Category Archives: Culture Wars
Aside from it being a disgustingly offensive farce and an insult to common civility, it’s hard to even begin describing the psychopathic race-hate cult called White Privilege.
For one, it’s not just another shin-kicking tantrum wrapped around just another smarmy ripoff, it’s the deck from which race cards are dealt, an evil perversion of good will, a candy-coated curriculum for self-induced moral collapse, a Goebbels-level big lie, the mother ship of intolerance, case hardened and serrated edged…..
It says there can be no peace as long as whites exist, in short, it says racial cleansing is fitting and honorable. The surge in attacks on random whites in public places may trace to this notion. Some black intellectuals, Walter Williams among them, say they haven’t thought this through, and they’re right. Society is continually disconnecting and reconnecting in new, often surprising arrangements, and the word minority has a demographic meaning apart from its sociological freight. Serbia-style direct action isn’t a realistic option for thirteen per cent of this or any other population. – - ol remus and the woodpile report
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Morales’ hoax is a blip in the larger pattern of faked hate crimes. Bigotry is the witch hunt of the modern Salem and progressive witch hunters are just as careless about facts and evidence. Now as then, the goal is to stamp out an attitude and a cultural threat, rather than to enforce the law, and that leads inevitably to the entire tawdry parade of hysterical denunciations and moral panic.
But what is behind this need to manufacture intolerance?
The left built up its replacement for class warfare around identity politics. Though we take most of these identities, including the racial trinity and homosexuality, for granted, they are really modern artificial constructs that define how people should define themselves, rather than accepting them as they are.
Strangely enough, racial and sexual identities were more nuanced centuries ago than they are today where the “one drop rule” now goes completely unchallenged in matters of race and equally so in matters of sexual orientation. Anyone who can be claimed on any grounds by the victim group, must be identified with them or face accusations of false consciousness.
We are less willing to contemplate biracial and bisexual today than we were a century ago. Instead leftist collectivism demands that everyone be either one thing or another. Everyone is divided into categories of victim and oppressor. Just as no one can be both on both sides of the class struggle; so too the left rejects the idea of being on both sides of the victim line in race or sexual orientation.
On Seinfeld, Jerry’s dentist joined Judaism for the jokes. Leftists are joining native tribes for the victimhood. Meanwhile they’re defining those identities solely in terms of victimhood.
The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.
They are engaging in a fraud much bigger than a forged receipt; but they are doing it for the same reasons.
An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence. Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments.
Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.
There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.
It’s easy to mock Dayna Morales for forging a receipt snub. If only she had learned about critical race theory, she would have been able to denounce the family in question for their privilege. Instead of faking a receipt, she would have been able to express her internal need for persecution in the political language of the left.
Dayna only forged a single receipt. Obama spent five years in the White House forging phony racism accusations to protect him on every issue from the economy to ObamaCare.
The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.
The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations.
Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.
Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.
Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television.
Liberals claim to want a better America, but they reject it at every turn. Their cynicism even poisons what should have been their triumphs.
Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.
The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.
Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.
The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.
Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.
It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.
• 11.22.13 11:54 am
When the relentlessly annoying Keith Olbermann was suspended for being a liberal who supports Democrats,conservative Bill Kristol came out and said, “Hold on. I hate that piece of shit but that’s SUPER fucked up” (I’m paraphrasing). That’s the way it is with the Archie Bunkers of the world. If you outlawed homosexuality tomorrow,
all the “progressives” would run and hide while Arch would say, “Oh goddamnit, now I gotta go defend queers” and he’d start a militia that fought the army and helped gays hide in basements. When self-indulgent shitbag Alec Baldwin was fired for being vulgar, everyone with an ounce of dignity said, “Goddamnit.”
I’m no fan of Alec Baldwin but firing a guy for swearing at someone after they threaten his family is fucking gay. The paps surrounded his wife and child as they always do so he lost his temper and called one a “cocksucking faggot.” I’m pretty sure it’s legal in Texas to pull out a shotgun when your family is perceived to be in imminent danger. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be accused of blowing someone than have my head blown off. Alas, we live in the Northeast where everyone is expected to act like aristocrats even when they’re being attacked by savages.
The right seized this opportunity to give the left a taste of their own medicine. They pounced on Baldwin and demanded he be hoisted on his own petard. The left complied, claiming, “Alec Baldwin was attacking our families.” I don’t enjoy seeing retards on petards, because I hate petards. It’s fair for conservatives to use this outburst to showcase the left’s hypocrisy, but demanding apologies and insisting people lose their job is everything that’s wrong with the liberal ethos. Ann Coulter agrees. “This was just a curse word” she told Bill Hoffman at Newsmax, “It was like using the f-word and, frankly, a lot of these paparazzi photographers deserve it.” Coulter understands the difference between exposing hypocrisy and participating in it. You don’t demand apologies. You fight back. When the Perpetually Offended crowd demanded she apologize for saying “retard” she said, “screw them.”
Though language policing is a liberal disease the right also talks a lot about how we should talk. When everyone thought Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, many conservatives were angry at him. “He shouldn’t have stooped to that level” they said, “it cheapens the whole discussion.” Fuck that. She went to a Catholic school and wanted to have sex before marriage. In that context, that’s exactly what she is (and he never even said that). “How you should talk” is the root of political correctness. “Oh, it’s not ‘African American’” they say with their pinky in the air, “It’s ‘person of color’.” Actually, it’s “black” you patronizing prick.
All this talk of keeping a stiff upper lip sounds downright un-American to me. I’m from Canada where centuries of Scotch/Irish culture mean everyone talks like they’re drunk. If a man walks into a bar with a burn on his face, we say, “Holy fuck guy, what happened to your face?” It’s a British trait to pretend nothing’s unusual. Didn’t America kick out the British almost a quarter of a millenium ago? They didn’t do it lining up and taking fire, either. They did it by rolling up their sleeves, jumping out of trees, and fighting dirty. That’s the kind of spirit that made me immigrate here in the first place.
The Democrats are winning the culture war because they’re fighting dirty. Let’s punch them in the fucking face. I’m not saying you come into a debate calling everyone a bunch of cocksuckers but if four professors are smirking and guffawing at your points and calling your references, “fantasy studies,” come back with, “fucking idiot.”
