled with his Little Tramp character.
W.C. Fields and Dean Martin would both have to apologize to alcoholics. The Marx brothers would have to apologize to Italians, mutes and uptight British ladies. Comedy has been around for a long, long time, and there have been a lot of impolite, unpleasant and jaw-droppingly politically incorrect jokes. Blacks were shuffling slaves, Italians were gangsters, Jews were cheap, gays were queens, white people couldn’t dance and fat people didn’t have dignity. You went up there as a comic and joked about it all and nothing was off-limits. And to this day, nobody has died from a single joke.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
The country is merging with Mexico, as hard as it can.
It is an astonishing thing to do for no particular reason.
Nobody can quite explain why. At the highest level, it makes sense: We have a black president and attorney general who do not like white people, whom they believe to have mistreated blacks. What sweeter revenge than to turn their country a nice mahogany color? And businessmen want cheap labor. But to drastically changes the nature and prospects of what was the world’s leading nation so that McDonald’s can have its burgers flipped at lesser cost—here is a marvel new under the sun. Countries deserve what they tolerate, and this one will tolerate anything. Except freedom of association or expression, or civilized levels of schooling.
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Search for Religious Relevance (or How I Missed my First Anniversary)
Written by Nick B. Steves
In May of 1990, I was away from my wife on the first anniversary of our marriage. I had, or so it seemed at the time, more important things to do. A group of “leading men” from our little country church were traveling to Barrington, Illinois for a church growth conference at Willow Creek Community Church, which had been founded 15 years earlier by Bill Hybels. La Wik hints at the psychological roots of Willow Creek’s founding:
After 300 youth waited in line to be led to Christ in a service in May 1974, Hybels and other leaders began dreaming of forming a new church. They surveyed the community to find out why people weren’t coming to church. Common answers included: “church is boring”, “they’re always asking for money”, or “I don’t like being preached down to.” These answers shaped the group’s approach to the new church.
If you want to sell more product, then giving your customers what they want is bound to be a successful strategy. And if you’re selling Jesus, why let accidental aspects of Christianity get in the way of his essence? Our small, introverted, and pietistic Bible Fellowship church was about to undergo a massive transformation in the direction of seeker sensitivity. Twenty-four years later, the results of this transformation live on in one of the most hip and relevant churches Lynchburg, Virginia has to offer. And in the evangelical Mecca of Lynchburg, home of Liberty University, becoming that is no small achievement.
A Brief History
The search for relevance did not begin in 1974 with Bill Hybels and his fellow “youth group” leaders. Evangelical Christianity has never not been a search for relevance—a way of taking the Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, uncluttered by cultural baggage, directly to the people—often anti-intellectual, embarrassing, and decidedly unprogressive cultural baggage. There is a reason that the 95-year-old Billy Graham, confidant of many Presidents, remains one of most admired, well-respected figures down to this day, whereas the name “Bob Jones” is an epithet: He never let political controversy get in the way of the message of Jesus. Graham was an anti-communist when it was popular to be one, and he was a social justice warrior when it was popular to be one.
Another way to put that would be: Billy Graham never let the message of Jesus get in the way of political controversy. And if getting folks to “accept Jesus into their heart as personal Lord and Savior” really is tantamount to the Great Commission—Jesus final command to his disciples to go and teach all nations—then there’s not a thing in the world wrong with it: Jesus… with no strings, no Church, no culture, no normative practice attached.
Religion has been historically a cultural anchor. Yet the Evangelical form of Christianity denies this. Not really so much denies it, as it deems cultural anchorage as unimportant relative to the weight of carrying out the Great Commission. In simplifying the Gospel Message down to a core of propositions to believe, in making the process of conversion as simple as responding to an altar call and praying the Sinner’s Prayer “Just give me Jesus” is a profoundly invigorating principle for church growth. It is immediately and almost infinitely adaptable. If “Christian Rap” is going to fill the pews, so you can give them Jesus, why should some old fuddy-duddies stand in the way? If pews are too old-school, why not “do church” in a comfy movie theater instead?
The formula works. America is among the most “church-going” first world nations, and it leads the first world in moral and cultural bankruptcy.
About that cultural anchor…
Evangelicals and Mindedness
As Mark Knoll noted almost 20 years ago, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Knoll was wondering why Evangelicals contribute so little to intellectual scholarship and high culture and how his Evangelical brethren might turn that trend around.
I think the problem goes deeper than Mark Knoll wished to probe: There really isn’t much of a single, univocal Evangelical Mind. It isn’t that Evangelicals are stupid. It is that their system of religious thought doesn’t lead to many broader cultural implications. What clear implications does “leading people to accept Jesus into their heart and pray the sinners prayer” have upon the role of women in society? Upon traditional family structure? Upon free trade? College education? Suburban sprawl? Media Influence? Foreign Aid? Immigration? Support for Israel? Revolution in the Ukraine? The Role of Religion in Public Life?
“Just give me Jesus” is quite indifferent to all of those… “Just give me Jesus” doesn’t even very much care about what type of church you go to… so long as you go… to one that feels right… to you.
So the endless search for religious relevance in America has led to a prevailing religious expression described in 2005 by sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist as Moralistic Therapeutic Deism—a form of Christianity so devoid of normative content as to be indistinguishable from baptized narcissism.
Oprah Winfrey didn’t become a billionaire by building railroads or cornering the market on crude oil. And Bill Hybels and the host of mega-church pastors like him didn’t build their massive ministries by anchoring the Christian faith in traditional culture.
America is “deeply religious,” yet on-demand abortion and gay “marriage” are the (presumptively settled) Law of the Land. America fills her pews like no other nation on earth, yet the Overton Window glides ever leftward. And lest anyone think I’m picking only on Evangelicals, please understand that this tendency to strip the gospel message down to make it palatable for the broader culture has thoroughly infected the entire social order. Even non-religions like my local public radio station are getting in on the act. Making a message culturally relevant—whether that message be about Jesus or democracy or condom-use or toleration of sexual minorities—has become indistinguishable from plain old American cultural hegemony.
In spite of Evangelicalism’s low-brow status, we’re all Evangelicals now.
So how about that cultural anchor?
Let’s unwind this. That seeker-sensitive church growth ideas work is undeniable… for some values of “work”. But is that the work that Jesus intended the Church “Christian Community” to do when he gave the great commission? Or does “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” mean more than kneeling to pray the Sinners’ Prayer under the maudlin strains of Just As I Am? What is it exactly that we are to “teach all nations”: Be nice and feel good about ourselves?
How Things are Supposed to Work
The 800 pound (363 kg) gorilla in the room is that Christianity is supposed to affect the culture. Christianity admixes with genetics and environment and other memetic residues to produce certain kinds of culture. Islam, Buddhism, and Judaism produce different kinds. Everyone expects this. And what kind of culture is American Christianity producing today? One in which “Gay Marriage” can go from a funny joke to a self-evident sacred right in less than a generation. An entire generation of “Youth Pastors” is quite busy making Jesus look incredibly cool and could not be reached for comment.
Forgive me, but I don’t think that’s how Christianity is supposed to work for meaningful definitions of “work”. Well, why the hell not? The first reason is theological: Go ye therefore and teach all nations presumes a position of cultural superiority. Christianity is not just a propositional gloss that can be painted over an extant, formerly pagan culture, leaving it unchanged (except that now they’ll get to go to Heaven when they die). Certainly Christianity can add local customs to its own nature (cf. pagan winter solstice and spring equinox customs), but it cannot water down its universal call to repentance and holiness and kinship within the Church.
When it does, it ceases to be authentic Christianity. The relevance-minded Christians who imagine Jesus’ Great Commission as being about just getting people to pray certain prayers therefore sell the real gospel short. Conversion is a lifelong result of a lifelong commitment to a lifelong process. The signs of true spiritual conversion may be seen far more clearly in the reduction of various social pathologies than in the number of hands raised “with every head bowed and every eye closed”. Faith without works is dead.
