“You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.”

No Truce With the Left

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left’s useful idiots. It’s only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they’re wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don’t like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe’s Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that’s the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power. That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn’t disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won’t work. There’s no ‘agree to disagree’ possible here. He’s picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists ‘care’ about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It’s the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he’s ready to  kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he’ll be laughing at them again.

There’s a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the ’cause’.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can’t find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.

These changes have the mad logic of a byzantine ideology behind them, but to the ordinary person their definition of progress seems entirely random.

A Socialist a century ago considered factories progressive instruments of the future and men in dresses a decadent reactionary behavior. Now factories are reactionary pollution machines of globalization and men in dresses are an oppressed victim group who have transcended biology with the power of their minds.

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other class enemies cannot possibly ‘progress’ enough to be acceptable to the left because it identifies progress with political conformity. A tolerant and progressive Republican is a contradiction in terms.

If he were truly tolerant and progressive, he wouldn’t be a Republican.

The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can’t attack you, they’ll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

The left’s social justice program is really a wave of these purges which force their own people to hurry up and conform to whatever the Party dictated this week. Examples are made out of laggards on social media to encourage the rest to stop thinking and start marching in line. As Orwell knew well, these shifts select for mindless ideological zombies while silencing critical thinkers.

Yesterday we were against fighting Hitler. Today we’re for it. Retroactively, we were always at war with Oceania. Retroactively, Bruce Jenner was always a woman. Retroactively, Obama was always right about Iraq, even when he appeared to be making the wrong decisions.

These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

The constant shifts create their own version of future shock. They leave people baffled and uncertain. Society no longer seems to resemble what they knew, even though the real society of men and women has not really changed much, only the media’s presentation of it has. But a beaten down mass of ordinary people now imagines that the country is filled with gay men and trannies. They accept that what they thought was common sense no longer applies and that it’s someone else’s country now.

And that is the prize that the left dearly wants. Surrender.

The left’s media machine makes its madness seem cool even though behind all the agitating young things are a bunch of bitter old leftists. But the madness is a means, not an end. So is the facade of revolutionary cool to each shift.

The Futurists of Russia vowed to heave the past “overboard from the steamship of modernity”. But when the Revolution came, the classics came back into the libraries and the Futurists were forced to stop drawing triangles and make their art conform to the conventional structure of a totalitarian state.  The time of change had ended. Once the left was in power, the future became a lot like the past.

You can’t accommodate the left on social issues. You can’t accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can’t do it. Period.

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It’s not about gay marriage. It’s not about cakes. It’s about power.

More fundamentally it’s about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can’t work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There’s nothing else.

From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html

SCOTUS Obergefell decision Has Opened Pandora’s Box and Christian Persecution is about to Escalate

Loserville

Anyone who has played sports knows that strange feeling where you look up and see you’re not just losing but getting clobbered, despite feeling like you were doing well. Maybe the last time you looked up it was close and now it is a blowout. Perhaps you feel like you’re competing, but the other side just keeps pulling away. When you’re in the heat of the battle, it is easy to not only lose sight of the bigger picture, but get a wildly incorrect view of that bigger picture.

Reading conservative sites the last week, I’m getting that vibe from both the chattering skulls and their readers who show up in the comments. There’s a state of shock at what has transpired over the two weeks.Their preferred party sold them out to please global finance. The court untethered itself from the English language and made itself the enforcer for the Cult of Modern Liberalism. Not only was the Right not winning, they were blown off the field.

As I pointed out the other day, the gay marriage ruling is the biggest assault on religious liberty in the history of the nation. One cannot read the majority opinion without wondering how long before the courts declare Christianity illegal.

The ObamaCare decision is the most radical in the history of the court. Judge Roberts literally declared that the English language is no longer a constraint on the court, which means they no longer have to read the relevant laws in future cases.

Most of the Right is in shock, unable to muster more than the old complaints that sound rather silly given what has just transpired. Surprisingly, Rod Dreher gets it, as far where things stand for people of his faith. That’s a well written essay displaying the right amount of sadness for what he and his coreligionists face in the coming years.

No, the sky is not falling — not yet, anyway — but with the Supreme Court ruling constitutionalizing same-sex marriage, the ground under our feet has shifted tectonically.

It is hard to overstate the significance of the Obergefell decision — and the seriousness of the challenges it presents to orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. Voting Republican and other failed culture war strategies are not going to save us now.

Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.

What Rod and others got wrong is they thought they were in the fight. They truly thought they were giving the other side a battle over who will control society. The fact is, they never had a chance. They were getting their butt kicked for decades. The last week is just the part where the other team does the outrageous celebration on the loser’s team logo.

Last week was part of the mopping up phase of the culture war. The major institutions of the West have all been converted to the Cult of Modern Liberalism. There are no cultural institutions that stand in opposition to any of this stuff.

Their breathless support is seen in the speed with which retailers banished the rebel flag. A white guy shoots up a black church and the Cult demands a sacrifice in return. Hours after the gay marriage ruling major companies were celebrating it in TV commercials. You would not be cynical to think that maybe this has all been coordinated.

It’s tempting to think that normal people will resist, but history says otherwise. The Catholic Church is maneuvering to join the Cult on global warming. The Pope has already made noises about embracing the homosexual agenda. Everyone with something to lose is figuring out that it is time to join the winning side. You can be sure that the rest of the Christian sects will follow the Catholics into the abyss.

I received an e-mail from Paul Gottfried a while back, in response to one I sent him. I don’t know Professor Gottfried and he does not know me. I doubt he knows of this blog. Today, no one thinks twice about firing off an e-mail to a stranger and I’m no different. I sent off my query after reading this column.

It occurred to me that we are losing a lot of important knowledge as the geezers of the Old Right die off. They are the last ones to remember the old fights and why we find ourselves where we are. Professor Gottfried would do us all a great service by putting together a list of writers and books that the next generation could use in the resistance.

He was not interested and sounded a bitter tone in his response. Professor Gottfried, like many on the Old Right, has been shunned and forced to live on the fringes. The fringes of the public intellectual space, that is. Almost all of these guys used to write for mainstream publications and conservative publications with wide circulations. One by one they were proscribed starting in the 1980’s.

I really don’t blame these guys for being bitter, assuming they are bitter. They were right from the start. In the 80’s, when being Right was suddenly cool, all sorts of faddish sorts jumped on board, but few possessed the social core required to carry the fight to the Progressives. Instead they went in for whatever was fashionable to sell books, radio shows and ugly ties. Instead of building a movement that could displace the Left, they sucked it dry. The so-called paleo-cons predicted this result.

That’s all water under the bridge now. There’s value in learning from past defeats, but the time for that has passed as well. The only job left is to pack up the old books and articles in the hope that some future generation, looking for a way out, discovers them and find some inspiration.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Think the SCOTUS decision on Gay Marriage is about “Gay Marriage?” Better think again.

 

After The Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council declared marriage, as we have known it for 10,000 years, to be null and void, most of the chattering skulls on what passes for the Right these days went into predictable hysterics. Progressive lunatics decorated themselves in rainbows, celebrating without fully understanding what it is they are celebrating. They just like gloating.

So far the only chattering skull to sort of get what’s happening is David French at National Review.

The most striking aspect of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, which created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, was its deep emotion. This was no mere legal opinion. Indeed, the law and Constitution had little to do with it. (To Justice Kennedy, the most persuasive legal precedents were his own prior opinions protecting gay rights.) This was a statement of belief, written with the passion of a preacher, meant to inspire.

Consider the already much-quoted closing: As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

Or this:

“Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there.”

This isn’t constitutional law, it’s theology — a secular theology of self-actualization — crafted in such a way that its adherents will no doubt ask, “What decent person can disagree?” This is about love, and the law can’t fight love. Justice Kennedy’s opinion was nine parts romantic poetry and one part legal analysis (if that).

It has always been theology. The striking thing about the century long battle between the Cult of Modern Liberalism and the American Right is how uneven the fight has been. One side is focused, never losing sight of the bigger goals. The other side is composed of blithering idiots convinced they can talk their opponents out of destroying them.

And destruction is the only end possible. The Cult never loses sight of their main targets. The health care bill was mostly changes in the law to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Forcing some Christians to pay for abortions, for example, is forcing them to violate their faith. Do that enough and even the faithful give up. History is clear. Conversion is always compulsory.

This piece in America’s Newspaper of Record shines the light on what comes next.

On Friday, in a momentous decision, the Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages nationwide. But the fight over how those weddings are accommodated or recognized, particularly by religious organizations, is far from over.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent noted the many outstanding issues, which is why he would have preferred states passing laws allowing gay marriage, rather than judicial fiat. For Roberts, only legislation or voter initiatives signal “true acceptance.” Also, “respect for sincere religious conviction” led to “accommodations for religious practice” in every jurisdiction to democratically adopt it.

Those religious-liberty protections make clear that pre-existing bans on sexual-orientation discrimination — which provide sorely needed protections to LGBT individuals in housing, hiring and public accommodations — do not inadvertently spill over to a religious sacrament like marriage.

For example, in DC, Maryland, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Washington, marriage counseling provided by churches could continue to cater exclusively to heterosexual couples. After extensive hearings, legislatures in four states expressly provided that religious social-services agencies could continue to place children exclusively with heterosexual married couples, although in three states, such placements may occur only if the program receives no public money.

The First Amendment, courts agree, means churches can refuse to conduct religious ceremonies for same-sex partners if it conflicts with their belief. But what if, say, a couple wants to hold a reception in a church basement? Can they be refused?

The dissenters skewered Justice Anthony Kennedy for trivializing the impact on religious believers. Kennedy says, “The First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”

Clarence Thomas countered that “individuals and churches [will be] confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples,” an “inevitability” that the majority’s “weak gesture toward religious liberty in a single paragraph” is wholly insufficient to address. Samuel Alito worried that “those who cling to old beliefs . . . risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

At oral argument, Alito asked Solicitor General Donald Verrilli the question nagging many religiously affiliated educational institutions — the fact that Bob Jones University lost its tax-exempt status in the 1980s because it opposed interracial marriage. “So, would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?”

Verrilli conceded that tax exemption is “certainly going to be an issue.”

Of course it is going to be an issue. It has always been the issue. The whole point of gay marriage, after all, is to further bust up the traditional family and to marginalize Christian churches. A central tenet of the Cult of Modern Liberalism is the first and only loyalty of the people is to the state. The state is not just a government but the entirety of life. Nothing is outside the state, including God. This reads like it was written yesterday by Barak Obama for a reason.

What will happen from here is a wave of lawsuits against anyone and everyone holding out against the Homintern. This will include churches. Initially the courts will try to beat back this assault on the First Amendment, but in a decade the cost of not embracing the sodomite banner will break the remaining holdouts. Churches that refuse to perform gay weddings will lose their tax exempt status. Many will close. Being a Christian will be equated with being in the Klan.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Today, the Confederate Flag, Tomorrow, Who Knows Where the Hysteria will Lead…

Don’t Let Dylann Roof and the SPLC Define the Confederate Flag

I am going to go against what seems to be the wave of public opinion, including that of prominent Republicans, by urging South Carolina to keep the Confederate flag.  I also encourage people to circumvent Amazon.com’s and eBay’s bans on Confederate flag merchandise by looking for alternate distribution channels.  Let somebody other than Amazon and eBay collect the commissions on the sales.