William F Buckley had many great moments but the scene he is most lionized for is the 1968 TV appearance when, after Gore Vidal bitchily called him a Nazi many times, Bill bounced back with, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered.” He didn’t demand an apology or insist Vidal be fired. He called him a queer and threatened to knock him out. Can we get back to that please? What’s so great about being civil? It doesn’t work. Many lament the prominence of cutthroat campaigns and attack ads but they’re the best way to get the dirt on both party’s candidates. Brawling is the American way. You can still wear a suit and feel strongly about family values. You can still be a God-fearing, pro-life traditionalist, but stop being so fucking polite to assholes.
ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE
From Street Carnage: http://streetcarnage.com/blog/the-case-for-vulgarity/
This incredible bulwark of stupidity and laziness seems to endlessly combine themes of leisure wear and graphic-designed sweat shop fabrics.
Gone are the mens’ suit, leather boots, fine tailored hats and coats, detailed dresses for women, or sartorial standards of any kind. The youth are half naked and in a perpetual cycle of hippy revolution against an unseen sexually conservative oppressor that does not exist. Prevailing cyclical modern themes are garish colours, sweat pants, t-shirts, oft inspired by an endlessly repeating phenomenon of slutty pop stars based upon the model of the careless, free-wheeling whore perpetually giving the finger to a patriarchal history. Modern Art: An Artful Swindle
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
I’m sure you’ve heard of the “Knockout Game” that appears to be sweeping the nation. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s how it works:
The participants of this pastime randomly select an innocent stranger, sneak up behind them, and attempt to knock them out with one punch.
That’s it. That’s the “game.” In some corners of the Earth, this activity is also known as “attempted murder.” Here, for some teenagers, it’s a hobby, like collecting baseball cards.
This has been going on for a while, but the media has been reluctant to report on it; mostly because the victims are usually white and the assailants are usually black. I say “usually,” but I’m not actually aware of a single instance where the assailant has been white and the victim black. Is the racial component relevant here? Yes, of course it is. But we live in a country of spineless white-guilt ridden wimps, so we’ll just pretend there’s nothing “racial” about black teens beating white folks to death for sport. Leave it to modern America to find ways to turn a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into a symbol of white privilege, while a rash of black-on-white beatings are categorized as “random” instances of a violent “game.”
A few people have already been killed by the Knockout Game, while plenty of others have been sent to the hospital. The victims come in any age or gender, but it’s worth noting one particularly egregious case where an elderly woman in New York ended up in the ER after being brutalized by one of these teenage cowards.
All of this inevitably leads to a conversation about what, precisely, drives a person to do this, and how to stop it in the future. I already touched on the why in a previous post. They do it, not due to a lack of “education spending” or “youth programs,” but because they choose to do it. They do it for the same reason all people commit evil acts: it makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel like they’re in control. It gives them an illusion of dominance. They do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy it because of the evil in their hearts. There is evil in their hearts because they let it in and feed it.
Why do we all act so perplexed by something that’s as old as time? We deny the existence of evil and then we’re thrown for a loop every time it pops up. That’s when we resort to our psychology textbooks and our pseudo-sociology; anything to avoid the inescapable conclusion that human beings have free will and they choose to do the things they do.
You can tell me about “environmental” factors all day, and you can sing me a sad song about their upbringing and their income bracket and whatever phantom prejudices are supposedly keeping them down, but you can not remove their responsibility from this equation. You can not mitigate it or diminish it. However hard their lives have been, a billion other people have experienced worse, and a billion other people aren’t patrolling the street searching for elderly people to sucker punch. What makes them different? Their choices. That’s all.
Now, while there’s nothing we can do to stop a man (yes, “man”; you aren’t a “kid” anymore once you graduate to felony assault) from doing evil if evil is what he wishes to do, we could take certain steps, as a society, to alleviate the situation slightly. We could, for instance, keep our families together. Dads could stop running out on their kids. Couples could get married before they have babies. Radical ideas, I realize, but nothing will get better as long as we’re unwilling to consider them.
I’ve extrapolated on those points many times, so, for right now, I’d like to lay out a more immediate three step plan for dealing with the Knockout Game. These are rational suggestions; suggestions that are absolutely guaranteed to slow down this “trend”:
In the old days, they used to banish prisoners to deserts and island colonies. They permanently removed the criminals from society. We can’t employ the same strategy anymore — I don’t think Australia would appreciate it — but we can keep in mind the fact that prisons are designed to protect our loved ones from predators. I’m all for rehabilitation, but that is not the primary function of a prison. Its primary function is to take dangerous people and neutralize the threat they pose to the rest of us. Everything else is secondary. Forgiveness is essential, but just because we forgive someone doesn’t mean we unleash them into our neighborhoods. You might forgive a pedophile for being a pedophile, but would you let him babysit your kids?
So why don’t we start using prisons for their intended purpose? These genius thugs are posting video of themselves playing their “game” online; it shouldn’t be that hard to track them down. When we do, they ought to be looking at significant time in a cage. I’m talking about ten years or longer. Whether their victim lands in a hospital or a morgue, I fail to see why it should matter all that much in terms of sentencing. The purpose of the game is to inflict as much damage as possible on the innocent passerby. Should they get credit if they accidentally fail to seriously hurt their prey?
The emotional detachment and moral depravity it requires to participate in something like this should not be taken lightly. I was always taught that, contrary to popular belief, you don’t always get a second chance in life. We all have one chance to not be vicious animals who prowl around the community looking to beat pedestrians unconscious. If you squander that chance, you don’t get another one. At least not during this decade. Sending a violent criminal to jail for a year or two is just about the most self defeating strategy I’ve ever encountered. There’s no sense in shipping a budding hooligan off to network with hardened criminals for 16 months, only to release him back into the community once he’s officially transitioned from delinquent to full-on gangbanger. Maybe prison could be a deterrent if the courts stopped playing pattycake with these goons and started doling out hard time for hard crimes.
Put them there and keep them there. Keep them there for a good long while. Need room to accommodate these extended stays? No problem. Release all of the non-violent criminals you want. I’d be more than happy if we stopped imprisoning people for growing plants or using unhealthy substances. Besides, it accomplishes precisely nothing to throw drug addicts in a cell for being drug addicts. All you’ve done is take vulnerable, desperate, non-violent people and put them around manipulative sociopaths. Not a good mix. Clear them out and make room for the actual dangerous crooks.
Boredom is a new epidemic. So is teenagedom. In the past, nobody had time to be either of these things. People worked. Work can cure a teenager of his boredom, and his teenage-ness. It boggles my mind that any “kid” is able to reach the ripe old age of 17 having never worked a day in his/her life. My parents wouldn’t have allowed such a thing.