The second reason I believe that Christianity drives culture is historical. Christianity came and changed the course of empires. Kings and princes and emperors once depended upon the Christian Church for their legitimacy. In return for the favor, secular rulers enforced Christian norms in their domains. For example, when the faith spread to England, cousin marriage soon died out and that nation experienced dramatic growth in well-being and collective power. Christianity played a crucial role in establishing science, the university system, modern economic and legal practices—virtually everything we associate with Christendom.
The End Whenever Christians try to make their religion hip and relevant to the wider culture, it reveals instantly a wider culture that wears the pants in the relationship. Christianity adopts the role of the supplicating special pleader. It is not a masculine Christianity. It reduces religious practice to a source of entertainment or therapy–at most a curiosity to place alongside all the accouterments of a life otherwise untouched by its life-giving, culture-bestowing essence. You might get attendance figures or increased donations, but you’ll never get a transformed culture. You’ve already given that up as unnecessary cultural baggage.
So the question really never was how to make religion relevant to culture, but how to make culture relevant to religion. If people cannot make themselves relevant to religion, then the problem lies with them… and, by the way, they know it. Whosoever is the coolest doesn’t need to qualify himself to others. If you are tempted to attend a church growth conference that conflicts with your first wedding anniversary, just say “No”. Please stay home and cherish the company of your wife instead.
The World is Batshit Crazy. Ad Absurdum. Boys aren’t Really Boys and Girls Aren’t Really Girls? These People need a Straight Jacket.
Slate is the MSNBS of online magazines, and, here is the latest outrageous outrage they have discovered. Beware Infant Gender Assignment!
Obstetricians, doctors, and midwives commit this procedure on infants every single day, in every single country. In reality, this treatment is performed almost universally without even asking for the parents’ consent, making this practice all the more insidious. It’s called infant gender assignment: When the doctor holds your child up to the harsh light of the delivery room, looks between its legs, and declares his opinion: It’s a boy or a girl, based on nothing more than a cursory assessment of your offspring’s genitals.
Declares his opinion? And you say this “opinion” is based on something as flimsy as genitals? SHOCKING! I mean, yes, in fact gender IS defined by genitals, just as writing for Slate is defined on absurdity. I am trying to conger up how the “evil” gender assignment goes. The doctor, holds up a child, peers at the genitals, and calmly calls the nurse over.
“Excuse me nurse, but this baby appears to have a penis, do you concur?”
“Why yes doctor, that looks like a penis to me”
“So, this baby then, must be a boy”
“Why yes doctor, yes”
See, this is OUTRAGEOUS! And thankfully, we have an outraged American to expose this shockingly shocking outrageously outrageous outrage! I know I am outraged! and we all should be. I mean think about where this might lead! The Slate piece continues
We tell our children, “You can be anything you want to be.” We say, “A girl can be a doctor, a boy can be a nurse,” but why in the first place must this person be a boy and that person be a girl? Your infant is an infant. Your baby knows nothing of dresses and ties, of makeup and aftershave, of the contemporary social implications of pink and blue. As a newborn, your child’s potential is limitless. The world is full of possibilities that every person deserves to be able to explore freely, receiving equal respect and human dignity while maximizing happiness through individual expression.
Wait, what? How dare this Slate writer call that infant an infant? Who the Hell are they to place that kind of label on that baby? I mean, yes, the fact IS that it is an infant, but facts do not matter. I mean, if a penis or vagina do not have anything to do with gender, then how does a baby actually being a baby mean anything either? But, this is important stuff, it MUST BE because only really important topics are covered in Slate right? Either that or this writer is as crazy as they come
With infant gender assignment, in a single moment your baby’s life is instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished—both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. That doctor (and the power structure behind him) plays a pivotal role in imposing those limits on helpless infants, without their consent, and without your informed consent as a parent. This issue deserves serious consideration by every parent, because no matter what gender identity your child ultimately adopts, infant gender assignment has effects that will last through their whole life.
See! Your child’s life will be RUINED, R-U-I-N-E-D RUINED if a doctor is allowed to say it is a boy, or it is a girl! Oh there are several layers of KRAZY here folks I mean this MUST be a hoax right? No one could possibly believe the absurdities uttered here right? I mean even Slate must no allow this level of KRAZY right? Wrong!
Why must we force this on kids at birth? What is achieved, besides reinforcing tradition? What could be the harm in letting a child wait to declare for themself who they are, once they’re old enough (which is generally believed to happen around age 2 or 3)?
What insanity is this? When was the last time you, as a parent, grandparent, or uncle as I a witnessed a 2 or 3-year-old “declare themselves”? I doubt anyone has, but what would it sound like? Let us think here.
Think of a family gathering. As the adults are drinking their coffees, here comes young Patrick, age 3. “Excuse me everyone” Patrick says, clinking a fork on a water glass. “I am glad I have you all hear, I have something I need to say. I am, in fact, a girl, or rather a woman, trapped in a little boy’s body. Yes, yes, I do have a penis, but do not label me because of that you genderist bastards! I am woman, hear me roar! So, I have a list of demands here, call them my Gender Justice List if you will.” I have more here, but you will have to wait for the book to be published. it is called “My fight for Gender Justice: How My Inner Vagina and I beat Genderism!”
Of course, that is a bit of absurdity to illustrate how
wrong, foolish, inane, insane, BATSHIT CRAZY this writer really is. Yes, Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From mm: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
1. Sautee a mess of onions until caramelized. Season with salt and white pepper. Add a mess of chopped, seeded, and (ideally) skinned, tomatoes. Let it simmer for a spell. Add enough beef or chicken stock such that the ‘maters can have a nice swim. Let it simmer for another spell. Whiz it until smooth in batches in a blender. Careful. It’s hot. Add the whizzed-up slurry back to the pot and dump in a bunch of heavy whipping cream. Add a fistful of chopped fresh basil. Heat it back up, season to taste with salt and white pepper, serve with a sprinkle of parmesan cheese.
Cooking without a precise recipe, as with the tomato soup above, builds character, self-reliance and the ability to think and act on one’s feet. To paraphrase the old saying: Instructions will not be provided. Neither will permission.
If you can’t make a darn tasty pot of soup out of tomatoes, onions and cream without dependence on a disembodied voice telling you what to do and how to do it down to the minutest detail, then you better check yourself.
Be a man. Quit’cher whining. Figure s*** out. Get s*** done.
2. More on food and “picky eaters” of various stripes, this time from Orwell in “The Road to Wigand Pier”, circa ARSH 1937:
For instance, I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say ‘whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian’. They [Socialists] take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person out of touch with common humanity.
Yup. Tru dat.
3. In case y’all poor, deluded folks who still think that there is hope for Washington D.C., specifically in the person of Ted Cruz, I’d like to go ahead and bust your little bubble – not that you won’t just blow a new one. But, here goes. Repeat this over and over again until you understand:
Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive. Ted Cruz’ wife, Heidi, is a Goldman Sachs executive.
A position to which she ascended immediately after coming out of the Bush-Cheney White House, specifically a seat on the National Security Council. The same Goldman Sachs that is carrying over $48 TRILLION in derivatives exposure against an asset base of $89 Billion – levered up by a factor of over 500X. She VOLUNTARILY associates herself with this.
No, I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure Ted Cruz is DIFFERENT. I’m sure that the fact his wife is a Goldman Sachs executive has NO BEARING ON ANYTHING, and that he is as pure as the wind-driven snow. Youbetcha. EYEROLL.
3A.) In review, The Barnhardt Axiom:
Today, seeking and/or holding office, especially national-level office, is, in and of itself, proof that a given person is psychologically and morally unfit to hold public office.
4.) Yes. I saw that Nancy Pelosi “instructed” the Archbishop of San Francisco to NOT attend a pro-marriage march. The archbishop declined to accept her instruction, but he’s no hero. The fact that Pelosi has not been publicly excommunicated is a testament to how truly far-gone the episcopacy, and most especially the post-American episcopacy is.