The reason is simple: if we go along with repudiation of the Confederate flag, then (alleged until proven guilty) murderer Dylann Roof wins.  We will have allowed him and the Ku Klux Klan on one side, and race hustlers like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Al Sharpton on the other, to hand the Confederate flag over to white supremacists to use as their symbol.  There is even conversation about removing the names of Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee from Army bases.  Al Sharpton, of course, supports this agenda, even though he, unlike General Lee, was at least partially responsible for two incidents of racist violence (Crown Heights and Freddy’s Fashion Mart).

Robert E. Lee never participated in, much less led, a KKK rally around a black-owned store in a Caucasian neighborhood.  He therefore compares very favorably to Al Sharpton, who personally called the owner of Freddy’s Fashion Mart a “white interloper” while his followers threatened to set fire to the store, and one finally did.  Come to think of it, it would be instructive to determine whether Lee ever used the N-word (even when it was socially acceptable) in contrast to Al Sharpton, who applied it to New York mayor David Dinkins.  Sharpton has also often used colorful language for white people in general and Jews in particular.

General Lee’s distaste for slavery was meanwhile comparable to Abraham Lincoln’s.  “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”  Lee, however, became a role model for character and integrity when he declined command of the Union Army to serve in an initially subordinate position in the Confederate Army.

The Confederate Flag Is Not about Slavery

I don’t know how many thousands of slaves were imported under the Stars and Stripes, but the number imported under the Stars and Bars comes to roughly zero.  Prior to the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, the Baltimore (as in Yankee rather than Confederate) clipper ship played a major role in slave transportation.  Even as late as 1849, Baltimore-built clippers played an active role in the slave trade under foreign flags.  “In 1849 reports surfaced indicating that a Baltimore clipper had cleared $400,000 from eleven slave-trading voyages over a four-year period.”

This little piece of history, by the way, proves the blatant double standards of those agitating for removal of the Confederate flag.  “Baltimore Clippers” was the name of a hockey team and a basketball team in Baltimore, a solid blue (Obama Democrat) municipality. A reasonable person would acknowledge this as a symbol of pride in the city’s shipbuilding history, but it could also be construed as glorification of the city’s role in the slave trade.

Don’t Revise History

If we allow Dylann Roof, the KKK, Al Sharpton, and the SPLC to define the Confederate flag as a racist hate symbol, we are also tolerating revisionist history to the effect that the Civil War was about slavery.  While the issue of slavery was certainly divisive, the war’s primary cause was economic.  Men who had to march barefoot because they could not afford boots did not own slaves, and they were far more likely kept out of paying work by the institution of slavery.  They would have no more fought to defend the right of a few percent of the South’s population to own slaves than today’s working class would fight to defend the right of corporations to ship jobs offshore for cheap labor.

In addition, the Underground Railroad could have never operated without complicity by Southerners who were willing to look the other way while slaves escaped.  Many Northern workers meanwhile supported slavery because they were afraid that emancipated blacks would take their jobs.  There was plenty of right and wrong on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.

The industrialized North could abolish slavery for the same reason the United Kingdom abolished it.  Mechanization and productivity make slavery uneconomical, just as Henry Ford proved later that mechanization and productivity make low-wage labor uneconomical.  Northern factory owners, however, agitated for tariffs on the goods that the South imported from the United Kingdom in exchange for cotton.  This was simply another version of a major cause of the War of Independence; the United Kingdom would not let its colonies manufacture anything, and forced them instead to trade raw materials for finished goods.  If we look at the principal and immediate cause of the Civil War from the perspective of the Founding Fathers, therefore, the Confederacy was in the right.  The Confederacy was of course wrong about slavery, but slavery persisted the longest in the states that remained loyal to the Union.

Only after the war began did Abraham Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclamation, which British cartoonist John Tenniel dismissed as a political ploy in which Abraham Lincoln plays an “Ace of Spades” against Jefferson Davis.  The Emancipation Proclamation must therefore be viewed as doing the right thing (abolishing slavery) for the wrong reason (as a weapon against the South rather than against the inherent wrongness of slavery).  It meanwhile exempted every single slave-owning state such as Maryland (the home of the Baltimore slave ship), Delaware, and West Virginia.  Slavery remained legal in those jurisdictions until 1865.

This brings us to the next issue.

If the Confederate Flag Is a Hate Symbol, so Are the Penny and Five-Dollar Bill

History quiz #3: “I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”  Who said it?

  • Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the Ku Klux Klan)
  • Simon Legree (in Uncle Tom’s Cabin)
  • Jefferson Davis
  • Abraham Lincoln (Lincoln-Douglas debate)
  • Robert E. Lee
  • Stonewall Jackson
  • David Duke (Ku Klux Klan)

The quote is straight from the Great Emancipator, whose name is on many public schools in black neighborhoods.  Lincoln was admittedly ahead of his time because he did not believe that the “white race’s” purported superiority over black people went so far as to entitle white people to own black people, but he was not ahead of his anti-slavery contemporaries like Robert E. Lee.  Should we therefore remove Lincoln’s portrait from the penny and the five-dollar bill?

Let’s first consider, though, the proposition that somebody’s use of anything as a hate symbol makes it a hate symbol.

What Is a Hate Symbol?

The Ku Klux Klan often marches with the Confederate flag.  A group of Confederate reenactors once turned up at such an event with their own Confederate flag and, as soon as the Klansmen got close enough, turned as a single man to show the Kluxers their backs.  The Confederate flag obviously has a very different meaning to each of the two groups.

The fact that the Phelps family and Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama’s pastor) preach hatred from behind the Christian cross, and the fact that the Klan burns crosses, does not mean that the cross represents hate.  If the person burning the cross is wearing a kilt rather than a sheet and hood, in fact, he probably has nothing against black people, although, in the bad old days, he might have had something against a rival clan (that’s clan with a c and not a k).

Are sheets and hoods hate symbols?  It depends again on the context in which they are displayed.  These Spanish Penitentes (Holy Week penitents) hide their faces not because they have any intention of threatening or harming black people, but because they believe that public religious devotion should be anonymous.

The swastika is obviously a hate symbol, but only if one believes that pre-Columbian Native Americans as well as ancient Indo-Europeans were Nazis.  I saw a swastika petroglyph in Nevada, and I doubt that the people who drew it ever heiled anybody or anything but the Great Spirit.  ProSwastika.org argues quite persuasively, “By associating the swastika with the Nazis, we only give credit to the monstrosities of this horrible regime.”  In other words, the world allowed the Nazis to define the swastika at the expense of hundreds of millions of people around the world who used it long before anybody ever heard of a Nazi, and to whom its meaning is contrary to everything the Nazis represent.  Hitler, at least to the extent of stigmatizing Native American, Hindu, Buddhist, Greek, Tibetan, etc. swastikas in this manner, therefore won that part of the Second World War even though he lost the rest.


Nazi Native Americans?  Not in 1909.

The Confederate Flag and the Right of Self-Defense

The states of the former Confederacy, unlike many Union strongholds like New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts, believe that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says rather than what the likes of Andrew Cuomo and Barack Obama want it to mean.  It means that people of all races have an inherent right to possess weapons for defense of home, family, and country.  The fact that Roof allegedly used a weapon with a seven-round New York SAFE Act-compliant magazine saved none of his unarmed victims, as he was able to reload several times.

What would have saved them would have been a controlled pair to Roof’s thoracic cavity followed by another to his head if he was still standing with a weapon in his hand.  This is a solution that blacks who might be afraid to go to church because of racist threats, and Jews who might be afraid to go to a synagogue because of Islamist terrorists, ought to consider.

William A. Levinson is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/dont_let_dylann_roof_and_the_splc_define_the_confederate_flag.html#ixzz3eSFrxgv0

 

The Left’s determination to Destroy the History of the South

Purging the History of the South

Calmer heads know unity will not be achieved nor racism ended with the taking down of the so-called Confederate flag from South Carolina’s State House grounds.  While the debate currently is about one symbol seen as offensive by many, there is much more at stake than the elimination of a single flag.

Much more.

What is occurring even as this piece is being written is a modern version of the frenzied iconoclasm of the past.  Today’s leftists are much like the zealots who attacked cathedrals during the Reformation, knocking the heads off statues, destroying relics, breaking stained glass windows and even stripping paint from church walls.  The iconoclasts believed they were purifying the church from idolatry and heresy by so doing.

In like manner, the religion of the Left is seeking the destruction of symbols, statues and paintings representing what they believe to be an unmitigated racist world view diametrically opposed to the doctrines of the pure church of liberalism.

Consequently, what may be at stake is the distinct possibility of a panicky purge of the history of the American South.  A purge is to be achieved by eliminating anything that calls forth memory of the Confederacy.

An exaggeration?  Not at all.

The wheels of progressive revisionism, once they start rolling, could grind exceedingly small.  Every vestige of what the Left sees as the completely degraded past of the South might have to go.  Nothing, no matter how seemingly insignificant or innocuous, would escape revision because for the Leftist inhabitants of the Northeast and elsewhere, the South has been and is still suspected of being irredeemably racist.  It’s always and forever the world of Harper Lee.

Already calls for eliminating the Confederate flag from Maryland license plates and the renaming of Robert E. Lee Park in Baltimore have surfaced.  It was a matter of mere hours before the calls for eliminating road signs and schools named after Confederate generals begin.  Then there were those statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Pickett, Stonewall Jackson and others to be dealt with.

According to the New York Times:

In Charleston, the board that governs the Citadel, the state’s 173-year-old military academy, voted, 9 to 3, to remove the Confederate Naval Jack from the campus chapel, saying that a Citadel graduate and the relatives of six employees were killed in the attack on the church.

In Tennessee, political leaders from both parties said a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and an early Ku Klux Klan leader, should be moved out of the State House. In Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, ordered that the Confederate flag no longer appear on license plates, and political leaders in Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee vowed to do the same.

As the hysteria over emblems and symbols of the Confederacy accelerates, questions that would have seemed ridiculous only a few weeks or even days ago can legitimately be asked. Just how much is this hysteria over the Confederacy’s symbols going to encompass?

For example, will the legend of Scarlett and Rhett be expunged from the screen?  What about Civil War memorabilia sold on E-Bay?  E-Bay has already banned the sale of anything with the Confederate flag emblazoned on it.  What will be their policy concerning Civil War memorabilia?  Will the sale of Confederate uniforms, portraits of Confederate soldiers, oil paintings of battles Confederates won and weapons used by Confederates be banned from sale while memorabilia of the victorious and unsullied North remains saleable?

What about the re-enactments of Civil War battles so beloved in the South (and the North)?  Should they be forbidden?  Then there’s the matter of American history books?  Should the South’s entire history be reconsidered?

Of course, another question is how to deal with the people who stubbornly remain attached to the history of their culture, even though many attempt to include the good, the bad and the ugly of Southern history.  Perhaps Southern historians and professors could be “encouraged” to write and teach the history of the South differently, focusing strictly on the guilt of Southern slavery and the righteousness of the North.  Perhaps Sherman’s march through Georgia is more worthy of study than the brilliant victories of Robert E. Lee?  Should the military genius and sheer personal decency of Robert E. Lee not be mentioned while Ulysses S. Grant’s character is held up as the paramount standard for a Civil War general?  Should the portraits of confederate generals be taken down from their places in military academies and only portraits of Northern generals remain?