Do we think anything good is going to happen when we take a bunch of confused, hormonal, aggressive, energetic teenagers and give them massive amounts of free time? Doing nothing — this is another concept I was never allowed to get too familiar with when I was growing up. Maybe it’s time to stop “protecting” our kids from sweaty brows and calloused hands. Maybe work could actually be protection from far more detrimental things — like criminal records and drug addictions. We don’t have sweat shops in this country anymore. Most of the mines are closing down. In other words, repeal child labor laws and what will be the result? Thirteen year olds working cash registers and pushing lawnmowers? They’ll survive. It’ll be good for them. It’ll keep them busy. It’ll let them contribute financially to their households — a concept that seems quite scandalous these days, but only because we’re often scandalized by sensible things.
They say you can’t solve a problem by “adding more guns” to the situation. That’s true, which is why Obama’s foreign policy has been such an abysmal failure. But I, much like any other Second Amendment advocate, do not suggest simply throwing a pile of guns at the problem. I suggest you consider adding one gun to a holster, and then adding that holster to your hip. At a certain point we — the pool of potential victims — must refuse to fulfill that destiny. Forget the prisons, the schools, family dynamics, the cultural ills; when a predator picks you out of the crowd, none of that matters. It’s too late for the system, or parents, or the government to help you. In that moment, you’ve either got the tools to defend yourself, or you don’t. These cowards hedge their bets and put all their coins on you being unarmed. It’s a glorious occasion every time they lose that gamble.
God gives you life. He doesn’t give it to you so that you can let some adolescent punk take it away. Guard it. It is a precious thing; it the most precious thing you’ve ever been given (aside from your children’s lives, if you have any).
Let’s be real here. My first two suggestions won’t happen. But number three can happen. Defend yourself.
From Matt Walsh: http://themattwalshblog.com/
Planned Parenthood: Doing all They Can to Decrease the Black Population Because Margaret Sanger Said Blacks are Inferior
Gloria Steinem: When Obama Awards Me The Medal of Freedom He Will Be “Honoring The Work” of Racist Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger Who Advocated Genocide Against Black Babies…
There’s no way she doesn’t know about Margaret Sanger’s background, right?
Via CNS News:
Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Monday, feminist Gloria Steinem said receiving the Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama would be “honoring the work of Margaret Sanger.”
“I hope this is retroactive in honoring the work of Margaret Sanger,” said Steinem about the woman who founded what would become Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest abortion provider in the United States.
“I hope that she would celebrate this recognition that reproductive freedom is a human right at least as crucial as freedom of speech and that no government should dictate whether or when we have children,” Steinem said.
In her remarks Steinem said that “the power of this honor may be even more evident in the withholding than in the giving,” noting that Sanger never got the medal.
“I was reminded by Ellen Chesler, biography of Margaret Sanger, that President Lyndon Johnson, even as he signed the first federal and international family planning act into law, refused to bestow the metal of freedom on Sanger,” Steinem said. “He feared reprisal from the Catholic Church.
“Ellen told me that when she looked at Sanger’s private history papers at Smith College – I’m proud to say the biggest archive of women history – she found a poignant little hand-written note from Sanger, asking that her body be buried here next to her husband but that her heart be removed to Japan – the only country in the world that had every bestowed a public honor on her,” Steinem said.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Housing Debacle Wasn’t Enough…Now Liberal Loonies Want to Give Car Loans to People Who Can’t Pay Them
“Feminism is the theory; lesbianism is the practice.”
– Ti-Grace Atkinson, 1971
“The political economy of socialist feminism establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and oppression.”
– Allison Jaggar, 1988
“Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice.”
– Andrea Dworkin, 1989
Professional athletes can spawn with multiple baby mamas, and feminists have no word of complaint. Gay men hiring surrogates to breed children for them? Lesbians raising adopted child sex-change experiments? No problem, say the Womyn’s Studies majors. In response to the general plague of divorce and fatherlessness, the poverty-inducing epidemic of illegitimacy that replicates underclass misery, the collective reaction of the Official Women’s Movement is . . . crickets chirping.
However, let a normal couple of married Christians give birth to more than the standard 1.7 children, and they become the targets of seething rage and resentment from the feminist Left. You saw this attitude exemplified in the hysterical reaction to Sarah Palin who, by giving birth to five children, was made the object of fathomless hatred. “For many liberal women, Palin threatens their sexual identity, which is bound up with their politics,” as James Taranto observed.
The Duggars are the “stars” of the TLC network reality series, 19 Kids and Counting. Predictably, our friends on the left hate them: see Jezebel and Jenna Karvunidis and Bitch Magazine (check out the comments!) and, of course! Amanda Marcotte. It’s pretty simple: if your choices aren’t their choices, then your choices are wrong, illegitimate, and societally harmful. It’s not like they are actually killing anyone, and the Duggars are self-supporting, taxpaying Americans; they aren’t on welfare.
RH Reality Check thinks that it’s horrible, horrible! that Mr Duggar referenced the Holocaust, and you know, I agree: Holocaust references by pro-life groups are inappropriate. After all, the Holocaust killed only six million people, and is nowhere in our abortuaries’ league when it comes to dealing out death.
It is shocking how fanatically devoted some people are to the “right” of abortion. Doug Hagin at Daley Gator explains:
I used to try to talk sense to pro-abortion people on message boards. . . . I found out they too believe it is a baby, and they revel in the “right” to destroy it. To them, a woman is not whole unless she can have her baby executed in the womb. How depraved are they? Well, consider many of the regularly compared unborn babies to parasites, and cancerous tumors, yes really.
Such unspeakable hatred toward human life is rooted in a radical ideology that views the culture and institutions of traditional morality and family life as part of an oppressive bourgeois capitalist system which they — the feminists — must destroy.
It is not just marriage and motherhood, but also religion, patriotism and all notions of virtue, honor and decency associated with those concepts which are the targets of cultural destruction by feminists and the larger radical movement to which feminists belong. You might think there is some reasonable limit to what feminists would endorse in pursuit of this agenda, but hate is irrational and radicalism knows no limit. So when a Canadian provincial government publishes “Children’s Sexual Behaviours: A Parent’s Guide,” which tells parents that it is “natural and healthy” for young children to “touch the ‘private parts’ of familiar adults” and to look at “nude pictures on the Internet, videos, magazines,” we get the expected reaction from feminists: Crickets chirping.