This action of Pelosi (and the rest of the oligarchy) now openly attempting to command and intimidate prelates is YET ANOTHER analogue to the actions of the satanic proto-Marxist French Revolutionaries which I covered in my video presentation on the genocide in the Vendee region of France and its analogues to the current kleptarchical regime now ruling the former-U.S. landmass. I cannot name ONE bishop in the U.S. who I am confident will stand firm against these people. Not one. There has not been a single excommunication. There has not been a single denial of Holy Communion. Even conservatives, like Bishop Conley of Lincoln, NE, were immediately pushing the it’s okay if you capitulate, as long as you don’t LIKE it and do it under protest meme. (I would link to the Denver Catholic Register column from August of ARSH 2012, but it has been scrubbed from the ArchDen.org website.) UPDATE: A clever reader found the reprint at CNA. Bishop Conley outlines the “compliance under duress” option. Give me a break.
5.) And, in a related vein, Cardinal Timmy Dolan, who is an unmitigated jackass, has indeed slated for closing the THRIVING Holy Innocents parish in midtown Manhattan (fabulously located just off Times Square at West 37th and Broadway). This, after Dolan forcibly expelled a South African priest who DARED give a sermon at Holy Innocents in which he simply exhorted the congregants there to not view themselves as an underclass within the Church or allow others to paint them as such because they love the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered as it had been, with reverence, beauty and solemnity, up until ARSH 1968.
Dolan HATES, HATES, HATES the Mass of The Ages and all those who love it. Why? Well, see HERE for an explanation of that. Dolan is, most assuredly, one of those “cool kids who don’t actually believe any of that shit”, and like Judas Iscariot after the Eucharistic Discourse, is embarrassed by it to the point of sputtering, red-faced rage. How can I say that? Oh, I dunno. Maybe because Dolan can’t grovel to the satanic political class with any more boot-licking gusto?
Look at ME! I’m POPULAR! I hang out with FAMOUS PEOPLE! Evil, schmeval! Hell, schmell! Church, shmurch! Eucharist, schmucharist! God, schmod! Me, me, me. me, me, me, me MEEEEE!!!
Maybe because Dolan not just tolerates, but openly supports and encourages Masses that CELEBRATE THE SIN OF SODOMY at St. Francis Xavier parish across town? At 5:35 Dolan cheers the introduction of a group of unrepentant sodomites. Don’t kid yourselves. UNREPENTANT. Because, you know, PRIDE. BRAVO. GOOD FOR YOU, and all that.
If you click over to their parish website, right this second the top headline reads “Upcoming LGBTQ Events”, the first of which is a “Pride Mass”. As in “we are PROUD that we insert our erect penises into the feces-laden descending colons of other men, and then use said descending colons as the point of masturbatory friction.” I’ll spare us all the lesbian version of that. Or, stated another way, “we are PROUD to commit one of the four sins that cry out to heaven for God’s vengeance and thus we are PROUD to scourge and nail Jesus Christ to the Cross, are not the least bit sorry, enjoy it, and define ourselves by the fact we enjoy it, are not only entitled to do so but demand that you approve, and actively encourage and recruit others to do so with us.”
St. Francis Xavier parish has Masses in which wicca rituals are inserted into the Mass at the urging of LESBIAN WITCHES. I have readers who have EYEWITNESSED THIS on multiple occasions. Also, St. Francis Xavier parish openly encourages and facilitates within the church building itself, the practice of BUDDHISM. Buddhism denies not only the existence of God, but the existence of reality (which is the same thing, really). It is diametrically opposed to God and His Holy Church. So, yeah. THIS CRAP goes on in NYC with Dolan’s ENTHUSIASTIC support, but the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered as it had been for centuries upon centuries upon centuries MUST BE ELIMINATED according to Dolan. Oh, don’t be fooled by Dolan. He will continue to sell out God Almighty and His Holy Church for a tinker’s dam. When the cameras aren’t on, you either play ball with the “Timmy Dolan: Superstar” project or Dolan will END YOU. Although, I cannot understand how anyone could be fooled by him, because the guy is so transparently phony, his mannerisms, faux-hyper-sincerity and “aw shucks” demeanor so utterly rehearsed, and is so clearly a self-aggrandizing, sleazoid politician – but, apparently many are.
6.) False premise check. Obama is never going to be impeached because the government of the former-U.S. was overthrown years ago, and thus even if they wanted to impeach him (which they don’ t – there’s another false premise), since the Constitution and Rule of Law itself is no longer in force, there will be no impeachment, much less a conviction. Like I said, every 36 hours or so you are given a new vector for your “outrage”. When I wrote that piece it was the VA scandal. Hey? Remember that? Seems like ancient history already, huh? Yup. Because in just that short time, you have consumed the outrage porn of Bergdahl (over that already, too) and have now moved on to the capture of Iraq by the ISIS (aka Muslim Brotherhood) … oh, but wait. That’s old outrage porn now, too. NOW we’re on to the IRS “losing” those emails….
7.) Hey! Let’s blow another false premise! The IRS didn’t lose anything. They have everything, are lying without compunction or shame, everyone knows they are lying, and there will be no disclosure of any of these emails because they don’t have to do shit and they know it. There is no Rule of Law. All there is is thuggery. The IRS is an operational arm of the regime that has overthrown the United States, specializing in intimidation and enforcement. Thinking the IRS will hand over anything to Congress is like expecting Rudolf Hess and Hermann Goering to hand over correspondence with Hitler in the summer of ’43 to the Vichy French. You know. Because we suspect there may be some *untoward and possibly illegal* activity going on here. Give me a break. Listen to yourselves.
8.) Let’s do one more! The Obama regime WANTS the ISIS (aka the Muslim Brotherhood) to overthrow governments and reform the islamic Caliphate. Obama hasn’t “lost” Iraq due to incompetence. THIS WAS THE OBJECTIVE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
9.) I’m on a roll, now! The Obama regime HATES Christians, Christianity and primordially God Himself because the Obama regime is PURE EVIL, and thus not only is it unmoved by the genocide of Christians by the ISIS (Muslim Brotherhood), it is HAPPY that Christians are being wiped out. They’re not going to do anything to stop it because they WANT Christians exterminated on general principle.
10.) I can’t stop! The Obama regime has had as a specific objective the dissolving of the U.S.-Mexico border and the ensuing chaos. Remember Operation Fast & Furious, the ARMING OF THE MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS? I’ll repost the piece I wrote on July 30, ARSH 2011 on this tomorrow. It’s creepily uncanny. Here’s a snippet of the seven objectives I outlined three years ago that would be accomplished by Obama dissolving the U.S.-Mexico border:
So, we would have:
1. Completely open borders 2. MILLIONS of refugees streaming into the U.S. 3. Global insistence that the U.S. accept these refugees 4. Instant de facto amnesty for both pre-Zeta and post-Zeta Mexicans in the U.S. 5. Obama cast as savior of these Mexican refugees 6. Millions of new welfare-dependent Obama voters 7. A lawless Mexico, wide-open to unlimited muslim and Chinese staging
11.) One more? Oh, okay. The Obama regime WANTS oil prices to surge, thus crippling the economy even worse than has already been done, thus driving more people out of work and presumably onto the government teat. Why? Because the Cloward-Piven strategy, the execution of which we are now squarely, undeniably in the throes of, dictates that the only way to fully collapse the power structure of the former United States and establish an open, Marxist tyranny is to consciously overload the government from within with welfare and entitlements, drive the populace into poverty, use the resulting orchestrated poverty to “prove” the failure of free market capitalism, and then use the useful idiots and media to agitate the unwashed masses until they demand their own enslavement in exchange for a mess of pottage, and perhaps a tepid, albeit lying assurance that they will be killed last. And so shall it be.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/2014/06/18/tomato-soup/
. In a ruling Wednesday morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancelled six federal trademarks for the name of the Washington Redskins.
Currently, federal trademark law does not allow the registration of any names that bring individuals or groups into contempt or disrepute. The PTO cited this rule in their decision regarding the Redskins’ name.
Here are twelve other trademarked names that apparently didn’t come up on anyone’s offense radar.
Figgas over Niggas: This pending trademark seeks to cover a line of “Apparel for dancers, namely, tee shirts, sweatshirts, pants, leggings, shorts and jackets.” “Niggas,” of course, is a slang version of the word “nigger,” a term considered highly offensive towards black Americans.