What about Southern ancestors?  Should heritages dating back to the Confederacy be a matter of shame rather than of pride?  Will the fact one of your ancestors owned slaves make you suspect as a potential if not an actual racist?

We have seen excesses of panicky and irrational historical revisionism and iconoclasm from time immemorial.

Whether it was Thutmose III’s desecration of Hatshepsut’s statues and the attempt to eliminate any memory of the woman pharaoh; or the attempt during France’s Reign of Terror to eliminate the aristocracy and the Church, including a plan to blow up Notre Dame; or Stalin’s attempt to remove all traces of the Romanoff dynasty, including the complete destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church; or Mao Tse Tung’s Red Guards, who attempted to eliminate Western, including Christian, influence from Chinese culture, as well as ancient Chinese culture itself — the motives have always the same: destroy any offensive symbols of historical events that indicating beliefs differing from the reigning cultural powers.  Only one viewpoint is to be permitted.  Only “pure” symbols reflecting the viewpoint of ideologues is to be taught.  Into the bonfire of vanities with fripperies that reflect heretical views.

In sum, the mentality of the ancient Edomites toward Jerusalem currently appears to be among those of the Left:  “Tear it down.  Tear it down to the foundations.”  No stone must be left untouched until the entire memory of a hated past is completely eliminated.

Then we can build the South again according to the doctrines of the Left.  What a great world it will be once those gun toting, bitter clingers to Christianity, the Republican Party and the Tea Party infesting the South are completely defeated and their idols are no more.

The reasoning behind a potential purge of Southern history by an iconoclastic Left appears to be the hope that by eliminating the symbols of racism, the actual sin of racism will be expurgated.  Racism can be eliminated by taking away the forms that give it substance.  It is a matter of eliminating statues and flags, not a matter of changing hearts.  Getting rid of an offensive flag or statue is a much easier thing to do than to rend one’s heart before almighty God.

Supposedly, by ridding the South of its icons, including the “Confederate flag,” the South will be cleansed of its past sins.  Those sins will linger on because harmful thoughts are evoked by the flag, thoughts that do not fade.  Therefore, the symbols and statues must go, for they evoke hateful memories and incite racist behavior. The Old South must be razed again and a new South rise from the ashes.

What is the solution to this complicated mess?

First, conservatives must cry out loudly, Halt! Stop the iconoclastic frenzy.

Next, let’s insist on telling history, including the history of the Civil War as it really happened in all its facets.  Tell the good, the bad and the ugly history of the South, the North, the East and the West.  Tell the truth. Tell it all — the whole miserable, glorious, mixed up, fascinating and complex mess.

Keep the flags.  Keep the statues.  Keep the portraits.

Teach about them.

Son, this is a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest.  He was brilliant and courageous in battle, but he was brutal.  This park named after Robert E. Lee?  Daughter, he was brave and a gentleman who was worshipped by his men, but it is said he was cruel to his slaves.  Grandchild, here is the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln, it is now acknowledged by most historians, was such a complex genius, scarcely anyone can fully understand the man or sum him up. This portrait of Jefferson Davis, whose statue Mitch McConnell now wants removed from the capitol of Kentucky? Davis, my dear girl, argued against secession, but believed each state had a right to secede from the Union.  A lot of people thought like Davis, and a lot of people didn’t.  So they fought.

A lot of honorable (and some very dishonorable) people on both sides of the Civil War, Confederates and Union soldiers, fought to the death over what they thought was right or wrong.  Each side had a story to tell, a story from which great lessons can be learned.

My child, all history is an admixture of glory and honor; cruelty and cowardice; righteousness and injustice; the beautiful and the horrible.

We’ll tell it all.  We’ll not even pretend that some of us are so righteous and pure we have the authority to decree the only stories that may be told are ours.  We will try not to be so self-righteous we think we’re the only honorable people in times of battle or peace.  We won’t attempt to take the mote out of our brother’s eye when we have a beam in our own.

We will not destroy, fail to acknowledge or refuse to learn other people’s histories.

Because if we do, we will never learn from it or them.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and many other online publications.  She holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology. She at one time taught American history. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Calmer heads know unity will not be achieved nor racism ended with the taking down of the so-called Confederate flag from South Carolina’s State House grounds.  While the debate currently is about one symbol seen as offensive by many, there is much more at stake than the elimination of a single flag.

Much more.

What is occurring even as this piece is being written is a modern version of the frenzied iconoclasm of the past.  Today’s leftists are much like the zealots who attacked cathedrals during the Reformation, knocking the heads off statues, destroying relics, breaking stained glass windows and even stripping paint from church walls.  The iconoclasts believed they were purifying the church from idolatry and heresy by so doing.

In like manner, the religion of the Left is seeking the destruction of symbols, statues and paintings representing what they believe to be an unmitigated racist world view diametrically opposed to the doctrines of the pure church of liberalism.

Consequently, what may be at stake is the distinct possibility of a panicky purge of the history of the American South.  A purge is to be achieved by eliminating anything that calls forth memory of the Confederacy.

An exaggeration?  Not at all.

The wheels of progressive revisionism, once they start rolling, could grind exceedingly small.  Every vestige of what the Left sees as the completely degraded past of the South might have to go.  Nothing, no matter how seemingly insignificant or innocuous, would escape revision because for the Leftist inhabitants of the Northeast and elsewhere, the South has been and is still suspected of being irredeemably racist.  It’s always and forever the world of Harper Lee.

Already calls for eliminating the Confederate flag from Maryland license plates and the renaming of Robert E. Lee Park in Baltimore have surfaced.  It was a matter of mere hours before the calls for eliminating road signs and schools named after Confederate generals begin.  Then there were those statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest, George Pickett, Stonewall Jackson and others to be dealt with.

According to the New York Times:

In Charleston, the board that governs the Citadel, the state’s 173-year-old military academy, voted, 9 to 3, to remove the Confederate Naval Jack from the campus chapel, saying that a Citadel graduate and the relatives of six employees were killed in the attack on the church.

In Tennessee, political leaders from both parties said a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Confederate general and an early Ku Klux Klan leader, should be moved out of the State House. In Virginia, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, ordered that the Confederate flag no longer appear on license plates, and political leaders in Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee vowed to do the same.

As the hysteria over emblems and symbols of the Confederacy accelerates, questions that would have seemed ridiculous only a few weeks or even days ago can legitimately be asked. Just how much is this hysteria over the Confederacy’s symbols going to encompass?

For example, will the legend of Scarlett and Rhett be expunged from the screen?  What about Civil War memorabilia sold on E-Bay?  E-Bay has already banned the sale of anything with the Confederate flag emblazoned on it.  What will be their policy concerning Civil War memorabilia?  Will the sale of Confederate uniforms, portraits of Confederate soldiers, oil paintings of battles Confederates won and weapons used by Confederates be banned from sale while memorabilia of the victorious and unsullied North remains saleable?

What about the re-enactments of Civil War battles so beloved in the South (and the North)?  Should they be forbidden?  Then there’s the matter of American history books?  Should the South’s entire history be reconsidered?

Of course, another question is how to deal with the people who stubbornly remain attached to the history of their culture, even though many attempt to include the good, the bad and the ugly of Southern history.  Perhaps Southern historians and professors could be “encouraged” to write and teach the history of the South differently, focusing strictly on the guilt of Southern slavery and the righteousness of the North.  Perhaps Sherman’s march through Georgia is more worthy of study than the brilliant victories of Robert E. Lee?  Should the military genius and sheer personal decency of Robert E. Lee not be mentioned while Ulysses S. Grant’s character is held up as the paramount standard for a Civil War general?  Should the portraits of confederate generals be taken down from their places in military academies and only portraits of Northern generals remain?

What about Southern ancestors?  Should heritages dating back to the Confederacy be a matter of shame rather than of pride?  Will the fact one of your ancestors owned slaves make you suspect as a potential if not an actual racist?

We have seen excesses of panicky and irrational historical revisionism and iconoclasm from time immemorial.

Whether it was Thutmose III’s desecration of Hatshepsut’s statues and the attempt to eliminate any memory of the woman pharaoh; or the attempt during France’s Reign of Terror to eliminate the aristocracy and the Church, including a plan to blow up Notre Dame; or Stalin’s attempt to remove all traces of the Romanoff dynasty, including the complete destruction of the Russian Orthodox Church; or Mao Tse Tung’s Red Guards, who attempted to eliminate Western, including Christian, influence from Chinese culture, as well as ancient Chinese culture itself — the motives have always the same: destroy any offensive symbols of historical events that indicating beliefs differing from the reigning cultural powers.  Only one viewpoint is to be permitted.  Only “pure” symbols reflecting the viewpoint of ideologues is to be taught.  Into the bonfire of vanities with fripperies that reflect heretical views.

In sum, the mentality of the ancient Edomites toward Jerusalem currently appears to be among those of the Left:  “Tear it down.  Tear it down to the foundations.”  No stone must be left untouched until the entire memory of a hated past is completely eliminated.

Then we can build the South again according to the doctrines of the Left.  What a great world it will be once those gun toting, bitter clingers to Christianity, the Republican Party and the Tea Party infesting the South are completely defeated and their idols are no more.

The reasoning behind a potential purge of Southern history by an iconoclastic Left appears to be the hope that by eliminating the symbols of racism, the actual sin of racism will be expurgated.  Racism can be eliminated by taking away the forms that give it substance.  It is a matter of eliminating statues and flags, not a matter of changing hearts.  Getting rid of an offensive flag or statue is a much easier thing to do than to rend one’s heart before almighty God.

Supposedly, by ridding the South of its icons, including the “Confederate flag,” the South will be cleansed of its past sins.  Those sins will linger on because harmful thoughts are evoked by the flag, thoughts that do not fade.  Therefore, the symbols and statues must go, for they evoke hateful memories and incite racist behavior. The Old South must be razed again and a new South rise from the ashes.

What is the solution to this complicated mess?

First, conservatives must cry out loudly, Halt! Stop the iconoclastic frenzy.

Next, let’s insist on telling history, including the history of the Civil War as it really happened in all its facets.  Tell the good, the bad and the ugly history of the South, the North, the East and the West.  Tell the truth. Tell it all — the whole miserable, glorious, mixed up, fascinating and complex mess.

Keep the flags.  Keep the statues.  Keep the portraits.

Teach about them.

Son, this is a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest.  He was brilliant and courageous in battle, but he was brutal.  This park named after Robert E. Lee?  Daughter, he was brave and a gentleman who was worshipped by his men, but it is said he was cruel to his slaves.  Grandchild, here is the Lincoln Memorial. Lincoln, it is now acknowledged by most historians, was such a complex genius, scarcely anyone can fully understand the man or sum him up. This portrait of Jefferson Davis, whose statue Mitch McConnell now wants removed from the capitol of Kentucky? Davis, my dear girl, argued against secession, but believed each state had a right to secede from the Union.  A lot of people thought like Davis, and a lot of people didn’t.  So they fought.

A lot of honorable (and some very dishonorable) people on both sides of the Civil War, Confederates and Union soldiers, fought to the death over what they thought was right or wrong.  Each side had a story to tell, a story from which great lessons can be learned.

My child, all history is an admixture of glory and honor; cruelty and cowardice; righteousness and injustice; the beautiful and the horrible.