Why the silence? Because the Left is willing to “normalize pedophilia” as part of its “ongoing effort to rid the world of Judeo/Christian influences,” as Matt Ross says. The failure to understand the Left’s revolutionary ambitions leads to a sonambulant indifference to the Left’s declarations of its beliefs, its methods and its purposes.
“Childlike innocence is an invention of the bourgeoisie of early capitalism.”
– Olaf Stüben, German pedophile activist, 1981
While advocating the perverse, abnormal and deviant as “rights,” the Left simultaneously attacks the wholesome and decent, so a married Christian couple like the Duggars must be stigmatized as part of the Left’s larger project, which one of their leaders described as “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Every day brings new headlines heralding the Left’s success at destroying the moral foundation of our nation’s culture.
That’s a good question: Why would the University of Oregon bring anotorious anti-Christian speaker like Dan Savage to campus?
Why not bring the Duggar family to campus instead?
MSNBC would never say the Duggars are “doing wonderful, important work,” because the Duggars are Christians and MSNBC hates Jesus.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Awww! You would think everyone’s natural sympathy would overwhelm their critical capacity, but fear not: Idiot Liberal™ is here!
Happy for #SFBatKid, but can’t help but wonder if this would happen for a kid who isn’t white. Let’s put energy into solving societal ills
@thedapperdiner the teabaggers are mad and I’m all lol. Sadly, I don’t have time to engage anyone.
yup — they love “The masses,” they hate actual people @AtlasCoached
It’s an attitude once riotously spoofed in a Saturday Night Live sketch, “Fondue Forks for Namibia.” There is a fascination with the exotic that I’ve sometimes called xenophilia: A preference for distant people and foreign cultures, as if one’s own nation or community — one’s family, friends and neighbors — were unworthy of interest or respect. (Xenophilia’s obverse is oikophobia, fear of the familiar.)
This is the secular liberal’s version of Christian missionary zeal, and it has been a cliché at least since Randall Jarrell mocked it in Pictures from an Institution, published in 1954.
Speaking of doing something to help children, how about not killing them in the womb? Isn’t that a way to help the world? And then raising them up to be hard-working and responsible, so that they can support themselves and maybe — just maybe — do a little something useful with their lives. Because you know, I’ve got six kids of my own.
My oldest worked her way through college, graduated summa cum laudeand is now teaching the children of Haitian immigrants at a Christian school. So maybe you could say I’ve done my share, indirectly at least, for the whole “solving societal ills” thing.
But it’s never enough for liberals. Their hearts are so overflowing with compassion for the downtrodden and oppressed that they must constantly lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority.
See all of the Twitter comments on Stacy’s post.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Good thing we have YouTube. Without it, Colin Flaherty would have had a hard time documenting the ongoing epidemic of black mob violence that he describes in his excellent White Girl Bleed a Lot. The updated second edition includes QR codes throughout; scan them with your phone or tablet and they take you straight to videos that tell you what the liberal media establishment won’t: the mayhem has gotten completely out of hand.
The violence is widespread and frequent, yet Flaherty’s job wasn’t easy, because media reports will usually refuse to mention race when it does not support the liberal narrative of white oppressors and saintly blacks. That’s where video comes in. Without it, readers might not believe him when he states,
In hundreds of episodes across the country since 2010, groups of black people are roaming the streets of America, intimidating, stalking, vandalizing, stealing, shooting, stabbing, raping, and killing.
We are told the crime rate is down. But to some extent this is due to the police refusing to acknowledge that crimes took place, which is particularly likely to happen when the crimes make the liberal establishment uncomfortable — as with black mob violence.
The media doesn’t want to talk about it. Those who bring up the issue are denounced as racist. If backed into a corner, establishment journalists will deny the epidemic is real, then offer excuses for it in the next breath. When reporting can’t be avoided, the size of mobs is downplayed by counting only those who inflict the violence, not the dozens or hundreds more who egg them on. Due to the lack of coverage, most people don’t even know the problem exists — which sets them up to become victims.
Sometimes the violence is simply random mayhem. But it often targets whites, who risk their lives by merely walking down the street — and not just in places like Chicago and Philadelphia, but in smaller towns like Des Moines and Peoria.
Flaherty knows that writing about race in this country can be treacherous, so he sticks to simple rules:
[N]o stereotypes, no generalizations, no explanations, and no apologies. Also, no causes or solutions. Just the facts.
That is, he gives us what the establishment media won’t.
One person who does not avoid explanations is James Harris of 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee, site of some of the most outlandish chaos. He calls the violence
“the perfect storm of entitlement, dependency, political correctness, and this whole idea of white guilt where we’re afraid to identify who it is that’s attacking and the reasons why they are doing it…”
Occasionally these reasons are explicitly stated, as in the case of Nkosi Thandiwe, who killed Brittney Watts and wounded two other women in Midtown Atlanta in 2011. He testified that he had been taught to hate whites in his history classes at the University of West Georgia, confirming to an assistant district attorney that he was “trying to spread the message of making white people the enemy.”
But rather than try to read minds, Flaherty leaves it up to us to figure out what is driving this alarming phenomenon, which we can only do when we have the facts the authorities have been keeping from us.
If you want to know what is really going on out there, do not fail to read this book.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Pedobear – the thin end of the wedge
On Thursday 18th September Russia’s President Vladimir Putin criticised what he called ‘excesses of political correctness’ in ‘Euro-Atlantic’ nations, referring to the ruling earlier this year in the Netherlands where a ban was overturned on a pro-paedophilia party.
His bold comments were made at the Valdai Discussion Club’s annual meeting at a Kremlin backed delegation of scholars, ministers and foreign dignitaries in north-western Russia, where among other things he vigorously defended the cosiness of traditionalism, dismissed the cultural molestation known as multiculturalism, globalisation, the ‘unipolar world’ - and the erosion of Christian values manifesting as a social focus on heart warming, pill popping, gender-bender genital mutilation.
Such comments coming from a world leader highlight a Fascist-left agenda which enforces ‘tolerance’ for the cultural eviction of the western peoples as a moral imperative.
But his words could be taken further. It could be said regarding Cultural Marxism, and the total political correctness it spawned to impose it, that Newspeak ‘sexism,’ ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ doesn’t even exist.
‘Neither does ‘Islamophobia’ (the irrational fear of being blown up), or ‘patriarchy,’ or ’white supremacy.’ But that’s not to say there isn’t genuine racial hatred: A bunch of black ‘youths’ beating up white families at the Wisconsin State Fair is evidence of that, Nor can it be said that homosexuals aren’t despised: Savage Muslim attacks in quaint Parisian suburbs account for that, too.