Kraut Kap: Another recently-filed trademark, this one for a line of plastic lids. “Kraut” was made famous in World War II as a derogatory term for opposing German soldiers, as well as Germans in general.
Dago Swagg: A label created for a line of clothing. ”Dago” is a corruption of the common name Diego, and is used in English-speaking countries as an offensive term for those of Italian descent, and occasionally people from other Mediterranean countries as well.
Cracka Azz Skateboards: Unsurprisingly, this trademark was taken out for a line of skateboards and longboards, as well as associated clothing such as bandannas. While the USPTO helpfully notes that “The wording ‘cracka azz’ has no meaning in a foreign language,” “cracka” is a slang version of “cracker,” which in this context is a term of derision for whites, used primarily within the black community.
You Can’t Make A Housewife Out Of A Whore: This trademark for T-shirts and hats appears to imply that women involved in prostitution can never transition into the domestic role of a housewife. Such an accusation would certainly “bring them into contempt or disrepute,” the stated reasoning for eliminating the Redskins trademark.
Blanco Basura: A seemingly innocuous phrase, Blanco Basura, rendered into English, is actually the highly offensive slur “white trash.” White trash is a derogatory insult that typically refers to poor, white Americans, who have a penchant for crime and a patent disrespect for authority. Apparently, they thought they could go unnoticed designing a hateful beer.
Home Cookin Biscuit Head: Intentionality, as we well know, is not required in order for something to be highly, highly offensive. They should’ve done their due diligence before designing this logo for the restaurant industry. The term “biscuit head” has its origins in the Korean War, when American GIs picked this unseemly term to describe the shape of Koreans’ heads.
‘teensdoporn.com’: This is a classic example (Safe For Work) of a harmful stereotype used to justify condescension toward teens in the form of countless hours of sex-ed in high school. It wrongfully supposes that all teens are sex-crazed maniacs, who given the chance, will opt for trading their sexuality on a website for fame and fortune.
Gypsy Soule Women Who Live By Their Own Rules: This line of makeup containers and tote bags is a double whammy. “Gypsy” is a term for the itinerant Romani people that derives from the erroneous belief they originated from Egypt, rather than India. In addition, the “Live by their own rules” component hearkens to the common stereotype that Romani routinely ignore the law and engage in criminality.
Mammy Jamia’s: A company going by the name of A & S Cairns Limited has decided to attach its good name to an antebellum slur used to refer to an enslaved black woman who was in charge of household affairs, particularly caring for white children. The product? Frozen fruits and vegetables. Was it really worth it, A &S?
Uppity Negro: Intended to be imprinted on mugs and apparel, this trademark references the frequently used adjective “uppity” to describe blacks who agitated for greater respect and civil rights in the Jim Crow-era South.
All Natural My Dadz Nutz Carmelized Jumbo Redskins: Available at MyDadzNutz.com, this line of savory peanuts is unlikely to run into trouble for applying “redskin” to a line of peanuts. One might argue the two terms describe different things, and so the overlap does not matter, but that hasn’t stopped the old name for Brazil nuts from fading away. Kaffir limes, meanwhile, are a discouraged name in the Oxford Companion to Food, as “kaffir” is a highly offensive term for blacks in South Africa.
Found at TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Nixon in Black Face
This is the flashing red headline on Drudge this morning. First we were told there was a mysterious glitch in the IRS network that resulted in the loss of only the e-mails under subpoena. Now we are being told that the IRS is the only organization on the planet that does not backup its e-mail system. Instead, they rely on users to take care of that on their own, along with securing their own government issued laptops.
Even I’m starting to get insulted by the lies.
For those of you too young to remember, we ran a president out of town a long time ago for these sorts of things. This is from the articles of impeachment for Mr. Nixon, way back in the disco era.
Article #2 Section #1:
He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Then we have this:
He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
The whole sorry episode has been washed down the drain of history, but the IRS stuff was probably the most outrageous at the time. The Watergate break-in was a big deal, but it was clear Nixon did not know about it before it happened. It was not all that clear he knew about it before it became a big deal in he press. It is where we get the expression, “It is not the crime, it is the cover-up.”
At the time, the stuff that truly offended the people as well as the political class was the potential misuse of the IRS and FBI. I say “potential” because it is not all that clear Nixon ever ordered anything of the sort. It is less clear that anyone else seriously tried to use the IRS as a political weapon. We now know that the FBI was corrupt in ways independent of Nixon so that’s a different story. Hoover created a monster that has never truly been tamed.
The FBI had been out of control for decades, but the IRS appears to have been fairly clean. You’re always going to have some level of corruption. When you’re dealing with sensitive data like taxes, petty abuse is inevitable. What led to including the IRS in the articles of impeachment was the mere suggestion of using the IRS for political purposes. The worst you can say about Nixon and the IRS is he would have abused it if it were a different organization.
That’s what makes this story so outrageous. This administration appears to have turned the IRS into an organization that can and was used as a political weapon. In other words, Team Obama went well past anything Nixon imagined. They have corrupted a government agency that was resistant to the Nixon people. Nixon’s corruption meter may have been pegged at ten, but Obama’s goes to eleven.
What this should do, but most likely won’t, is throw cold water on Conservative Inc and their fantasies about the Left. For decades the Left held Nixon up as the poster child for bad government. Today, they are defending a guy who makes Nixon look like a Boy Scout. These are not people who are merely mistaken. They are not people with whom you can have honest dealings. These are not men of principle. The best you can say about them is they are mendacious, cynical opportunist. In reality, they are religious fanatics. Pretending otherwise is suicide.
Pardon me for not being optimistic about where we are heading as a nation.
From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=2069
“Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.” — AD, 2003
[Originally published @ American Digest in it's first year, October, 2003 ]
Sections of “The First Terrorist War”
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. 2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom 3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose 4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction 5. The War of Two Religions 6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines 7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War
“[Arabs] were incorrigibly children of the idea, feckless and colour-blind, to whom body and spirit were for ever and inevitably opposed. Their mind was strange and dark, full of depressions and exaltations, lacking in rule, but with more of ardour and more fertile in belief than any other in the world. They were a people of starts, for whom the abstract was the strongest motive, the process of infinite courage and variety, and the end nothing. They were as unstable as water, and like water would perhaps finally prevail.” — T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
1. Calling the War By the Right Name. In a war, “Know your enemy” is one of the first axioms in formulating a strategy for victory. It is an axiom the United States has ignored for over
two seven years. Instead we’ve seen a host of euphemisms and slogans thrown up in the belief that, having had many decades of a life where ugly things are given pretty or neutral names, Americans can no longer “bear very much reality.” In the years between September 2001 and today, the public has had little asked of it and seen nothing happen on our soil that alarms it. All is quiet on the western front. [Update April 2013. This is no longer true.]
Foggy thinking, attractive in politics, means defeat in war. War requires “a mind of winter;” a mind that is precise, cold, and unrelenting. War requires that we call things what they are and cease to skirt issues that make us, “uncomfortable.” Vague names create fluffy policies, hamstrung strategies, and wishful thinking. This is where we are drifting.
To say we are “involved” in a “war on terror” extends our infatuation with euphemism and obfuscation into dangerous territory. The phrase lulls us into a state where all dangers seem unclear and distant. The “war on terror” joins an expanding list of “wars on…” such as drugs, poverty, or profuse paperwork in government. The “war on terror” implies a “process” rather than a campaign; an indeterminate series of unresolved encounters rather than decisive actions that lead to an end, to peace.
Peace is the goal of war. To accept a perpetual “war on terror” is to accept a plan for mere “management” rather than victory. The failure to plan for victory is the construction of a plan for defeat.
To those with a clear vision of this war and a knowledge of history, it is a lie that we are “involved in a war on terror.” Our presidents, pundits and policy wonks may prefer it that way, but war is not the same as being “involved in a business slump” or “involved in a troubled relationship.”
Wishful souls in the West may see the war as a “process;” as an exercise in supply chain management. Our many millions of avowed enemies do not. Our enemies have no truck with vague thinking and phrases front-loaded with vacillation and pusillanimous wishing. Their thinking is driven by an ancient religious doctrine designed to manipulate, exploit and harness societies into servitude.