We’ll tell it all.  We’ll not even pretend that some of us are so righteous and pure we have the authority to decree the only stories that may be told are ours.  We will try not to be so self-righteous we think we’re the only honorable people in times of battle or peace.  We won’t attempt to take the mote out of our brother’s eye when we have a beam in our own.

We will not destroy, fail to acknowledge or refuse to learn other people’s histories.

Because if we do, we will never learn from it or them.

Fay Voshell is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and many other online publications.  She holds a M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, which awarded her a prize for excellence in systematic theology. She at one time taught American history. She may be reached at fvoshell@yahoo.com

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/purging_the_history_of_the_south.html#ixzz3eSAqx2So

No Shame Anymore

Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame

Posted on | June 26, 2015

By Stacy McCain

“I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

So begins “How I Came Out: Part 2 – My Bisexual Awakening” by Kaitlyn, a 22-year-old graduate of Pacific Lutheran University.

Please stop laughing long enough to think about this. Remember when “coming out” meant someone was actually, y’know, gay?

What’s the point of “coming out” as bisexual?

If you are actually with somebody of the same sex — which is to say, you’re in a gay relationship — then this could cause a situation at the family Thanksgiving gathering. But if all you’re doing, in terms of your bisexuality, is occasionally hooking up with partners of either sex, do you need to “come out” about that? Why?

 

Politics, really. Adding another soldier to the LGBT Social Justice Army in their Grand March to abolish normality. So if you ever had an “incident” at Scout camp or engaged in some “Wow, I was so drunk last night” shenanigans at college, it is now Urgently Important that you must tell everybody on the Internet. This is what Tumblr blogs are for.

Thanks for sharing your adolescent porn habits with us, Kaitlyn.

“Dear Penthouse Forum . . .”

Excuse my habitual sarcasm, but it’s hard to avoid suspecting that perversion was more fun when everybody knew it was wrong.

Now that every college has an LGBT club and every major city has a “pride” parade, the abolition of sexual shame has also abolished the frisson of pursuing Forbidden Pleasure. If nothing is taboo anymore — a lesbian comedian is hosting a popular daytime TV show and a former Olympic star makes the cover of Vanity Fair as “transgender” — where can anyone find the thrill of Guilty Secrets? As weirdness becomes more and more normalized in society, it also inevitably becomes more boring.

Young people nowadays can be excused if they find themselves wondering what life was like in the Bad Old Days, when fornication was regarded as a sin and sodomy was an abomination. Kids may be nostalgic for a society that required us to repress our unruly teenage impulses, when guys felt guilty for trying to get to third base with their girlfriends.

Well, we were supposed to feel guilty, anyway.

She’s your adolescent dream,
Schoolboy stuff, a sticky sweet romance.
And she makes you want to scream,
Wishing you could get inside her pants.
So, you fantasize away.
And while you’re squeezing her,
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

The distinction between Good Girls and Bad Girls was, of course, both a cruel fiction and a vital bulwark of social morality. Perhaps unspeakable depravity lurked in the subconscious of all those Good Girls whose respectable boyfriends were afraid to try to even get past second base. Certainly I was not the only long-haired rock-and-roll outlaw who suspected that most Good Girls secretly wanted to be Bad Girls. Yet the forces of repression were still strong — I grew up deep in the Bible Belt, where the Sexual Revolution didn’t win a sudden and complete victory — and the innate capacity for wickedness was restrained, so it is likely that most Good Girls believed they actually were good.

So, you call her on the phone
To talk about the teachers that you hate.
And she says she’s all alone,
And her parents won’t be coming home til late.
There’s a ringing in your brain,
Cause you could’ve sworn
You thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

Sneaky teenage guilt is ancient history now. Nothing is repressed in 2015. Perverts are marching down Main Street beneath the Rainbow Flag, declaring their pride in being abnormal, and anyone who fails to applaud the parade is condemned as a hater. As I’ve said, “Until I started studying radical feminism, I never thought of ‘normal’ as an achievement.” Feminist gender theory — the social construction of the gender binary within the heterosexual matrix — tends toward the conclusion that it’s wrong to be normal. These weird ideas, promulgated in university Women’s Studies programs, have been diffused through our culture to such an extent we may imagine young people feeling ashamed to confess that they are heterosexual. In the 21st century, a teenage girl’s peers would treat her as an outcast and a misfit if she were to declare her ambition was to fall in love with a nice guy, marry him, have babies and live in a 3BR/2BA house in the suburbs.

THE SUPREME COURT TODAY ORDERED THAT ALL
STATES MUST ISSUE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LICENSES

Being normal is old-fashioned and old-fashioned is oppressive. Therefore, the Good Girl is now stigmatized for her virtue, because feminists tell her she should be “empowered” (Yes Means Yes!) to express her sexuality, while no one can condemn the Bad Girl, because that would be “slut-shaming.” Traditional morality having thus been totally inverted — calling to mind Nietzsche’s “transvaluation of all values” — the teenage girl finds herself thrown to the wolves and expected to perform her “empowered” sexuality with that most horrible and hideous beast, the teenage boy.

And it’s a teenage sadness
Everyone has got to taste.
An in-between age madness
That you know you can’t erase . . .

“Good Girls Don’t,” as Doug Feiger sang in 1979, and it’s astonishing how this “in-between age madness” has gotten even more out of control now than it was in the Seventies, when more or less everybody in high school was on drugs. Let it be noted that Fast Times at Ridgemont High was actually based on a true story, a 1981 book by Cameron Crowe:

As a freelance writer for Rolling Stone magazine, Crowe went undercover at Clairemont High School in San Diego, California, and wrote about his experiences.

If that now-classic teen movie exaggerated reality for comic effect, many of us who lived through that era — before the AIDS epidemic, before mandatory “safe sex” lessons in public schools — nonetheless recognize the reality behind the laughs. There were a lot of real-life human tragedies amid all that sex, drugs and rock-and-roll. Hearts were broken and lives were ruined, and the only thing that could possibly make sense of it all was the music on the radio.

You’re alone with her at last,
And you’re waiting til you think the time is right.
Cause you’ve heard she’s pretty fast.
And you’re hoping that she’ll give you some tonight.
So, you start to make your play,
Cause you could’ve sworn you
Thought you heard her saying . . .

“Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t,
Good girls don’t, but I do.”

It’s a miracle any of us rock-and-roll kids survived that era. You might think we would have learned enough from our experience to prevent a revival of that deviant culture, but it seems that many so-called “grown-ups” learned all the wrong lessons from their decadent youth.

“Well, we managed to make it through all right,” these alleged adults seem to have concluded, “so let’s just let our kids figure it out for themselves.” Then one day you log onto the Internet and find a young Lutheran’s bisexual confession: “I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

Sex, Shame and the Dark Side

Kaitlyn’s kinky confession echoes “Belle Knox,” as the Duke University Women’s Studies major Miriam Weeks called herself in her video porn career. She appeared on The View in March 2014:

The 18-year-old . . . was raised a devout Catholic in a loving home in Spokane, Washington.
Miriam’s Catholic father Kevin and mother Harcharan, reportedly have been ‘floored’ by their daughter’s decision to turn to porn to fund her $60,000-a-year education at the elite school.
Miss Weeks said today that her parents were not aware of her decision to enter the porn industry but are now ‘absolutely supportive’ of her choice.
She added: ‘We tell our children through school and socialization that sexuality is bad’ before adding to the shock of the panelists that she had been watching online porn alone since the age of 12.

“Good Girls Don’t,” but good girls are a scarce commodity in a hypersexualized society where feminists adamantly insist that every girl has a right to be bad (Yes Means Yes!) while at the same time feminists denounce the bad girl’s male partners as sexual oppressors who are products of “rape culture.” Young people are understandably confused by this cacophony of demonic voices telling them they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t. It seems that many teen girls do, and then wish they hadn’t done it. Pressured into playing the Bad Girl, they find themselves overcome with inexplicable feelings of shame.

“Dubious claims about ‘rape culture’ are an attempt to create an all-purpose scapegoat for the emotional dark side of promiscuity,” Robert Tracinski wrote in February 2015:

College campuses have long since been taken over by a culture in which casual sex with acquaintances is considered normal and where slightly outré sexual experimentation is strongly encouraged, all of it spurred on by alcohol, which figures prominently in most of these cases. But it’s clear that some young women are not psychologically prepared for this. They have casual relationships and hookups, but then feel regret and emotional trauma when the experience ends up being emotionally unsatisfying or disturbing. Then they are encouraged, by the feminists and “rape culture” activists, to reinterpret the experience as all the fault of an evil man who must have coerced them.
It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda.

As bad as this is for college students who are “not psychologically prepared” to deal with the emotional consequences of sexual hedonism, this is happening to even younger girls. Consider this story:

An x-rated video of Vine star Carter Reynolds leaked Sunday that purportedly shows him pressuring his ex-girlfriend for oral sex, raising issues of consent and spurring Internet backlash.
The video is filmed from Reynolds’ point of view, with his pants pulled down and his erect penis exposed. His ex-girlfriend, Instagram celeb Maggie Lindemann, tells him “I don’t think I can” and repeatedly stresses “I am really uncomfortable.” Reynolds tells her to “do it,” and “just pretend (the camera) isn’t there.” Lindemann eventually curls up and stops looking at the camera. It ends with Reynolds saying, “Oh my gosh, Maggie.”
The duo has had a tumultuous relationship, with several breakups, the most recent of which was in May. Lindemann is 16 years old, and Reynolds recently turned 19, leaving issues of consent and statutory rape on the table depending when and where the clip was filmed, as well as child pornography issues depending on how old Reynolds is in the video. . . .
Fans and fellow social media celebs have taken to social media in anger over Reynolds’ actions.

Who are these teenage Internet “celebrities”? How is it that a 19-year-old boy gains a sort of cult fame by uploading iPhone videos, and then finds a girlfriend who is herself a “social media celeb”?

 

This kind of do-it-yourself adolescent notoriety is altogether commonplace in the 21st century, and there is no adult supervision to the process whereby kids become “famous for being famous.” So it was that Carter Reynolds, while still a high school senior in North Carolina, got more than 1,600 retweets by declaring “school can suck it” in January 2014. We fast-forward to June 2015, when Reynolds has exploited his Internet fame to get himself a famous Internet girlfriend, and now she’s the one who is commanded to “suck it.” Meanwhile, who is Maggie Lindemann and why is she so famous? She’s a pretty brunette from Texas, but if she has any actual talent or intellectual ability, you wouldn’t know it from reading her Twitter account, where more than a quarter-million followers await such of her delphic utterances as, “the cutest” (June 15, 351 retweets) and  “I regret you” (June 16, 570 retweets). After the leaked video of Reynolds trying to coerce her into a video performance of oral sex made headlines, Lindemann tweeted:

I’m ok and have positive people with me. Trust that this is being handled and I’ve been told I cant comment on it at this time. Love you.

That message got more than 3,000 retweets and 12,000 likes.

Something has gone terribly wrong in our culture, you see. Fame has been cheapened to nothing, and sex is even cheaper. These shallow pseudo-celebrities are made by the Internet and then broken by the Internet before most people have ever even heard of them.