And here lies the point: Social justice twinned with political correctness means that only straight white males (in particular) can be viewed as ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ and somehow defective. With everyone else it’s ‘cultural’ or blamed on poverty… like poverty causes 20 black men to gang rape an eleven year old Mexican.
This means, perversely, that acknowledging the epidemic of black on white crime is ‘racism.’ It’s intolerant ‘Islamophobia’ to suggest, regarding Islamofascism, that future immigration from this demographic (miscalculating a liberal western influence on them) should be curtailed in the interests of national security and cohesion.
It means it is ‘sexism’ to assert that men and women on average have differences and that this is why disparate outcomes can be expected in their selected career choice. The useful feminist hate-word ‘misogyny’ is approved. The counter word ‘misandry’ isn’t. They know the way language shapes thought.
That’s why it’s not racist ‘hate speech’ to say that those who suffered under apartheid in South Africa fought against ‘white oppression,’ but the New York Times will damn as ‘anti-Semitic’ references to ‘Jewish oppression’ regarding Palestinians in the West Bank. Their only consistency is that white people are bad.
Armed with this hammer and sickle lexicon and social perception monopoly, the establishment Fascist-left’s army of ‘oppressed groups,’ their Stormtroopers, are encouraged to be professionally offended like proletariats in the early 20th century, a game which so far has only claimed the lives of over a hundred million souls.
Manufactured grievance being a valuable commodity, they stoke the furnace of ‘creative destruction,’ tearing down the ‘oppressive’ west which they hate – even though illegal immigrants in boats die to get there.
They are the authoritarians who call themselves ‘liberal’ while craving status and demanding unfair equality, the ideology of mediocrity. Whatever they fight for, it has nothing to do with rights – if it undermines western society they promote it.
Like paedophilia, which still inspires a healthy revulsion, but like heritage, culture and family, they are working to break down. How long before we hear of peadophobia: The irrational fear of those who want to have sex with children?
And if their Mickey Mouse words and social constructs do exist as defined, why not? It would be a word like the others, designed to frame reality to their liking.
Some of those working to liberate paedophiles today are far-left literary icon Allen Ginsberg, who during his lifetimesupported boy-love advocates, and gay rights OutRage! leader Peter Tatchell, the latter forced by paedophobes to backtrack after claiming ‘the positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-western cultures.’
The key to breaking their spell, and the Fascist-left knows this, is that once a people is free to be itself without fear and loathing, everything else, as Winston Smith observed in 1984, will follow.
As Putin remarked, people in western nations are ‘embarrassed and afraid to speak about their religious beliefs.’ And as long as this is so, everything will carry on. They will invent new forms of psychological rape – their weirdly new neologism ‘white privilege’ putting the gullible into states resembling post-traumatic stress.
Like Mao’s heartless Cultural Revolution, political correctness is a similar attack but on European consciousness. Inevitably then the first step of self-defence is a negation of it. To come to a state of mind where if one doesn’t agree with cultural genocide, they have a different opinion, they’re not ‘racist’ or bigoted. From this follows the control of culture, with that political power.
And this is liberation, not pioneering ‘hate-denial,’ a term which the Fascist-left would use. It is the recognition that only a society which embraces debate instead of criminalizing speech is the only one worth living it. It is respecting the notion that it is a human right to offend and it’s a human right to choose not to be offended.
Earning the ire of his comrades, Christopher Hitchens wrote: ‘Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.’
Societal norms are determined by the culture at large, not by a pointy-headed, ideologically driven ruling class. Yet sometimes the ruling class demonstrates an alarming ability to stampede the masses in any direction it chooses, like drovers directing a herd toward a stockyard. For example, in 1974, the American Psychological Association, yielding to pressure from militant homosexuals, stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder. A generation later, Christian businesses are forced to close their doors for refusing to participate in blasphemous homosexual parodies of weddings. Now on to the next “civil rights” frontier:
In the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM V), the American Psychological Association (APA) drew a very distinct line between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder. Pedophilia refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality.
Nothing wrong with thinking about it; just don’t actually do it.
Again we see that moonbattery is imposed by increments. Otherwise the frog would jump out of the pot.
DSM VI will likely drop any reference to the subject. By DSM VII or VIII, we will see a listing for pedophobia, the shameful condition suffered by neurotically narrow-minded people who are judgmental about pedophilia.
APA’s decision has given rise to numerous pedophilia-advocacy groups, the chief of them being B4U-ACT, a non-profit grassroots organization based in Maryland. Created in 2003 primarily as a means for “minor-attracted persons” to be open about their sexual preferences in a supportive atmosphere, B4U-ACT is now widening the scope of their organization.
According to spokesperson and registered sex offender Paul Christiano, the pedophilia-advocacy group is “working towards de-stigmatizing the mental health community.” Christiano explained that negative societal attitudes towards minor-attracted persons “trickle down to policy-making and the mental health community.”
Having been down this road before, we know where the reengineered societal attitudes will take us. You can easily lose your job for failing to revere homosexuality, a practice regarded with near universal revulsion within living memory. The same will soon be true of pedophilia. Our government has already issued a pedophile stamp, so baby-rapers don’t have long to wait for their place on a pedestal.
On a tip from St. Gilbert.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Dutch Santa’s Little Black Helper
Thankfully, mercifully, and quite refreshingly, the Dutch populace has told the world to go fuck itself.
A “Pete-ition” in support of Black Pete on Facebook gathered over two million likes in the matter of a few days. And according to a poll of nearly 10,000 Netherlanders, 96% said the debate shouldn’t even be occurring. It’s almost as if the entire Dutch nation has applied blackface to its posterior and is mooning the world. – - Jim Goad
When decent people gag on learning that the US Post Office is issuing a Harvey Milk stamp, it is not just that Milk’s sole notable accomplishment was to be acknowledged as a pervert. He was a particularly disgusting type of pervert than any healthy society would strive to eradicate rather than deify. Matt Barber has enraged liberals by drawing attention to Milk’s “deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys”:
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Like many in the sacred (to moonbats) gay caste, Milk was drawn to the young — the illegally young:
One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.
Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.
Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: ” … Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
McKinley later committed suicide.
Milk didn’t have much use for what he called the “heterosexual model” of sexual relationships. He preferred multiple partners. This is how AIDS spreads so quickly. McKinley was hardly his only prey.
Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared of how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.
Too bad the authorities dropped the ball on this, no doubt for political reasons. If Milk had been thrown in prison where he belonged, California might have been spared the ignominy of an actual state holiday called Harvey Milk Day, and the nation as a whole might never have to behold Harvey Milk postage stamps.