Our enemies commitment to our destruction is adamantine. It is no accident that many of their spiritual leaders speaking from the centers of their faith call for the death of the “Crusaders.” Obfuscation has no place in their plans except as if creates confusion and doubt among us. Our enemies’ goals are the same goals they have held for more than 500 years. They are the goals announced several times a week in tens of thousands of mosques throughout the world. For our enemies, the wars of the Crusades and the wars surrounding the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire were merely prologues to this war.
One such wave (and not the least) I raised and rolled before the breath of an idea, till it reached its crest, and toppled over and fell at Damascus. The wash of that wave, thrown back by the resistance of vested things, will provide the matter of the following wave, when in fullness of time the sea shall be raised once more.” – T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Our present reality, brought home to us in the cataclysm of September 11 (and last week in Mumbai), is that we are now fighting The First Terrorist War. We had best know it by that name. When we persist in calling it the “war on terror” our implied goal is control and containment; a “management problem”. This is a lethal illusion.
In war the only acceptable outcome is complete victory. A negotiation does not end a war – - as Oslo shows. A partition does not end a war – - as we learned in Vietnam. A cease-fire does not end a war — as we saw in the Gulf War. The Cold War taught us that a wall does not end a war. Only victory, clear and decisive, ends war and creates peace. To date, we have failed to learn this lesson. In life, when a lesson is not learned, it is repeated.
In war, language is a strategic asset. Indeed, we see daily how language,here and abroad, is used to weaken the resolve of the United States. The central problem in calling The First Terrorist War the “war on terror’ is that the phrase soothes us into accepting less than victory; makes us accept war-without-end as a new deal; a new normality where terror is accepted as the status quo. This is the state in which Israel has existed for decades as terrorist violence becomes the scrim screen against which that nation’s life lurches on. Although our present foreign policy may impose this on Israel, a garrison state may, over time, prove less popular here at home. We are not yet the kind of country that easily accepts “The Forever War.”
2. Not Process But Victory Restores Freedom An open-ended “war on terror,” like a ‘war on drugs” invites a continuing erosion of small liberties. As this persists, once rare infringements on liberty become the norm. If it is to be the case that the shoes of all air travelers are to be inspected from now until the last ding-dong of doom, we will all be wearing sandals on airlines for the rest of our days. In this, many are correct to be wary of the long term effects of The Patriot Act. Short of military conquest, a free society does not lose its freedom. Rather, freedom is lost through small infringements on liberty and dignity in the name of security. A perfectly safe state is a state without freedom. As our policies look to sustain rather than defeat our enemies, we are to that degree held hostage to both our policies and our enemies. When war is reduced to a process, that process becomes a self-renewing system in the same way that the “war on drugs” has become institutionalized in our lives; a normal part of the background noise that defines our days. A strategy based on “management,” on diplomacy rather than victory, leads only to the establishment of internal organizations dedicated to their own perpetuation.
During the Civil War and the World Wars of the last century certain freedoms were, at times, curtailed, infringed or suspended. Following victory in 1945 these freedoms not only returned but even greater states of equality and liberty emerged. Had the Second World War ended in a negotiated stand-off at the Rhine and Okinawa, a state of war would have continued for an unknowable time and, in such a state, a less-free United States would have been a certainty. Only the destruction of the Axis powers yielded a peace out of which freedom surged, not only in America but in the lands of her former enemies as well. Victory yields freedom in peace. An armed process yields only stasis.
3. Playing for Time is Playing to Lose Our enemies (many of whom have studied and lived or now live among us) know us better than we are prepared to know either them or ourselves. In order to reform, rearm and launch future attacks they depend upon our belief that we are effectively managing the “war on terror.” At the same time they know that, absent any large attacks, we will grow weary with small but constant losses tallied daily by our “caring and sensitive” media. They depend upon us being lulled back into the state of slumber we enjoyed on September 10th. And we grant their wishes. If they are as wise as they are ruthless, our enemies will continue with their strategies of constant attrition and small, distant attacks. They will, for the present, avoid large shocks to the nation in hopes that the ambitions of our political factions and the intellectual lassitude of our major media will result in the defeat of the present administration in the coming elections.[Check... ] The goal of this strategy is the expectation of a more somnambulant administration less invested in war and more inclined towards the failed policies of appeasement, negotiation and payoff. [... and double check.]
When that happens our present “war on terror” will become even softer; will be said sotto voce if said at all. It will be supplanted by something resembling “a diplomatic initiative to ameliorate terrorism.” In effect we shall find ourselves, as we have so often in the past under liberal guidance, trying to buy out way out of the “war on terror.” Our error will be believing that we are dealing with reasonable extortionists rather than blood enemies. And the measure of our leaders’ cowardice will be how deeply they promote this belief and the false hope it engenders.
4. The Goal of Radical Islam is Our Destruction The consequences of a political and military stand-down would be to allow our enemies the time, basing and mobility to grow in numbers, advance in training, achieve greater tactical position within and about our borders, and acquire ever more sophisticated and powerful weapons. Once they have advanced to the next level of lethality they will strike us again with an effect on our lives, liberties, property and economy more extreme than 9/11. The goals of the Radical Islamic forces arrayed against us are the same as their factotums, the Palestinians, have for Israel. In the jihad against Israel we can see what the Islamic forces have in mind for us: the complete destruction of our systems, the occupation of our land, the usurpation of our government, and the death or conversion of all our citizens. These are the goals of Radical Islam as understood by their fundamentalists and as tolerated by the vast majority of believers.
Much has been written about these goals. Most of our scholars conclude they are only fantasies. A nuclear weapon detonated in Seattle does not care if a fantasy set it off.
Whether the goals of Radical Islam can be achieved is a matter for history to determine. It is the belief that they can be achieved that brings the First Terrorist War upon us. To the extent that we fail to recognize the intensity and commitment of our enemies in this war; to the extent we fail to match their passion for our destruction with our passion for victory; to the extent we cast our lot with our “process” as they cast their lot with their god, we weaken our ability to decisively defeat them.
Ours is a “war on terror” while theirs is a “Jihad.” Our efforts are a process. Theirs are directed by divine mandate. Whether you are of a secular or religious persuasion, it is well to remember that if you go to war you’d best have God on your side.
It is time to put away the feeble designation of our actions as the “war on terror” for it is not “terror” that shooting wars engage. Wars engage combatants, armies, populations, institutions, nations and religions. It is unpopular, almost unsayable, to designate the First Terrorist War as a religious war, yet all serious people know that this is the case and that this, in the end, is what it shall come to.
5. The War of Two Religions Through the violent attacks of a Radical Islam, two religions have been brought into conflict. The first is that of Islam, a faith that at its core requires absolute submission from its adherents, and looks towards the subjugation of the world as its ultimate apotheosis. As the youngest of the monotheistic religions, Islam is at a point in its development that Christianity passed through centuries ago. And it is not with Christianity that Islam is currently at war. Islam is saving that for the mopping up phase of its current campaign. The religion that Islam has engaged is a much younger one, the religion of Freedom. As a religion Freedom has been gaining converts since the success of the American Revolution enabled it to go forth and be preached to the world. Freedom is easily the most popular of the new religions and historically converts nearly 100% of all populations in which it is allowed to take firm root. This is the religion which we have lately brought to Iraq.
The genius of the religion of Freedom is that it allows all other religions, from the venerable to the trivial, to exist without fear of censure or destruction. Indeed, the only thing that the religion of Freedom firmly forbids is the destruction of Freedom itself. “Thou shalt not destroy Freedom” is Freedom’s single commandment. And Freedom has been shown to resist efforts to destroy it in the most ferocious way. It’s enemies would do well to ponder the fate of previous attempts to do so.
On September 11, the agents of Radical Islam began their attempt to destroy Freedom by attacking it at its core. The reaction of Freedom to this assault has been, once you consider the destructive power of the weapons systems it possesses, measured, deliberate and cautious. This is because Freedom, although sorely wounded, does not yet feel that its very existence is threatened. A more serious attack at any time in the future will put paid to that specious notion.