Kids log onto the Internet to worship at the digital altar of their idols, crude vulgarians who seem to have no qualifications beyond their narcissistic craving for admiration. When it is predictably revealed that Carter Reynolds is a selfish creep — really? who could have imagined this?we are subjected to pious lectures:

“Couples do stuff like that all time.”
That sentence just about sums up Vine star Carter Reynolds’ psuedo-apology on Twitter after footage of Reynolds pressuring his then 17-year-old girlfriend into sex leaked onto the Internet. . . .
Despite the widespread prevalence of intimate partner abuse, it’s one aspect of rape culture we tend to ignore, partially due to the widespread victim blaming that survivors experience.

Oh, give me a break! You’re telling me that no one had the slightest inkling that Carter “School Can Suck It” Reynolds might have profound antisocial tendencies? The parents of Maggie Lindemann had no reason to be concerned when their underage daughter hooked up with Reynolds via the 2014 “Magcon” tour? Why should we heed sermons about “rape culture” by the same “journalists” who otherwise act as publicity agents for the fame-junkie culture that turned a no-talent dimwit like Carter Reynolds into a celebrity? Whatever happened to shame? Whatever happened to making achievement and virtuous character the basis of respect? Stipulating that the rock-and-roll idols of yore were generally a bunch of sex-crazed drug addicts, at least they bothered learning to sing, play instruments and write songs. When did Carter Reynolds ever do anything that would cause anyone to think he was worthy of admiration? And did it not occur to any of his admirers that a famous idiot like Carter Reynolds might not have much respect for the idiots who admired him?

Let’s not be naïve about the habits of such people, OK? Don’t lecture me like I’m a fool in need of your enlightenment. We all know exactly what Carter Reynolds was doing when he tried to talk Maggie Lindemann into doing an amateur porn video. He was attempting to derive the maximum power from his unearned fame, to demonstrate to himself what a big deal he is, and to obtain actual proof of this, which he could then show off to his buddies: “Look, man, here’s Maggie doing it for me.”

How often must this lesson be repeated? Anytime a guy gets a naked picture or sex video of a girl, he’s going to show it to his buddies. Everybody knows this by now and, although many states have passed laws against “revenge porn,” such laws won’t stop a guy from showing his girlfriend’s nude selfies to his buddies. Therefore . . .?

Don’t do it, ladies, and don’t associate with guys who expect you to do it.

Let us not pretend, however, that guys are not also being damaged by the perverse sewer of our hypersexualized culture.

True story: A guy I used to know had a life nearly anyone would envy. Grew up in a fine family with a big suburban home, swimming pool in the backyard, everything. His folks were respectable Christian people, and my friend was intelligent and talented. By the time he was 30, he had established himself in a professional career, married and had a home of his own. My wife and I used to visit my buddy and his wife at their house and marvel at their good fortune. We lost touch with them after a while, but after about 15 years had elapsed, I looked up my old friend and was shocked to learn what had happened. He and his wife had gotten into “swinging,” he got involved in drugs, so his marriage ended in divorce and he lost his house and his job. He became addicted to both crack cocaine and Internet porn, had a complete nervous breakdown and, at the time I looked him up again, my buddy was quite literally living in his mother’s basement, trying to put his life back together.

Blame Satan or Blame the Patriarchy?

Nobody is bulletproof. Nobody is immune. Start ignoring the rules of normal life — those old-fashioned “oppressive” rules — and you never know what kind of evil you’ll find waiting to ruin your life, wreck your mind and destroy your soul.

People who deny the reality of supernatural evil in the world often pretend to believe that there are no consequences to their own selfishness, while simultaneously promoting ideologies that scapegoat other people collectively for everything wrong in the world. Instead of blaming evil on Satan, feminists blame it on the patriarchy, and do not realize how their non-falsifiable belief system turns man-hating into a religion. Why bother seeking any deeper explanation of Carter Reynolds’ thuggish behavior, when you can recite jargon about “intimate partner abuse,” “rape culture” and “victim blaming”? Everybody sings in unison from the Feminist Hymnal, including an 18-year-old Texas girl named Hayley, who recently explained on Twitter:

“I can’t hang with straight men because I’m too clumsy to be around things as fragile as their masculinity.”

See how obvious this is? Your masculinity is fragile, “straight men,” as any teenager in Texas could tell you.

This same young Texan posted her “coming out” notice on Tumblr:

I’m gay. This isn’t a joke. The past year I have really started trying to figure out my sexuality. I was always afraid of my feelings for girls because of seeing how my family and other people started treating and thinking of my lesbian sister. I was bullied and harassed severely in the 6th grade because of rumors of me being a lesbian, and that experience really damaged me and made me want to be the farthest thing from it, thus I repressed the feelings more and more. However, I started dating guys but in every single relationship I was in except for one, I found myself completely repulsed by almost anything sexual in nature . . . Even being romantic felt like I had to force it because I felt like it wasn’t fair for the partners who felt strongly towards me. I was just unaroused and attracted to it at all, and some of those relationships ended for the exact reason that I couldn’t give guys what they wanted . . . and it made me feel guilty and like something was wrong with me, and that’s what people told me, that something must be broken in me. For a while I thought and identified as asexual because of this lack of attraction, but because of the pressure of the environment and society I’m from, I tried to smother every romantic or sexual attraction I actually had, almost totally exclusive with women. And in college I hope to explore my heart’s desires at last. The past few months I have done a lot of introspection and realized it wasn’t sex and romance I was repulsed by — it was that I was put back by it with MEN. I’ve tried to convince myself I’m straight. I’ve tried to keep it all to myself. But I don’t think I will ever be happy until I can be true to myself . . . and the people around me. I know many people will think down on me because of this now. But I cannot keep sacrificing my own wellbeing to try and please others. . . . Thank you for listening, and I hope that you will try to understand.
This is the only social media I’ve come out to and it will probably stay that way for a while. I haven’t specifically come out with any of my friends either, only talked to a few how I was questioning. I’m mortified of coming out to my parents. After YEARS they’ve finally accepted my sister for being an open lesbian, but still see her as lesser as a person . . . I’m their “star child” and they care a lot about reputation. I can’t help but feel that I’ve failed them. It’s just . . . it’s hard.

Teenagers now publish their “coming out” stories on Tumblr even though they’re “mortified” their parents will find out. This suggests that (a) parents generally have no idea what their kids are doing on the Internet, and (b) the kids take this for granted. And we might further speculate that (c) what kids are doing on the Internet has a lot to do with the increasingly weird sex culture.

 

Think about it: Kaitlyn at Pacific Lutheran confesses she started watching Internet porn when she was 12, which was also the same age at which Miriam Weeks/”Belle Knox” started watching Internet porn. Maggie Lindemann hooks up with Internet celebrity Carter Reynolds and he’s trying to make her do a porn video. It’s possible to perceive a clear pattern here and, when I think of my old buddy whose life was wrecked by “swinging,” drugs and porn addiction, perhaps you can see why I’m intrigued by how young Hayley explains her lesbianism.

She “started dating guys,” but found herself “completely repulsed by almost anything sexual in nature” because she “couldn’t give guys what they wanted.” And what did these guys want? She doesn’t say, but might we suspect that what they wanted was for her to enact their porn-inspired fantasies, to be an insatiable love-slave who just can’t get enough?

“Oh, yeah, baby! Do me like that!”

Rather than being grateful, as any man should be, for the pleasure of a woman’s companionship, these guys become obsessed with sex as a performance and are inevitably frustrated that female human beings they meet in real life are nothing like the pornographic fantasy women they’ve been watching in Internet videos since they were 12 years old.

The War Between the Sexes has degenerated into utter savagery, as guys and girls alike are burdened with impossible expectations of themselves and each other. Would you be surprised to learn that Hayley from Texas, the “star child” whose parents “care a lot about reputation,” has a history of eating disorders and self-harm?

I can’t express to you the deep, passionate level of hatred I used to feel about every little piece of myself physically and mentally. You’re talking about a girl who felt so s***ty about herself that she’d obsessively weigh in, starve for days, purposely throw up food, and run 1.8 miles every day to rid herself of imperfection.

She went through “hospitalization following hospitalization,” she explained. “No matter how much weight she lost, she still managed to hate herself even more.” She got better and realized, “You can’t constantly call yourself names and dwell at yourself in the mirror and expect yourself to be happy with yourself.”

Why? What causes this “deep, passionate level” of self-hatred in young women? Feminist scholars, rather predictably, blame the patriarchy, throwing around terms like “objectification” and “trauma” to describe how girls learn to hate their looks so much:

Dr. Erchull and Dr. Liss, along with alumna Stephanie Lichiello, recently had a paper titled Extending the Negative Consequences of Media Internalization and Self-Objectification to Dissociation and Self-Harm published in the October online first edition of the journal Sex Roles. Their findings suggest that self-harm and dissociation, both outcomes associated with the literature on trauma, are related to self-objectification and media internalization. They suggest that objectification could be considered a form of insidious trauma or microaggression.

However, if the overwhelming power of “male supremacy” explains this, why is it that self-hatred is producing so much self-hatred in girls now, at a time when female students comprise 57% of college enrollment and there is more real sexual equality in Western societies than at any previous time in history? And why are some girls driven to these self-destructive behaviors while the vast majority are not? Did I mention Haylee also suffered from trichotillomania? This is a rare “disorder characterized by the compulsive urge to pull out one’s hair,” according to Wikipedia, and “may be triggered by depression or stress.”

Sibling Rivalry and Non-Random Coincidence

While the “star child” Hayley was dealing with these various problems, what was her older lesbian sister doing? You can read a 2012 online petition in which a lesbian in Missouri describes how she made “friends online with” Hayley’s older sister and the two lovebirds then spent two years “talking every single day, texting, chatting, and Skyping for hours on end.” Parental opposition stood in the way of their meeting in person:

In fact, we’ve tried multiple times to visit one another, including my 18th birthday, my high-school graduation and my senior prom. But every time, the only issue we’ve come across is Amy’s father, who has vehemently opposed her traveling up to see me.

The father was the bad guy, you see, for not letting his daughter (17 at the time) run off to Missouri to be with her lesbian beloved, and this was posted in a petition at Change.org! Is anyone surprised that, while the elder sister was engaged in this kind of behavior, Hayley was showing symptoms of extreme stress? Around the same time her older sister made her online lesbian love connection, Haylee says she “was bullied and harassed severely in the 6th grade because of rumors of me being a lesbian.” Yet while she has “done a lot of introspection” about her own sexuality, Haylee doesn’t seem puzzled by the remarkable coincidence that, while less than 3 percent of U.S. women are lesbian or bisexual, both she and her sister identify as lesbian. Haylee was “completely repulsed . . . unaroused and attracted” by males, and this is entirely their fault: “I can’t hang with straight men because I’m too clumsy to be around things as fragile as their masculinity.”

Maybe “straight men” in Hayley’s hometown have some particular problem with “fragile . . . masculinity,” but is it not also possible that there is something particularly “fragile” about Hayley and her sister? Given the pattern we have seen, wouldn’t it make sense to ask if early exposure to pornography might have had something to do with this? Go back to 2009, when Hayley was in sixth grade being “bullied,” while her older sister, 14 or 15 at the time, was evidently trawling the Internet in search of lesbian love. Then remember what Kaitlyn wrote in her bisexual “coming out” notice: “I was twelve when I discovered porn.”