You can tell a lot about people by the people they admire. Sometimes you can tell even more by the people they demand that others admire. Evidence that normalization of pedophilia will be the next great civil rights crusade continues to accrue.
On tips from R F, Python, and Scott Drummond.
The 23,500 pensioners in Detroit are going to have to adjust their budgets. The city plans on cutting pensions by 84 percent.
On Friday, city financial consultant Kenneth Buckfire said he did not have to recommend to Orr that pensions for the city’s retirees be cut as a way to help Detroit navigate through debts and liabilities that total $18.5 billion.
Buckfire said it was clear that the city did not have the funds to pay the unsecured pension payouts without cutting them.
“It was a function of the mathematics,” said Buckfire, who said he did not think it was necessary for him or anyone else to recommend pension cuts to Orr.
“Are you saying it was so self-evident that no one had to say it?” asked Claude Montgomery, attorney for a committee of retirees that was created by Rhodes.
“Yes,” Buckfire answered.
Buckfire, a Detroit native and investment banker with restructuring experience, later told the court the city plans to pay unsecured creditors, including the city’s pensioners, 16 cents on the dollar. There are about 23,500 city retirees.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Brought to you by Mad Medic: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
WHENEVER a scene of demonic horror occurs in one of our modern indoctrination centers known as schools, we are reminded again of just how much niceness keeps these sterile, ugly, soulless places afloat. Teddy bears, candlelit vigils, a tidal surge of unanimous praise for the niceness of the victim follow nightmarish, bloody carnage. Philip Chism was only 14 years old and yet he stabbed a teacher to death with a craft knife after hiding in a suburban Massachusetts classroom and waiting to accost her. He then placed her body in a recycling bin and walked out the door. He went to the latest Woody Allen movie after dumping the body in the woods and then wandered the streets, alone with his demonic secret in a perfectly nice community.
How can we explain this? There seems to be no way to process it in the vocabulary of nice. Teddy bears, candles and pledges to remember the deceased are the best answers it can give. Even the murderer in this case is believed to have been nice. Of Philip Chism, one of the few blacks in the town of Danvers, Massachusetts, The Daily Mail reports:
Other students, who played soccer with accused 14-year-old Chism, said that he was a really nice boy but incredibly shy and hard to get to know.
One said: ‘He was nice, but really quiet. No one really knew him that well. Apparently when he was arrested he was unresponsive and barely said anything at all.
Beneath the pervasive niceness, there is breathtaking hard-heartedness. One wonders whether Philip Chism, who may have been overwhelmed with phony niceness during his few months in Danvers because he was black and may have been used to demonstrate the wonderful tolerance of others, saw through this in some childish, intuitive way. There is no real love in these places. Where love is not, hatred blooms. It erupts after a period of silent, invisible fermentation. However nice the teacher Colleen Ritzer may have been, she worked for a brutally indifferent institution. She gave herself obliviously to a system that denies God with matter-of-fact efficiency and refuses to teach a student something so basic to life as prayer. Where God is not, Satan is. And he’s just not very nice.
From Thinking Housewife: http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Posted byDaniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
Ted Cruz has come the closest to understanding that the other side just doesn’t play by any rules, but lacks the leverage to make much of that. Cruz is still a product of a system in which there are rules. And that system is as unfit for challenging the left-wing radicals running things as trying to play a game of chess against an opponent who feels like moving the pieces any which way he feels like and always claims to have won.
Law is a consensus. If you stop keeping the law, the police arrest you. If a gang of left-wing radicals in a basement somewhere stopped following the law, they might be locked up. It’s not a certain thing considering that mad bomber Bill Ayers is a university professor. But once those same left-wing radicals control much of the system and the media that reports on the system, they have no reason to follow the law.
Political factions agree to follow the law for mutual benefit. The Constitution had to be agreed upon by just about everyone. The left-wing radicals in Rhode Island who were making everyone pledge allegiance to their worthless paper currency while threatening to nationalize everything refused and had to be forced in with threats of military intervention and trade embargoes.
But in the end they got the last laugh.
The United States has never really had full-bore left-wing radicals running it before. It does now.
Media outlets breathlessly report on Tea Party radicalism, which consists of wanting to undo the judicial activism of the last century. Meanwhile Obama and his cronies just ignore any law they don’t like and rule by fiat.
Which of these is more radical? The Tea Party activists who would like to revisit the debate over the Tenth Amendment or an administration that does anything it pleases and challenges an impotent judiciary and an even more impotent legislature to stand in its way?
The Tea Party activists would like to revise American legal history. Their left-wing opponents sweep the whole thing off the table. The Tea Party would like the system to abide by the letter of its legal covenants while their left-wing opponents have “modernized” them by judicial fiat and disregarded them by executive fiat.
The only laws that Obama will follow are those that allow him to do what he wants to do anyway. Like the Caliph who conquered Egypt and declared that if the Library of Alexandria should be burned because if its books contradicted the Koran they were heretical and if they agreed with it they were blasphemous, the entire American system, its laws and regulations, are at best supplementary.
Law is a consensus. But the left rejects that consensus. It subjects each law to an ideological test. If the law meets the ideological test, which is based on social justice criteria entirely foreign to the American legal system, and the practical test of furthering social justice, it can stay. If not, then it will either be struck down or disregarded. They have applied that same ideological test to the nation as a whole and decided that the existence of the United States does not meet their ideological tests.
Political factions in the past may have engaged in bare-knuckle political hostilities but they all agreed that the United States in its past, present and future forms was the proper arena for their disputes and that the maintenance of an objective system of laws was the best way to ensure its perpetuation. When that consensus broke down, a civil war resulted. Now the consensus is in even worse tatters.
It’s not the Tea Party that is the new Confederacy, as popular a media talking point as that may be. The new threat isn’t secessionist, but supersessionist. The new Confederacy isn’t out to break up the Union into territorial slices, but to replace the Union with a new and different Union. Call it the Confederacy of the Community Organizers, the War between the Unions or the Supersession War.
The Supersessionist rebels insist that the Constitution and the old order were superseded a long time ago by the march of history. And the only reason that we don’t call them rebels is because they are in control of almost the entire system of government.
Can a government be considered in rebellion against a nation’s laws and its established order? That is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. There is no shot fired at Fort Sumter. Instead a million conspirators tear apart and remake the system in countless ways on a daily basis while the leadership remains in open rebellion of the laws that it is obligated to abide by and enforce.