Following a second attack at a level equal to or exceeding September 11, any political opposition to pursuing our enemies with all means at our disposal will be swept off the table. The First Terrorist War will begin in earnest and it will not be a series of small wars with long lead times and a careful consultation of allies. The war will become, virtually overnight, a global war of violent preemption and merciless attack towards the spiritual and geographic centers of our enemy. Arguments revolving around the true meaning of ‘imminent’ will be seen as they are — so much factional prattle. Due to the nature of the enemy, the First Terrorist War will be fought here and there and everywhere. It does not matter when or where the second serious strike on the American homeland takes place, it only matters that on the day after this country will be at war far beyond the current level of conflict.
6. The Unspoken Role of the Ballistic Missile Submarines Since 9/11 there is one element of our strategic forces that has not been discussed. Indeed, you seldom hear a question asked about its status. That element is our fleet of ballistic missile submarines. We currently possess 18 of these “ships,” but a ballistic missile submarine is known not as a ship, but as a “strategic asset.” Each submarine has 24 missile tubes. Each tube holds one missile with from 5-8 nuclear warheads. Each warhead can be targeted separately from the others. The range of these missiles is classified but is thought to be in excess of 6000 nautical miles. The total number of warheads is approximately 50% of US strategic warheads. In sum, any single one of these strategic assets can create the end of a significant portion of the world. At present roughly 40% of this fleet is deployed at unknown and unknowable locations throughout the world’s oceans.
Originally built in order to deter, these strategic assets now assume a more aggressive role in the First Terrorist War. Because of the religious nature of the war, our enemy is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of obliteration. He will view that as highly unlikely since it would, of necessity, involve us in the deaths of large number of civilians in countries known to harbor or be friendly to Islamic terrorists. He believes we would not employ these weapons. This misunderstanding of the history of Western democracies under arms and in a state of total war invites global tragedy.
Nevertheless, the character and goals of our enemy are as fixed as the words of the Koran and he is not to be dissuaded by the threat of annihilation. Only actual annihilation will, in the end, suffice and yield victory. In attempting to achieve this annihilation we can only hope that the political and military situation does not evolve to a level where the submarines would have to play a role.
7. Avoiding the Islamic War by Winning the Terrorist War Because we are large, lumbering, impatient and somnambulant our enemy depends on these factors to defeat us. He uses the opportunities of Freedom in order to make war upon it. He is able to infiltrate our society and institutions. He is able to be infinitely patient. He plans for the decades while we can barely manage to plan from one fiscal quarter to the next. This is a war that will play out over years and will not be resolved in months. In order to gain victory and defeat our enemy we must put in place policies and strategies that cannot easily be altered by reports, polls, or election cycles. In order to achieve this we must be, as we were in the Second World War, united in purpose. It is, sadly, the nature of our society today that September 11th’s unity was fleeting. To find this unity we must suffer through one more horrendous attack the nature and timing of which will not be of our choosing.
Still, as surely as the next attack will come, so will the unity that it creates in its wake and at that point the full power of Freedom’s Arsenal will at last be used to defend it. This is the social and political conundrum that confronts us in the First Terrorist War. And this is why the war must be divorced from ‘process’ and the goal of victory be cut into the stone of the American soul.
During the Second World War, our system, with few alterations, brought us through to a peace in which there were greater freedoms than before the war. Victory validated our way of life. Not only were our freedoms intact in 1945 but they were poised, with the economy, for a great expansion throughout the rest of the century and into this. If you had proposed, in the summer of 1946, that within 50 years all minorities would be fully enfranchised, that women would be fully liberated, that homosexuals would be a dominant force with their enfranchisement only a moment away, and that an African-American could be elected President, you would have been dismissed as a socialist dreamer. And yet, here we are.
The same situation can also be envisioned as the result of our victory in the First Terrorist War at the end of a less-clear but no less threatening passage of arms. But this will only happen if we remain clear about the real nature of the First Terrorist War, and committed to unequivocal victory regardless of the costs in lives and treasure. Only by matching the determination of our enemy to destroy us will we prevail. The only thing that can defeat us are a dull reliance on management, a fascination with process rather than victory and the reluctance to believe the extent to which our enemy desires our annihilation.
Beyond victory in the First Terrorist War is a greater goal. What we must seek is not merely the “control” and “containment” of terror, for terror in this guise cannot be controlled or contained. We must come to the deeper understanding that only a complete victory over the global Radical Islamic forces can prevent the onset of a confrontation more terrible than the current war.
What we must press for in the Terrorist War is a victory so decisive that we can, in the end, avoid the larger war lurking on the not-so-distant horizon – - a true war between civilizations. That war, should it come, will not take the name of The Terrorist War, but of The Islamic War.
The Terrorist War is still a struggle that can be fought and won with conventional means. An Islamic War, should it come, would engulf the world and be anything but conventional.
“Some of the evil of my tale may have been inherent in our circumstances.”T. E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom
The Suicide by Immigration of Western Civ. Those that Have an Ear To Hear, Let Them Hear Truth. Most Will Not.
Manfred Kleine-Hartlage: Speech at Volkstrauertag 2012
In light of Volkstrauertag last month, I wish to present to you this speech given last year by German center-right political activist Manfred Kleine-Hartlage, in front of the Reichstag in Berlin. Kleine-Hartage is the author of The Jihad System: How Islam Functions, Defend Europe, Why I am No Longer a Leftist, and The Liberal Society and Its End—On the Suicide of a System.
For many of us have not learned to cease the mourning.
Transcript below translated by Yours Fraternally.
In normal times and under normal circumstances, a day like the today’s People’s Mourning Day would be a day of quiet remembrance, and the common grief of all the people and their representatives.
In normal times, it would be a day of prayer: for the dead of past wars, so that the future wars may be spared from us.
In normal times, there would be agreement over the meaning of the People’s Mourning Day; there would be no need, on such a day, to hold political speeches and so to speak of the disagreement.
In normal times, we would not have to gather in front of the Reichstag building, to set a counterpoint to what is going on inside of this building.
But the times are not normal. This People’s Mourning Day falls not in a period of peace, but in a time of undeclared war being waged against the peoples of Europe.
It comes in a time, in which it is necessary to explain in detail the self-evident truisms that one feels connected to his own people in a special way, and that this has nothing to do with resentment of other peoples.
We live in a time in which such self-evident truths are not to be understood even when explained in detail, because a whole cartel of propaganda institutions are working to defame him who utters them.
We live in a time in which the people must fight to even get a word through, for their so-called representatives put words in their mouths which they would never say themselves.
We are here today to give these people a voice, and therefore today’s remembrance cannot be a silent remembrance, although we all would like to have one. The circumstances, which we have not chosen, but are forced upon us, do not let us.
That my name is on the list of speakers for today’s People’s Mourning Day is a coincidence. It might as well be on the list of victims of xenophobic violence whose names are yet to be read here.
Two and a half years ago, I was approached and beaten by a Nigerian. And he hit and hit and did not stop. The reason for this violence and hatred was that I had asked him to turn down the music which from his shop could be heard throughout the entire Altstadt Spandau. What had saved my life was the fact that a very athletically-built former police officer came along by chance, who had the ability and the courage to intervene. As we all know, this is an extremely rare stroke of luck, and to this stroke of luck I owe that I am standing here.
The case is in three ways characteristic: by the triviality of the event, by the excessive brutality of the reaction, and by the hatred towards the local people, which explodes at the slightest provocation.
Sure, is it a unique case, in the sense that every single case is tautologically an individual case. But as a social scientist, I cannot be satisfied with flat tautologies. When thousands and thousands of such “individual cases” follow a recognizable pattern, when repeatedly the same constellations emerge, when repeatedly the same mentality is recognized, when repeatedly the offenders come from the same group, then I cannot pretend that the victims of such crimes are only victims of general crime, which exists like a background noise in every society and always will. These violent crimes must have nameable causes.
Up to this point, presumably even leftist and liberal do-gooders would go along. The talk of the “social causes” of immigrant violence (provided it is ever named as such) is almost one of their standard phrases. By this they mean that the violent crimes committed by immigrants have social causes; but at the same time they hold that these oft-cited “individual cases” have nothing to do with each other and there is no identifiable pattern exhibited.