Human behavior follows patterns, and those who subscribe to the “born that way” theory of homosexuality can speculate about genetic factors as explaining why two sisters in a small Texas town would both become lesbians. My own speculative theories, while certainly not denying the possible influence of hereditary traits that manifest themselves as tendencies, would seek the cause in family dynamics and disruptive factors in normal childhood development. The problem with trying to discover the etiology of homosexuality is that social science has declared such inquiries off-limits in recent decades. Everyone now must simply accept homosexuality, and never are we supposed to scrutinize too closely these “coming out” narratives in an attempt to identify non-random factors in the LGBT equation. We must all applaud the pride parade or else be condemned as haters.

Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain

Everybody’s got a letter in that acronym except ‘N’ for NORMAL.

“Pride goeth before destruction,” the Bible says, but I wasn’t thinking that way in 1979. No, I was thinking about rock-and-roll.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/

Stacy McCain discusses the Faggot Frenzy over the SCOTUS Decision

A Prelude to Social Destruction

Posted on | June 27, 2015

By Stacy McCain

“Politics is downstream from culture,” Andrew Breitbart often said. This was why I spent Thursday writing 4,000 words — “Let’s Bring Back Guilt and Shame” — in preparation for the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage which, as anyone who had been paying attention could have predicted, was a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy as the decisive vote. What we may discern from reading Justice Kennedy’s ruling is the same thing we discern from reading vulgar expressions of “gay pride” on Tumblr blogs. In both instances, we are confronted by irrational sentiment that not only refuses to recognize the potential for harmful social consequences, but which further insists that opponents are motivated by ignorance and prejudice. The Obergefell decision is not so much a legal argument as it is an accusation of bigotry against American society, an indictment of a nation that imposed a “demeaning” stigma on homosexuals. The decision declares that “marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order” (p. 4) before proceeding to declare that this social order must be destroyed because . . . well, why exactly?

There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle . . .

(What principle? Never mind. Justice Kennedy’s on a roll now.)

. . . yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage . . .

(You see that, in Justice Kennedy’s enlightened mind, the “benefits” of marriage are supplied by government, rather than being intrinsic to the nature of marriage.)

. . . and are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. . . .

(How dare you “consign” them to “instability,” you haters!)

It is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society . . .

(They’re locked out of the institution — by haters!)

. . . for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.

(My wife has “transcendent purposes” for me to take out the garbage.)

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest.

What can anyone say in reply to such a lecture, except to wonder how or why this alleged “inconsistency . . . is now manifest” in a way it was not manifest at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted and ratified by legislators who never so much as hinted any intention to alter the definition of marriage? Quite obviously, what is at the heart of this specious reasoning is a determination that gay people must be granted access, via marriage, to that “constellation of benefits” of which Justice Kennedy spoke. That is to say, insofar as the Welfare State doles out taxpayer dollars to straight people because of marriage, gay people must also be cut in for their share of the government-provided loot, and who cares what the larger consequences may be? We may expect, for example, that this will hasten the bankruptcy of Social Security as gay “widows” qualify for survivors benefits, but it is clear that Justice Kennedy would never pay heed to any such practical concern.

“The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. . . . The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting

Equality with a capital E and Progress with a capital P are the inspirational touchstones of Obergefell. The past is a museum full of obsolete prejudices, where ideas that “may long have seemed natural and just” are dismissed as inferior to the ideas of our Enlightened Arbiters of Social Justice, these robed judicial eminences who are authorized to lecture us about the central meaning of fundamental rights. We can read the Constitution the same as they can, but only they are endowed with the extraordinary insight necessary to find “manifest” there a “principle” which had hitherto escaped our feeble perception.

The quasi-religious devotion to Equality and Progress that animates Obergefell moved Justice Kennedy to a mood of poetic rapture that reaches its ecstatic climax in his conclusion:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

One imagines the pages being stained and stuck together after Justice Kennedy finished writing that paragraph. Then he smoked a cigarette, got dressed in a hurry, put a $100 bill on the night stand and left quietly, while the Constitution cried herself to sleep.

William Belcher @EdB_Ohio

@AceofSpadesHQ I’m amazed at the people swooning over the dreck as if they fully expect it in a SCOTUS opinion.

anthony kennedy writes opinions on gay sex like he was a Hallmark Card copywriter bucking for a raise @EdB_Ohio

 

View image on Twitter

About 20 years ago, when liberals began their push for gay marriage, it struck me as an absurd idea. I’m sure most other Americans felt the same way about it, and the social conservatives who took it seriously at the time seemed like hysterical alarmists. Certainly if anyone had told me, circa 1995, that we would reach this point so quickly, I would not have believed them, for I simply could not imagine that we would ever reach this point at all. Trusting in the basic common sense of the American people, I underestimated the persuasive power of the media and the entertainment industry, which have been playing the role of cheerleaders at the LGBT pep rally for so long. Also, I underestimated the extent to which the liberal gospel of Progress and Equality had taken root in the minds of people who, wishing to avoid serious thought about politics and social order, were content to go along with the crowd.

Conscientious people did not want to make themselves unpopular by resisting too loudly this lemming-herd stampede toward the cliff. If you do not wish gay people to be “condemned to live in loneliness” — note well Justice Kennedy’s accusatory implication that opponents are engaged in wanton cruelty — then you must Do Exactly What They Say and Give Them Exactly What They Demand. Thus we arrived at a 21st-century cultural Munich, where marriage was the Sudetenland.

Do you suspect that this will not be the totalitarians’ Final Demand? Well, you’re just a hateful homophobe, aren’t you?

What next? Ace of Spades ponders this briefly:

Now come the knock-on cases, where they ban federal funding of religious schools that don’t recognize gay marriage.

This is obvious enough, and there are many more equally obvious ramifications of Obergefell. The angry LGBT mob, full of destructive rage, will seize the whip they’ve been handed by the Supreme Court and employ it to inflict their sadistic revenge on America.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Robert Stacy McCain @rsmccain

Despite today’s Supreme Court ruling, heterosexuality is still legal, except on college campuses in California.

From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/


Liberals Riot like it’s 1955. We are Entering the Blind Ages.

The Progressive Timeline

A topic of interest amongst many crime-thinkers, as well as some mainstream writers who secretly read crime-thinkers for column material, is why Progressives can never come to terms with the fact that they have been in charge of most of society for generations. It’s as if they have been asleep for the last fifty years or were taught an alternative history.

Detroit collapses in on itself and Progressive are out in the streets protesting as if the city was run by a secret cabal of Free Masons. They demand change and the implementation of their preferred solutions. Left out is the fact they were the ones in charge for fifty odd years and they had implemented all of their preferred polices, causing the collapse.

Race is the most obvious big social issue which has been totally controlled by Progressives. Since the 1950’s, the Left has had a free hand in trying tonmake the races get along. They even control the definition of “getting along.” Despite this, the last few years has been a non-stop campaign to “fix” race, as well as a cynical effort to cause a race war.

After the church shooting, every member of the Cult was out in the streets claiming nothing has changed since the last time a white guy killed a bunch of black people, which was fifty years ago. Normal people would look at the near total absence of white on black crime in the South, relative to the bad old days, as an amazing development. To the Left, this has not happened and it is still 1955.

My theory for why Progressives have a folded timeline is that their religion is synchronic versus diachronic and it is emotional. The Western tradition, informed by the Catholic scholarly traditions, is diachronic and dispassionate. History is a series of events, each influencing the other. The French Revolution, for example, led to Napoleon, the latter being the result of the former.

The Progressive sense of history is synchronic and emotional. The Civil Rights Movement has enormous emotional resonance with the left so it is of constant interest and talked about as if it happened yesterday. On the other hand, the near total domination of America urban centers by Progressive politicians has no emotional resonance so may as well have happened ten thousand years ago or not at all.

This jumps out when talking with millennials, who have been marinated in the New Religion throughout their schooling. Even those who ostensibly reject the one true faith have this emotional timeline baked into their thinking. They divide the past into two parts. There are those events that happened a long time ago before they were around and those events that happened in their time, which are all consuming.

For instance, I recently was talking with a millennial about mobile phones. He made the comment that life must have been rough before Steve Jobs invented the iPhone. He just assumed that this thing important to him, was a seminal moment in history. When I explained to him that I had a mobile phone in the 1980’s, I may as well have told him I lived in the age of dragons. He was incredulous.

I think this explains the current moral panic over the Confederate flag. In the Progressive timeline, the Civil War looms large, casting a shadow over everything. Their emotional response to the flag is the same as abolitionists felt in the 19th century. It’s why plagiarists like Doris Kearns Goodwin try so hard to make Lincoln into a Progressive Democrat.

It’s also why after half a century that we are still treated to JFK retrospectives around the anniversary of his death. Kennedy was an insignificant figure in American history, but he looms large in the Progressive imagination, even larger than FDR. The reason is he was “martyred” and then turned into a saint in the Cult of Modern Liberalism. The real JFK would have been revolted by modern liberalism, but the mythological one is the Brigham Young of the faith.

A strange little book I read a long time ago is The Man Who Folded Himself, by Star Trek writer David Gerrold. The premise is that the timeline can be folded on itself so that points separated by eons can appear to be moments apart. That’s the mind of the Progressive. Events of great emotional import are clustered together on their timeline in the near past. Everything else is scattered in the distant past, many beyond the event horizon.

The result of this folded timeline is a historical amnesia. It is, perhaps, a defense mechanism to deal with disconfirmations. When the prophesies do not come true, those events quickly recede into the distant past so the believer can maintain their faith. Think about how chronic gamblers never remember their loses, but remember every cent they won.

Those events that fit the narrative are always in their minds as if they just happened. Sometimes, they confuse the imaginary events like the Mathew Shepherd murder with real events. Just the other day a moonbat brought this case with me. When I pointed out that he was not, in fact, a victim of homophobia, the moonbat was incredulous. I had to provide proof and they were still insisting it could have happened.

Oddly, the Dark Ages are described as the period when the barbarians snuffed out the light of Rome. That’s not exactly true, but it is useful. What will we call the period when the fanatics turn out the lights on the past, disconnecting us from material reality? Maybe in  the future, our time will be known as the start of the Blind Ages.

Z man Explains the Flag Uproar. It’s not About race but Class. Those “typical” White Crackers.

 

The Cult at War

A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish,
And Priam and his people shall be slain.

I’ve always found the Third Punic War to be a deeply instructive period of Roman history, one that helps us understand much of the modern world. What allowed the Romans to survive and then dominate their neighbors was their implacability. They never quit fighting even when they were beaten. The only ways to gain peace with Rome were surrender or defeat. No matter how many times you beat Rome in the field, they would keep coming back until they figured out how to win.

I think the reason for this is explained in the Punic Wars, particularly the final chapter that ended with the sack of Carthage. Rome was more than a place and a people. Rome was an idea, an animating force that defined the people of the city. Being Roman was more than just about lineage or location. It was a way of life, the way of life for righteous people. To accept defeat or compromise would be to reject the essence of being Roman.

It’s this nascent nationalism that drove the Romans to keep fighting. It is what drove them to sack Carthage and later Corinth. It was impossible to be Rome if these cities existed as anything other than subjugated provinces of Rome. This implacability is what carried Rome through the third century crisis period. Even when maintaining the empire made no military or economic sense, they did it anyway. It was who they were. Keep in mind that in the third century, Rome was led by men from the Balkans known then as Illyricum.