Obama and the Republicans are fighting a civil war which only the Supersessionists of the Liberal Confederacy fully understand.
The Republicans, who for the most part are about as radical as a three-piece suit, are fighting to maintain a consensus in which everyone follows the law and settles their disagreements by hammering out a compromise that keeps the system going. And their opponents disregard the consensus and the system and go on doing what they want while defying anyone to stop them.
You could call it political civil disobedience, the left would certainly like to when dealing with the administration’s radical lawbreaking on immigration or gay marriage, but civil disobedience applies to the civil population, not to their government. Government disobedience isn’t noble or virtuous. The rebellion of governments against the laws they are obligated to enforce is self-righteous tyranny.
A government in rebellion against the laws is one that asserts that no power, not that of tradition, of the legal covenants that brought the system into being or even the previous votes of the people, is superior to it. That is why the rebellion of the supersessionists is far worse than the rebellions of secessionists. Both the secessionists and the supersessionists reject the consensus, but only the supersessionists insist on forcing a new system of their own making in place of the old consensus.
The unequal constest places liberal rebels looking to trash the system from the top against conservative defenders of an old order fighting from the bottom. The old Nixon vs. Hippies match-up has been flipped over. Nixon is in the crowd of protesters against government abuse and the hippies are laughing at him from the White House. The counterculture has become the culture, but still acts like it’s the counterculture even when it’s running everything.
On one side there is no consensus and no law; only sheer will. On the other there is a body of legal traditions going back centuries.
It’s painfully clear that two such approaches cannot coexist within a single government. And those who have the power and follow no rules have the supreme advantage of wielding government power without the legal restrictions that were meant to bind the abuse of that power.
The Republicans are struggling to find common ground over a mutual respect for the system where none exists. Like any totalitarian radicals, their opponents regard their concern for legalism with contempt.
The radical does not respect process, only outcome. He holds law in contempt, but respects will. While the Republicans debate process, the Democrats steamroll them by focusing only on outcome. Where there is no consensus, then process does not matter. The Democrats treat process as a fiction when it comes to ObamaCare or immigration. And the Republicans struggle to understand why no one holds them accountable without understanding that accountability is also an aspect of process.
The radicalization of the Democratic Party is slowly leading to a counterpart radicalism in the Republican Party. The process is moving far slower because of the vested interests in the way, but every time the radicals of the left displays their contempt for the consensus, they are paving the way for the rise of a Republican Party whose members are more like Ted Cruz than John McCain.
What radicals never understand is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The process of the consensus exists to safeguard both sides and prevent political battles from spinning out of control. Democrats, under the influence of the radical left, have decided that they can unilaterally transform the country by acting as if the consensus and the process don’t bind them. They have not considered what will happen when a Republican Party that has as much resemblance to its present day leaders as Barack Obama does to Hubert Humphrey makes that same decision. Liberal supersessionists claim to be worried about conservative secessionists when they should be far more worried about conservative supersessionists. The consensus we all live by is a fragile thing. It is being torn apart by the radical left and once it is destroyed, it will not bind the right, in the same way that it no longer binds the left. And then the true conflict will begin.
Found at MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
“But this isn’t a free country anymore; this is a country in which you get things for free. And there is a big difference between those two things.”
We live in Eldridge Cleaver’s world now. A world with no more middle ground. Where neutrality is not an option.
The average American still believes that if he isn’t bothering anyone, he should be left alone. To the people running his life and his country, that is as bizarre and unworkable as Phrenology or handing out universal health care without also compelling everyone to buy it.
This is not a nation where people are left alone anymore. This is a nation where they are hounded from the moment they are born until the moment they die by a regulatory state where being left alone has become the greatest of luxuries.
It takes a lot of money to be left alone.
Regulatory space is much more expensive than physical space, and buying it requires investing in lobbyists, fundraisers and lawyers. If you make the right payoffs, then you can buy the privilege of being left alone, exempted from regulations left uninspected and protected against the agents of the state. Once you do that, you have bought yourself the privilege of not being considered the problem; becoming part of the solution for the people you are paying off.
The Americans ambushed by ObamaCare, the scam artist’s dream of a tax paid to a third-party in exchange for benefits accrued to a fourth party, still thought they had the freedom to despise the meddling politicians in both parties and ignore most things the government did, while living their own lives. They had seen their lives bedeviled by a thousand regulations, but still thought it was possible to hold the middle and reject all the solutions by asserting that they were not the problem.
They did not understand that in Cleaverland, in Alinskytown and in Obamaville– no one opts out. Either you volunteer or you get drafted. Raise your hand or you will be called on anyway. Not volunteering to be part of their agenda means that you are the problem.
You, sitting right there in your chair, watching these words move across your screen, are the problem. A problem 311,591,917 human souls strong.
You eat too much or you don’t pay enough taxes, you drive your car too often, you haven’t bought solar panels for your roof, you browse extremist websites when you should be browsing government informational sites for tips on how to do or not do all of the above. Most of all, you don’t understand what a great problem you are for the people running this country into the ground between the Atlantic and the Pacific.
They keep trying to solve you, but you don’t go away.
There is no neutrality when dealing with people who reject the very concept of opting out of a solution. There is no middle ground with people who don’t believe there is a middle ground, believing instead that every human on earth is part of the problem and can only stop being the problem by following their directives.
We confront the Great Solvers of the Human Problem who are determined to rearrange everyone to their liking. They began by controlling everything that people did. Now, they have moved on to controlling what people don’t do. If you live, if you breathe, if you stir, move your muscles, track moving objects with your eyes, then there are obligations imposed on you.
ObamaCare is one of the final declarations that there is no opting out. Even if you don’t drive, own a home, own a business, own a dog, or do one of the infinite things that bring you into mandatory contact with the apparatus of your government, you are committed to a task from maturity to death. Your mission is to obtain health insurance, and, in a system in which you become the ward of the government as soon as you taste air, it is the price that you pay for being alive.
In a free country, you are not obligated to do things simply for the privilege of breathing oxygen north of the Rio Grande and south of Niagara Falls.
But this isn’t a free country anymore; this is a country in which you get things for free. And there is a big difference between those two things.
We are a nation in which everyone is entitled to everything, except the right to opt out of all the entitlements and the cost of paying for them.
We may not have the Bill of Rights anymore, but we have a hell of a bill to settle and, every year, the deficits keep making it bigger and bigger.