The ideology industry of our country will therefore have to decide on one of its two excuses, for they are logically mutually exclusive. Because an excuse is also part of the “social causes” produced incessantly by the progressive ideologues: if these ideologues—no matter whether they are politicians, journalists, religious leaders, teachers or professors—speak of “social causes”, then they do so as a norm, without having researched according to the real social causes.
The list of their so-called social causes is extremely clear: Immigrant violence is committed—according to the mainstream discourse—because immigrants are poor, the society is not integrating them enough, the fight against the far right has not been vigorous enough and—this above all—because the German racists out of pure malice discriminate against the immigrants.
I want to see one of these ideologues show me one country in the world that is less racist than Germany! Just a single one! There is no other country in the world where people are as careful as here not to infer anything about individuals from general views of ethnic groups, where it is considered as important as here to prevent prejudice in order to see each person as an individual instead of a mere instance of a group to which one attributes properties.
And this aversion against prejudice can even be dangerous. Take this Nigerian for an example: Had I had the preconception already that he was violent, I would not have gone to him, but would instead sent the police to him. That I did not have this prejudice almost cost me my life.
Let us set this straight: This is not a plea for people to orient themselves in the future towards prejudice. But it is a plea to dismiss the wholesale suspicion of the German people as a nation of racists as the baseless—and racist itself!—defamation it actually is!
The progressives never look into the real social causes of immigrant violence; they just use this violence to demand what they demand anyway and what they have been doing: the expansion of the welfare state at the expense of the taxpayer, more positions and more means of control for deserving comrades and their projects, the muzzling of their political opponents, more propaganda, more censorship and the increased intimidation and defamation of their own people. What the progressive ideologues mean by the “social causes” of immigrant violence is only one thing: that their own ideology has not been sufficiently implemented, that their owninterests have not been sufficiently served.
It is not automatic, and it does not happen by chance, that people indeed manage to live together peacefully and orderly; it is an astonishing wonder that they do. Every culture is a fine network of thousands and thousands of largely unwritten rules, values, shared memories, shared beliefs. Every culture is a unique, specific answer to the question of how people do it, and when I say “unique”, then that means inevitably these answers vary: there are cultures in which the family clan and its unconditional cohesion is the basis of society, which protects individuals, and there are on the other hand individualistically-influenced cultures like ours, in which you trust the state and the laws to provide this protection, and which relies on everyone else doing the same. There are cultures in which the ability and willingness to use force has prestige value, and there are cultures like ours in which violence is outlawed. There are cultures in which yielding is considered a sign of weakness, and there are cultures like ours, in which conflicts are regarded as mere differences of opinion, which are at best discharged discursively and at worst in court.
Yet these other cultures do not necessarily work worse than ours, but just differently. Islam, for example, does what is needed to provide a cultural system: it organizes the society. But it organizes it differently than our Christian or Western system. The problem only begins where one locks together two, three, four or more different and incompatible cultures in the same country, so they are crammed together, but do not belong together.
In wanting and introducing a multi-ethnic state, society is put in the state of an (at least) latent civil war. In running this, the society falls into a permanent structural crisis that is constantly reinforced with progressive mass immigration, which stirs up conflicts, encourages vigilantism, destroys the social consensus of values, and destroys the conditions of social peace. He who teaches his own children peacefulness does so because of ethical values ultimately rooted in Christianity. Then forcing the thus peacefully behaved people to live together with others who come from cultures married to violence—such as that Nigerian—makes them specifically and systematically victimized. This invites an endless liability.
The 7500 Germans since 1990 who have become victims of immigrant violence are victims of a policy daring enough to destroy society: out of ideological blindness; out of greed for cheap, easily exploitable labor, whose situation is precarious at the same time, for the welfare state will collapse at the point of exhaustion (this one also a quite desirable result of mass immigration for certain circles); out of hatred for his own people, those damn Germans they want nothing to do with; and—not the least—out of lust for power. There is a reason why there are elites in all Western countries who carry out the destruction of peoples and their transformation into mere splintered “populations”: peoples are in fact solidarities that can also kick their rulers out. The battle cry with which the rule of the SED [the Soviet-installed Socialist ruling party of East Germany] was overthrown 23 years ago did not read “We are the population.” It read: “We are the people!” A mere population, consisting of dozens of warring ethnicities, will never overthrow the ruler. They cannot. A democracy needs its demos. A despotism on the other hand, a dictatorship, a totalitarian regime—yes, such a thing needs a population.
The destruction of the people is one side of the same coin, to which the other side is the transfer of their rights to supranational institutions: to the EU, the WTO, the IWF, the NATO, the UN and dozens else—all institutions that cannot be controlled from below, but that determine our lives: that dictate to us the rules by which we live, and dictate to us which foods we should eat, which people we have to live together with in our country, against whom we must go to war, and into what inscrutable bank-conglomerate our tax dollars disappear.
What is here in the making as understood is a global despotism of elites who resist any responsibility and any control. And the systematically induced mass migration, this largest mass migration in 1500 years—when this migration of peoples led to the collapse of Roman civilization—is part of this process.
Against today’s events it has been argued, the People’s Mourning Day is dedicated to the mourning of German war victims, and crime victims were indeed not war victims. And I say: They are just that! They are victims of a war that is being waged against all the peoples of Europe, not only against the Germans. But when I point out that a war is being waged, I have to answer the question of who the enemy is.
Are the enemy young immigrants, who lead their private jihad against the people despised by them for educating its children to peacefulness? I would say: They are at most the auxiliary, as were the Antifa: the autonomous, anti-German little leftists fighting against law with taxpayers’ money, acting all too gladly like pig-men, reveling in self-righteousness, denunciation, bullying and witch-hunt; such sort of auxiliary troops.
Might the enemy sit in the Muslim Brotherhood, or in the Turkish Government, or in the Millî Görüş? I would say: There sit at most—but still!—the rods of the auxiliary troops. No, the enemy that is waging war against this people sits here: in this building that is dedicated to this very people. And not only here: He sits not only on government chairs and parliament seats, but also in electoral offices, in ivory towers, at the headquarters of banks and large corporations, in the EU bureaucracy, on the boards of multi-billion-dollar propaganda foundations and within the luxury villas of their financiers. He sits in Berlin, in Brussels, in New York, in Washington—he sits where social power is clustered together, visible and invisible alike.
The war which has taken the victims we mourn today is a war of those in power, a tiny elite, against the rest; it is a war of the rulers against the people.
This parliament, this political class, so concerned with the political affairs of the rich and powerful, this political class has no right to grieve German dead—because they are not their dead! They have not the right to host a People’s Mourning Day, because they have broken away from their people, cheated them, betrayed them, sold them out, and now are working on their destruction! They have not even the right to, as they do now, mourn the foreign victims of right-wing extremist violence, for it is these dead too whom they have on their conscience! And the tears which they now shed are crocodile tears.
We mourn today the victims of an extremely one-sided war. It is time that the peoples of Europe accept the unspoken, but highly effective declaration of war by their so-called elites and respond appropriately.
I thank you!
The Confessions of St. Fred
Acknowledges Vertebrate Privilege
May 24, 2004 (re-printed for your current situation)
By Fred Reed
I am done for, and damned. Yes, a poor sinner who has strayed from the path of righteousness, and now sits brooding over a bottle of Padre Kino, Mexican rust-remover marauding as red wine, for I have done the unpardonable: I have said–I cringe with shame–that some cultures are superior to others.
It gnaws my soul.
Please don’t misjudge me. I am in most respects a good American. I have nothing against brainless, passive-aggressive, narcissistic sanctimony, nor preening academic mediocrity, nor intellectual vacuity. No. I tell you, I love all of these things. I am devoted to our traditions. I believe to the roots of my teeth that bovine complacency is the bedrock of democracy. Indeed, the only criticism I can make of our national intellectual life is that it would embarrass a microcephalic box-turtle.
Oh god. Wait. I didn’t mean to imply that microcephalic box-turtles are in any way inferior. They are just otherly abled. I apologize, and acknowledge my Vertebrate Privilege.