If you were an enemy of Rome, you knew there could only be two outcomes. You could surrender and hope for good terms or you could fight and eventually lose. Sure, you could win some battles and have a good run of success, but the Romans would never stop coming. Eventually, they would gain the advantage and win. Just as important, Rome did not just extract rents from conquered people. They Romanized them. Rome was the first iteration of The Borg.

This comes to mind now that we are in yet another Confederate flag debate. The first one of these I recall clearly was in the 90’s, but I seem to recall the Cult in a snit over the flag in the 70’s when Southern Rock started using it in their stage shows. Regardless, the Cult tried to stamp it out in the 90’s, the 2000’s and now again in this decade. Ever since that lunatic shot up the church in South Carolina, the Cult has been buzzing about that stupid flag.

As we saw with Obama’s birth certificate, the only people who care about this flag are liberals and lunatics, the distinction between the two is impossible without professional training. The rest of us, a group professional demographers call normal people, simply don’t care. But, we live in a country run by a quasi-religious cult and they do care, so the rest of us have to care – or else. That’s how it works in a theocracy.

What’s instructive here is we see the same implacability on display as I described with the Romans. In the 70’s and 80’s, I used to see Rebel flags on sale at convenience stores – even in Boston. Now, only outcasts display them and the occasional red neck. Most red necks have decided it is not worth the hassle. But, the Cult is still determined to sack any city that flies the flag in any way shape or form. The Cult never quits and never settles. They declare peace only when they have won completely and permanently.

Of course, the flag is not really the issue. That’s why normal people are caught off-guard whenever the Cult starts waving it around and ululating like lunatics. The real issue is the long War Between the Whites that started in the 19th century and continues to this day. We call this the Civil War and that’s a good label, but I prefer my label, as it is more precise. Civil War implies both sides were equal or the same or viewed one another in that way. They never did and they still don’t.

In the 19th century, northern whites of mostly English ancestry used slavery as an excuse to attack and kill as a many Southern whites as possible. Those southern whites were of mostly Scots-Irish ancestry. The northern whites were ready to join their European coevals in the industrial, global age and they did not want those backward agrarian crackers holding them back. Slavery had to go and the people responsible for it had to be punished.

Abolitionists cared more about punishing southern whites after the war than the welfare of the freed slaves. The squabbling between northern lunatics and more reasonable minds over how to go about the post-war reconstruction is largely responsible for the failure of reconstruction to resolve the issue of freed slaves. That was left to the South to figure out on its own.

Like those Romans 2,000 years ago, the Cult never quits or accepts defeat. For 150 years northern whites have been trying to finally eliminate their eternal enemy. Over the decades the Cult evolved from an English Protestant thing into a full blown post-industrial theodicy. They still have a special hatred for southern whites, but they have expanded their field of vision to include what Obama called “typical white people.”

That’s what was missed when he made that comment. Everyone thought race, when Obama was thinking class. This is a guy raised by elites in elite culture. His grandparents were low-class compared to his coevals in prep school. They were typical Americans, which the Cult identifies as middle-class, white and embarrassing. While normal people in the South have no emotions about the rebel flag, it means everything to the Cult as it has always been, in their imagination, the flag of their enemy – core Americans.

If you follow the logic, so to speak, it makes perfect sense for the Cult to go on jihad against the rebel flag after the white guy shot up the black church. The Cult’s idealized image of the enemy is white, male, southern and poor. His flag is the Confederate flag. Therefore, the logical response to this shooting, from the perspective of the Cult, is the same as the Romans when Carthaginian traders ripped off Roman merchants. That’s a policy of the extirpation.

From Z BLog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

The Frenzy over a Flag. Beware of What Comes Next. Burning Books now, Men Later.

Congratulations! You Oppose The Confederate Flag. Now What?

We are slowly forgetting how to oppose something without seeking its utter destruction.

By Mollie Hemingway

June 23, 2015

The U.S. Civil War was a war that never should have been fought. Some 620,000 men died because slavery, an inhumane and evil practice, was permitted in many portions of this country. The South gets most of the blame for that, but the north benefited from the regime as well, even though it didn’t directly practice enslavement at the time of the war.

I used to think the war was a bit more complicated than I do now, having had my mind changed thanks to some relatively recent guided readings of President Abraham Lincoln. But long story short, the Confederacy was wrong. For whatever it’s worth, I have no nostalgia for the Confederacy and zero positive feelings for flags that reference the Confederacy, save the one painted on the General Lee or, perhaps, the one painted on RuPaul.

For some reason, 100% of media types (give or take) dealt with their feelings of anger and powerlessness in the aftermath of the racist murders of 9 black members of Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, by calling in unison for a removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s capitol grounds. The flag was only put up during the centenary of the Civil War and a modified version was moved to a less conspicuous place about 15 years ago. Republican Gov. Nikki Haley called for its removal on Monday, as have many other politicians. Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention called for its removal earlier. Sure, sounds good. Go for it. Even acknowledging that the relationship of the flag to the people of South Carolina is a bit more complicated than outsiders can understand, I think it’s fair to argue the negative outweighs any positive there.

A lot of the surrounding media-led outrage over the flag seems somewhat cold, given the horror of what last week brought. We had nine black people brutally murdered because they were black and sitting in a church with a history of fighting white supremacy. With all due deference to hatred for a Confederate flag on a pole at the statehouse, this seems like an almost childlike attempt to miss the seriousness of the situation. It’s as if they expect us to say, “Congratulations! You oppose the flag of an army that was defeated 150 years ago. We’re all very proud of you, journalists!” This generation seems to excel at inventing controversies, weighing in on those invented controversies, and then patting itself on the back for being so courageous and open-minded.

The far more frightening reality that such invented controversies avoid is that mankind is full of sin, and that some of us show that sinfulness in racism and murder. Or as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote in The Gulag Archipelago:

“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?”

The murderer of the Emanuel nine has done something particularly bad, but he isn’t the only person capable of evil out there. And getting rid of a flag is hardly the remedy for the racism and violence that infects our culture. How juvenile to think otherwise.

How we treat symbols we disagree with

Basically it’s just such a hysterical atmosphere at this point, that no one can conceive of a person who is against something but also willing to tolerate the expression of that thing. Can we be against Jeff Davis — and also against destroying art and monuments and history just because they involve Jeff Davis?

Symbols are tremendously important, and state sponsorship of symbols is very much worth fighting about. But there are ways to express disapproval of art, monuments and aspects of history without taking the approach of, say, blowing up the Buddhas, to take one recent example.

And how we manage these processes of disapproval truly is important for civil society.

To quote Heinrich Heine, a man who definitely knew of what he spoke, “Where they have burned books, they will end in burning men.”

Mobs aren’t actually the best judges of such processes, no matter how righteous they feel or certain of their cause.

Read the entire article at The Federalist: http://thefederalist.com/2015/06/23/congratulations-you-oppose-the-confederate-flag-now-what/

Black and Bitter

Bitter is the New Black

I saw this linked on Drudge the other day and it caught my eye because he labeled it “Millennials Are More Racist.” That struck me as at odds with my own experience so I got curious. Generation Snowflake is afraid of everything especially race.

It was in the section with the stories about the South Carolina shooting, which I would normally skip, as I’m not into race porn. This is the modern phenomenon where dandies from the leisure classes wallow in misery over some racist act, real or imagined, past or present, for the entertainment of others.

The link takes you to an essay by a woman named Karen Attiah. According to her resume posted on-line, she is a graduate of Northwestern and Columbia, receiving a bachelors in communications from the former and a human rights degree from the latter. Putting aside the fact that communications is a click less rigorous than a physical education degree, both schools are training centers for members of the elite and their attendants. Graduates of those schools wait on the movers and shakers in the cultural and political elite.

Further, it says she has killed time between schooling at elite organizations like the World Bank and Duke University. She is now starting a career in media at the Washington Post as a contract worker of some sort. Even though she is pushing 30 and has yet to settle into a paying career, she sports the type of credentials one sees these days in the managerial class. Life in America has been very good to Miss Attiah and promises to be much better, assuming she avoids costly errors in judgement.

Now, her article:

America should be shaken to its very core by what happened in Charleston.

The gruesome massacre of nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., may amount to the worst racially motivated terror attack of our generation and a deeply violent reminder that racism and white supremacy continue to course through America’s veins. One cannot help but draw comparisons to the firebombing of a black church in Birmingham, Ala., almost 52 years ago.

Shaken to its core? This is a particularly ghastly crime, shooting people in a church, but is it really so heinous that we have to question the very existence of our country?

One would expect that a graduate of elite colleges would know the word for something that happens every fifty years. That word is “rare.” In fact, “unusually rare” would be accurate. That’s opposed to something that happens every day, like black kids shooting innocent people of all races, but mostly other black people. That’s what we call “common.” So common, in fact, that hardly anyone bothers to notice.

The shooting suspect in Charleston has been identified as Dylann Roof, a white 21-year-old. He was arrested (peacefully, one should add) at a traffic stop. Many will argue about what words we will use to describe Roof, whether he should be described as a mentally disturbed kid (a description rarely applied when the alleged perpetrator isn’t a white male) or a rational adult responsible for his alleged actions. His age matters, but not for the reasons you may think.

Here’s where the bitterness shows its teeth. We see this with Obama, Holder, Jarrett, Lynch and the rest of the mulatto mafia in the White House. We see it all over the country. Blacks who have done spectacularly well, by any standard, in America run around bitter and resentful of the country that has raised them up to high status.

When Obama was born, the safe bet was to assume his mother had ruined her life and condemned her son to a life of despair. Instead, the culture changed so much and so fast that he rose rather easily to the ranks of the elite. Instead of being thankful, he is bitter.

We see it here with Miss Attiah. Her writing suggests she is qualified to cover high school softball games for the Podunk Free Press, not writing essays for the Washington Post. Given her resume and pictures on-line, it’s a safe bet that she is working the system with things other than her intellect. I don’t hold that against her, but she should be grateful she lives in a country where that is possible. In a post-racial meritocracy, she’s cleaning floors for a living.

Roof, who was born in 1994, violently shatters one particularly entrenched myth that society holds about racism — that today’s millennials are more tolerant than their parents, and that racism will magically die out as previous generations pass on. We think that millennials should be lauded for aspiring to be “colorblind.” There is the belief that tolerant young people will intermarry and create a post-racial, brown society and that it will be “beautiful.”

But the truth is that the kids are not all right when it comes to racial equality. Studies have shown that millennials are just about as racist as previous generations

I’m quoting this section in case you think I’m being unfair to Miss Attiah. Here we have one white lunatic out of tens of millions and his actions are treated as emblematic, despite being a glaring one-off. Even third rate minds can sort through this stuff. The numbers here contradict the point she is claiming. Again, things that are rare are things that don’t often occur. Miss Attiah appears to be confused by the words, “rare”, “few” “many” and “often.” How is that possible?

Of course, this sort of spaghetti-minded reasoning gets published because the editors at the Post don’t need the hassle of spiking a piece by one of the chosen people. If the editor is an old white guy and he sends this back pointing out the logical errors, his next meeting is with the human resources people to discuss his termination. So, Miss Attiah floats through life unmolested, writing nonsense others are too polite or too afraid to correct.