Our forefathers passed on to us a Bill of Rights, and we shall pass on to our descendants a Bill. A tremendous Bill which can be unrolled from the mountains to the prairies to the oceans white with foam… and all the way across the ocean to China.
The Bill of Rights was a list of things that the government could not do. The Bill is a list of things that the government has done. It’s an endless bill, because we have an endless government that is doing things all the time. And though we didn’t do any of them, we are still stuck with the bill.
Even if we could reach into our pockets and settle the bill with a couple of loose trillion dollar bills, this Bill doesn’t just demand money, it demands power.
If all that government officials did was go to Vegas, give each other prizes and sing silly songs, then the Bill would be large, but it wouldn’t ask for a piece of our soul. But the amount of money that the government spends is almost beside the point. The amount may bankrupt us, it may destroy our economy, it may turn us into debt slaves– but it’s secondary to how the money is being used.
It’s bad enough to be eaten out of house and home– worse to be forced to feed the occupying army that is taking away your freedoms one by one.
People often talk about the First and Second Amendments, the Fifth comes up, and even the Fourth. But how often do we think about the Third Amendment, that old relic of a time when we were ruled by a distant power with no concern for our lives or our freedoms? “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner“. It’s one of the few amendments that goes unnoticed. No one challenges it. No Supreme Court blots it out with the stroke of a pen or rephrases it to mean that there is a Constitutional right to abortion or a ban on executing juveniles.
There is no occupying army quartered in our homes. They have sizable barracks with marble floors, gleaming chandeliers and metal detectors through which you must pass in order to meet with even one of their lowest officers. They aren’t quartered in your living room, they build buildings and send the bill to you. And then they send you another bill which informs you that they have decided that the War on Obesity, the War on Health Care or the War on the Economy requires you to do a set number of things, the costs of both the doing and their enforcement to be borne by you.
In the last century, the Great Solvers went to work on a national and global game of human chess. They called this game by various names, The New Deal, the New Frontier, Hope and Change, or, most commonly, Social Justice. The real name of the game is “There Ain’t No More Middle Ground”. Either you are a New Dealer, a New Frontierer, a Hope and Changer, a Tolerator, a Liberal, a Donor, an Activist and an Organizer– or you are on the wrong side.
You might think that you are standing in the great moderate middle, the open-minded frontier of the old America, but the frontier and ground are gone. There is only Problemtown and Solutionville and the bulldozers are coming to knock down Problemtown and deport its residents to Solutionville.
ObamaCare is the bus to Solutionville. It is the problem that is “You” being solved in the same inept brute-force fashion in which the Great Solvers solve everything, from Russian agriculture to European Union democracy.
The problems are many, and the Solvers are impatient. There are too many peasants, and weekends are too short, the golf courses are too crowded and the numbers never add up. Each problem keeps needing to be solved many times, but they have already moved on to the next problem and the one after that in the great mass of problems that some people still call America.
Too many Americans still wonder out loud what happened. When did this stop being a free country? Then they finish pumping their gas, buy their sodas, paying several taxes on each and completing a transaction for two commodities whose production and distribution involve more laws than the entire legal codes of Rome and Greece combined, and then drive home, where they begin making notes for next year’s taxes, while reading how the latest laws will affect them.
On the television, an anchor with carefully molded hair and the grave look of the career idiot who has learned to disguise this by always appearing concerned about something, interviews an activist who is proposing new regulations as the only responsible thing to do. “If you aren’t part of the solution,” she says with equally grave sincerity, “then you are part of the problem.”
The American nods along because the proposal seems so reasonable. Who doesn’t want to do something for the children, the oceans, the endangered red-banded shrub, the people somewhere who don’t have something and that sincere young woman who really seems passionate in a way that few are anymore. Then he turns back to his desk, somewhere in the great middle ground that once was, studies the tax forms again and wonders when this stopped being a free country.
This may be the most disgusting thing I have ever seen in my life.
On Friday I mistakenly urged people to buy Barilla products, after owner Guido Barilla appeared to stand up for decency by refusing to comply with militant deviants who demand that commercials push their propaganda by featuring depraved homosexual “families.” But now it appears that the Gay Mafia has made him an offer he could not refuse. These 43 seconds of horror emblemize the sinking of a civilization into the sewer:
The “evolution of the family” means good-bye to that corny old paradigm of mother, father, and the children they produce. Now it means pairs (and eventually larger groups) of sodomites acquiring other people’s children so as to raise them in their corrupt, unholy, and exceedingly unhealthy lifestyle — and often so as to exploit them as sex slaves (e.g., see here, here, andhere).
No doubt the family will continue to evolve until children are created from clones. At that point our grotesquely depraved ruling class will be able to do away with traditional families altogether.
What do these freaks do to people like Barilla to make them grovel in such abject terror?
Needless to say, the buycott is now a boycott. Get ready to field astonished questions from your kids regarding why the “families” slurping spaghetti in the TV commercials have two daddies and no mommies.
On tips from Jim72, Matt L, Spicy Meatball, and DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/?p=37274
Our left-wing rulers have crossed the Rubicon into pure evil by advancing homosexual adoption, with easily foreseeable results (e.g., here, here, and here). But liberal tolerance doesn’t extend to everyone. Progressive officials weed out parents with conservative values who might not participate in their depraved social engineering schemes:
A video has been uncovered of Massachusetts officials promising to weed out foster parents with conservative values who would only “tolerate” a youth’s gender confusion and not endorse it.
Predictably, now that they have “tolerance,” it is no longer enough. Adoptive parents are required to be the sort who will use child rearing as an opportunity to actively advance the homosexual agenda.
The video was captured by Janet Aldrich of Catch of the Day Video News and featured by political activist Amy Contrada, who researches family issues through the non-profit Massachusetts-based group Mass Resistance organization.
In a new report, Contrada wrote: “It’s now official policy in Massachusetts. Adults holding traditional values will no longer be allowed to adopt or be foster parents.”
Contrada said the video is of a Boston Bar Association forum with the state Department of Children and Families and the state agency on homosexual youth.
You read that correctly. Massachusetts has a state agency devoted to promoting sexual deviancy among children.
“The DFC speakers confirmed that they are ‘weeding out’ adoptive and foster parents who are not willing to wholly accept and support LGBT (lesbian, “gay,” bisexual, or transgender) self-identification by a child in their care,” she wrote.
That is, any parents who are not barking moonbats devoted to the Left’s grotesque sexual agenda.
On tips from Clingtomyguns and Steve A. Hat tip: The Inter-American Institute.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/?p=37385