Let me recount my fall from grace as a warning to those that will hear. Long ago, a callow youth, I was reading the Huffington Post (this column has no respect for chronology), which informed me that no culture is superior to any other: They are just different. To think otherwise, it huffed, was to concede oneself to be among the Fallen, and perhaps a Republican.
I read this and the scales fell from my eyes (though I had no interest in going to Damascus, where they were using nerve gas). I thought, Yes! It’s true! Hosanna! All cultures are equal! Jewish culture is not superior to Nazi, just different. Why hadn’t I seen it before? The culture of Switzerland is not better than that of North Korea, and the South of Bull Conner was in no way inferior to the most dappled, liquid-eyed liberalism of Massachusetts!
Read it all at Fred’s Place: http://fredoneverything.net/Vertebrate.shtml
Posted on | June 15, 2014
Such is the substance of the campus rape “epidemic,” as I explained Wednesday (“Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But George Will’s Column Raped Me”) in rejecting the claim that skepticism toward feminist rhetoric is morally equivalent to rape.
Feminism’s hegemonic dominance within elite academia has been achieved because cowards are easily intimidated by intellectual bullying, but George Will refused to play along with that charade. His reply to a group of Democratic senators is a masterpiece of concision:
Dear Senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Baldwin and Casey: I have received your letter of June 12, and I am puzzled. You say my statistics “fly in the face of everything we know about this issue.” You do not mention which statistics, but those I used come from the Obama administration, and from simple arithmetic involving publicly available reports on campus sexual assaults. The administration asserts that only 12 percent of college sexual assaults are reported. Note well: I did not question this statistic. Rather, I used it. I cited one of the calculations based on it that Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has performed . . . So, I think your complaint is with the conclusion that arithmetic dictates, based on the administration’s statistic. The inescapable conclusion is that another administration statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college is insupportable and might call for tempering your rhetoric about “the scourge of sexual assault.”
The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20?percent.
The arithmetic is indeed “simple,” and the administration’s claims about the prevalence of sexual assault on campus don’t add up. Even if we accept the claim that only 12% of sexual assaults are reported, multiplying the number of reported sexual assaults eight-fold still does not yield a number equal to 20% of female students.
Where did this ginned-up phony rape “epidemic” originate? What is the source of the “one in five women” number? A 2007 Justice Department survey that has been helpfully analyzed by Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post. Anyone familiar with social science methodology can examine the questions asked in that survey and see that the fundamental problem is how the questions were phrased: Respondents were asked about “unwanted sexual contact” and even attempted “unwanted sexual contact.” In other words, if your boyfriend even tries to do something “unwanted,” you’re a victim.
Perhaps the people who designed that survey did not deliberately bias the results in a way that exaggerated the incidence of “sexual assault.” Perhaps the researchers did not even think about how their survey might be hijacked for political purposes. Perhaps it is, in some sense, ultimately impossible for researchers to quantify in any definitive way the content of people’s sexual experience.
On the other hand, however, feminists have spent the past four decades trying to convince women that male sexuality is inherently violent and oppressive. (How many times must I recommend Daphne Patai’s valuable 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism as an analysis of this troubling phenomenon?) It’s not just deranged radicals — “PIV is always rape, OK?” — who embrace feminism’s demonized view of male sexuality and, when I encounter social science research which appears designed to confirm that view, I am not inclined to accept claims that the methodological flaws of the survey are entirely coincidental. Glenn Kessler comments:
On its Web site, the National Institute of Justice notes . . . that “researchers have been unable to determine the precise incidence of sexual assault on American campuses because the incidence found depends on how the questions are worded and the context of the survey.” It said that two parallel surveys of American college women were conducted in 1997 and came up with very different results, with one survey showing rapes were 11 times higher than the percentage in the other survey. The reason appears to be because of how the questions were worded.
If it is a known fact that the wording of survey questions can affect results in this way – multiplying by a factor of 11 the reports of rape — the reliance on such surveys to generate statistics that are clearly inflated cannot be accepted as a mere coincidence. The conclusion of George Will’s reply to the Democrat senators:
I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes.
This is the real crux of the problem: University officials have insisted on treating accusations of sexual assault as disciplinary infractions rather than as matters of criminal justice. Why? Because the vast majority of such accusations involve “he said/she said” situations where a felony conviction would almost certainly be impossible.
The Brown University case of Dan Kopin and Lena Sclove may not be typical, but it demonstrates the fundamental problem. No one wishes to minimize the seriousness of sexual assault, but when such an incident is cited as evidence of universities tolerating “brutal rape” on campus, we’ve gone through the looking glass into an alternative reality where words have no fixed meaning.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
From TOMC: http://theothermccain.com/
15 Myths Millennials Accept as Fact
10. CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-SCIENCE Maybe one in ten Americans believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, and most of those people are old ladies and dirt-poor farmers. They’re not shutting down schools and canceling Cosmos. The other 90% of us are totally okay with the big bang theory. Even the pope supports it….. Also, if you love science so much, stop refusing vaccinations for your kid. You’re literally making us sick.
15. WE’RE ALL EQUAL You know there’s retards, right?
You realize the children of geniuses tend to be smarter than the children of stupid people, yeah? This is why they ask sperm donors questions. That’s what happens when idealists have to practice what they preach. They scoff at eugenics until it’s time to make a baby. They love the gay lifestyle until their son brings home a tranny. They love diversity until it’s time to choose a place to live or a school for their children.
Read them all at the link.
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Ghetto Time Warp
Spend time in or near the ghetto, and you can’t help but notice some things. When you live and work across the social spectrum, as I do, you get a daily dose of comparisons. That makes noticing things easy, which is a dangerous game these days. On the other hand, people get in trouble in the ghetto when they don’t notice things. Modern times is full of these weird, inexplicable juxtapositions.
In SWPL-ville, everyone knows to avoid certain areas, even certain streets. Give someone from SWPL-ville directions that include Martin Luther King Boulevard or Malcom X Avenue and they ask someone else for directions. They know those names are never in places they like. On the other hand, make a comment about it around them and they will harangue you about your racism and narrow mindedness.
In the ghetto, time works differently than everywhere else. The employees of the Food Lion are mostly black. They work on CPT. That’s Colored People Time. Start talking about CPT at your place of work and they fire you. Mention it around black people and they laugh, surprised that a white person would know the term. Again, another one of those things everyone knows, but no one says. Mokita.
What CPT means is not just slowness. It is also a certain deliberate tardiness. Black people will tell you that black people are always late. That’s when you’re most likely to hear them break out the term CPT. In the ghetto, it also means slow and distracted.
The Latin Way is a term you hear from Latinos. Like CPT, they are surprised to hear a blanco say it. Unlike blacks, Latinos are oddly proud of it and quite open to talking about it if you ask them. They fully admit that the disorganized chaos is just the way they do things, even though it makes no sense.
Smoking is still popular in the great white ghetto, along with Oxycontin. You see the fat girls waddling behind strollers, while the males sit around shirtless. The idea is to show off the collection of ridiculous tattoos they love so much. Nothing tells the world you are a violent felon like a neck tattoo. In all of the retail stores on the edge of the ghetto, you never see whites working.
That’s the thing about poverty and the underclass. SWPL types think it is education, but it is time that keeps people in the ghetto. They have no sense of it. Middle and upper class people are obsessed with time. Being on time is an essential part of being a respectable person. The efficient use of time is how one is measured in their job. If you’re good at what you do, you get an assistant at work to help you make the most of your time. The rich have personal assistants to make sure no one wastes their time.
Like father’s day, I doubt watches are of much use in the ghetto. When you have no place to go and no reason to get there, knowing the time is pointless. People I know who hire entry level labor tell me the biggest challenge they have is figuring out how to tell ghetto types how to show up on time and work at a decent pace. That’s why they hire Latinos. They may be monkeys fucking a football without supervision, but they show up on time and at least look like they are in a hurry.
Anyway, I think that’s the dividing line in modern life. The great class line is is time preference. Conventional wisdom says the poor lack impulse control. They buy cheap crap now rather than save for better things later. They don’t understand the value of putting off today’s pleasure for something better tomorrow.
Read the entire article at The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=1917