Way back in the olden thymes, one argument against affirmative action was that it diminished the work of those with real talent. A black guy who was smart and worked hard would look over at the black guys who got there on affirmative action and resent the people who allowed it. At the same time, blacks promoted into areas beyond their ability would resent it because they would live a life of frustration. At some level, Miss Attiah has always known she is in way over her head.

Those warnings turned out to have been prophetic. In modern America, blacks are close to being an object of worship. In another generation we will paint the Washington Monument black and make it a shrine. If you are a reasonably well behaved black person with anything on the ball, an army of white people is ready to carry you to the heights of society. Yet, those blacks on those litters resent the people carrying them and the country that permits it to happen.

Bitter is the new black.

From Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

The Liberal’s Religion

The New Religion

The Rachel Dolezal story is hilarious for a boatload of reasons. There’s the obvious comparison to people who insist we pretend they are of another sex. If you can pretend to be the opposite sex, why not another race? More precisely, if sex is a social construct, then why is race not a social construct? Of course, for decades the war on white people has been based on the assertion that race is a social construct.

It used to be that we need not worry about such things. Biology was real and people accepted it. Those who did not were deemed mentally ill and treated accordingly. Rachel Dolezal was not fooling anyone, I suspect. People are not that stupid. They are that polite, however, and no one wants to get in a spat over race, even if it involves someone fraudulently using race to game the system. Elizabeth Warren pulled the same stunt and got away with it for the same reasons.

It’s fun to make sport of the internal contradictions, but it is even more fun to watch the Cult attack itself over something like this. Rachel Dolezal believes all the right things and has literally committed her life to them, but in doing so she has made a mockery of the one true faith. But, condemning someone for not being black enough sounds a lot like the paper bag test or the one drop rule.

Aside from the humor, it does reveal the basics of the New Religion, at least at this stage of its development. The New Religion is based on three principles: egalitarianism, multiculturalism and anti-racism.The order is important as the first two principles are the oldest and most important. Egalitarianism goes back to Rousseau and is at the root of all radical movements since the French Revolution.

If all men are the same, logically all cultures are the same. Multiculturalism is not logically possible without accepting egalitarianism. On the other hand, like Marxism, multiculturalism is a solution to the obvious problem that people will notice that not all cultures are the same and not all people seem to be equal. By ennobling the embrace of all cultures and condemning ethnocentrism, noticing becomes a defect in the noticer, rather than in the noticed.

If everyone is the same and no cultures are better than any other, inequity must be due to something other than biology and culture. Since white societies are the richest and most dominant, they must doing something to upset the natural order. That’s where anti-racism comes into the mix. The sin of racism is what allows whites in particular and white society in general, to rule over the rest of the world.

Therefore, white people of the New Religion jostle with one another for who can be the most ethno-masochist. The ultimate expression of that is to change ones race from white to black. We can all agree that Rachel Dolezal is nuts, but her choice here is not entirely irrational from the perspective of the true believer. Some white women marry black men, but she went even further and converted to blackness!

You see the same thing happening with trannies and homosexuals. In the mythology of the New Religion, women have been oppressed by white men almost as bad as blacks. This cult is, after all, a female cult. That makes white men the ultimate evil. How better to address that than proving maleness is a choice. If Bruce Jenner can choose to be female, then all of those terrible white men are choosing to be terrible white men.

All religions work backwards. By that I mean they begin with an endpoint and layout what must be done to reach that endpoint. For Christians, getting into heaven is about following certain rules and “living a Christian life.” For members of the New Religion, the goal is the earthly utopia where everyone lives in a paradise of equality. Therefore, the anointed are those who work to achieve it, through any means necessary.

Religions also always have a certain amount of hypocrisy and irrationality, too. They are human institutions, after all. The New Religion will ignore Elizabeth Warren’s trans-racialism because she is in the elite. Rachel Dolezal is just a provincial in flyover country. That means the good folks at NPR and the NYTimes can make sport of Rachel Dolezal, while celebrating Elizabet Warren.

It’s why cases like this will not have a lasting impact on the evolution of the New Religion. Hypocrisy, it turns out, is a great adaptation. It solves a lot of problems for human religion. Whether it is Catholic Bishops living like royalty while railing against earthly pleasures or Progressive pundits championing Bruce Jenner while condemning Rachel Dolezal, hypocrisy lets the faithful get past the internal contradictions and outright lunacy of their faith.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Fairy Tales Turning into Leftist Homo Propaganda

Fairy Tales Fundamentally Transformed Into Homosexual Indoctrination

As part of the blitzkrieg campaign to impose acceptance of homosexuality, social engineers are really putting the fairy into fairy tale: Hulu is broadcasting a cartoon meant for children about a boy who rescues a prince and a princess but then chooses to marry the prince. Yes, the prince, the bearded guy in the photo below. This effort to teach children the joys of not only gay marriage, but also borderline pedophilia is simply reprehensible. It’s especially obscene to start in on this topic with preschoolers.

Now imagine a creepy pedophile saying the following in a soft voice – kids deserve stories and fairytales that represent the whole spectrum of human love and experience – and you’ve just experienced the HuffPo spin on the subject.

What’s next? A few sample possibilities: Cindarello: Cindarello is a young man who simply wants to wear women’s clothing and go to the ball to meet the prince. His wish is granted when his fairy godfather appears. Little Red Riding Crop: A little girl meets a wolfish dominatrix who teaches her that pain can also be pleasure. Jack Cuts Off His Beanstalk: A young boy relates his own DIY story on transgenderism. Pus in Bowels: A feline learns that a small infection is a small price to pay to experience love in a whole new way. Brainwashing children is an obsession with progressives. Corrupting them is an obsession with homosexuals. The progressive and homosexual agendas have merged.

On tips from Mr. Mentalo and J. – See more at: http://moonbattery.com

Crazy talk From a Crazy Femi-nazi…What the…did She say?

Speaking in Tongues

You can’t help but notice that the New Religion is developing its own language. It sounds like English and much of it is understandable to English speakers. Much of it is a weird jumble of sounds that have magical properties for the faithful, but sound like nonsense to normal people. Check out this letter to the editor in the NYTimes.

To the Editor:

We are militant about justice, but the justice we seek and enact looks like healing, reparation and care. We do have demands, but not that you submit to our “etiquette,” rather that you join a culture of compassion and acknowledge vulnerability.

College students are volatile, and if our “safe spaces” seem more for hiding from ideas than for shelter from oppression, it is because we occasionally confound structural injustice (which hurts, badly) with being-in-the-world (also hurts). We are obliged as social individuals to fight the first and weather the second, and also to help others do the same.

We do have a settled philosophy. It combines an understanding of power structures with the golden rule. Do unto others as you would if you wanted to heal the pain of injustice. We ask no more than David Brooks does: to defer to the complexity of reality, and to find in our deference the kindness to care for one another’s vulnerabilities and to be honest about our own. HANNAH McSHEA

Durham, N.C.

The writer is a student at Harvard.

I understand that I’m just an unfrozen caveman lawyer, but this confuses and frightens me. I do like the implied threat in this bit:

“We do have demands, but not that you submit to our “etiquette,” rather that you join a culture of compassion and acknowledge vulnerability.”

How can that be read as anything but “join us or die”??

That’s the thing with new religions. When they can’t convert the heathens, they settle for killing them. Fortunately the little princess who wrote that letter and her coevals lack the stones to do it, but that will not always be so.

From The Z Blog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Lesbians, Liars, and Lunatics

US Women Led by a Lesbian and a Lunatic

Posted on June 9, 2015

By: The Z Man

Imagine if the US men’s soccer team went into the World Cup led by a wife beater and a flamboyant homosexual. The news, of course, would be all about the wonderfulness of the homosexual, because they are our gods. We would know nothing about the other players, other than than the degree of wonderfulness they display while embracing the sodomite.

We know this because we have two good examples. In the NBA, Jason Collins, a bench player at the end of his career, announced he was gay. For the next twelve months ESPN was unwatchable because it was a 24×7 marathon of stories about the homosexual basketball player. Similarly, the college football player, Michael Sam, got hundreds of hours of air time, simply because he acted gay on TV. He even got a shot in the NFL.

The US Women’s soccer team is led by Megan Rapinoe. If you put her name into a Google machine you see the usual stuff about an athlete. This despite her best efforts to make money off of being a lesbian. Before the Olympics she all but went door to door telling people she liked muff. Yet, the news has no stories on the poor girl, other than the fact she is trying to win her first World Cup.

Of course, if anyone dares mention that Mx. Rapinoe is a dyke, they will be fired so you can’t blame the airheads in the media for leaving it alone. They are not terribly bright, but they know how the game is played. Mention Rapinoe is a lesbian and the SJW’s pounce on you demanding to know why you care about her sex life.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m fine with the silence on this women’s private life. I think this is proper. In fact, there should be a penalty on those who keep putting their business in the street. The absolute worst thing to happen in modern times is people sharing their private lives with strangers. Mx. Rapinoe’s private life is none of our business and she should keep it that way.

The point is, a homosexual male athlete means everyone all the time must talk about how wonderful it is that he likes the penis sampler at the club, while a female homosexual athlete means everyone better not notice – or else. I can’t help but feel sorry for the dykes. It seems that liking muff in modern America is the one unforgivable sin, whether you are a man or a woman.

Now, let’s look at the lunatic on the team, Hope Solo. Her biography reads like a cautionary tale told to parents about the dangers of letting your daughter play sports. “If she plays soccer, there is a 70% chance she will turn out to be white trash on a reality show.”

Solo has been arrested multiple times for things like beating up a minor, disorderly conduct and public drunkenness. If I were being charitable, I’d describe her as a handful and every man reading this would know exactly what I meant. In addition to being a handful, she is not the most gifted liar, despite working hard at it.

Every week, male athletes involved in drunken brawls, grand theft and domestic violence lose their careers. Ray Rice lost his career in the NFL and a multimillion dollar contract because he slapped his old lady in an elevator. Greg Hardy, another NFL player, remains out of work because of a domestic violence beef.

The ESPN article is the only thing you see about Solo from the media. They have decided that it is old news and there’s no reason for you chauvinistic cave dwellers to talk about it. Instead, her story will be a tale of redemption. Since we can’t talk about the lesbians and no one watches women’s soccer, the narrative will be Solo’s triumph over adversity!

This is where American women find themselves after a century of feminism. The role models for their daughters are lesbians and lunatics, but no one is allowed to mention that these women are lesbians and lunatics. They traded in one set of double standards for another set, the former being based in biology and the latter at odds with it.

From The Z BLog: http://thezman.com/wordpress/

Baltimore’s Useless Blacks

The Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name

The riots in Baltimore the other day were pretty mild by the standards of these things. The riots in the late sixties burned out big chunks of major cities, including Baltimore. This riot broke a few windows, mostly in neighborhoods that can’t get much worse. A few broken windows is not going to change much. The big damage was to the tourist trade as the news made it appear that the city was just sacked by the Goths. As a result conventions have been cancelled and who knows how many holiday plans have been altered in order to avoid the city.

The funny thing about these things is we have three narratives. There’s the one from the Cult of Modern Liberalism we get from just about everywhere in the media. That’s the one where the poor, dispossessed blacks have been brutalized by the Pale Penis People to the point where they revolt. Their peaceful protest against the PPP is turned into a riot by overzealous cops, the same cops who killed the poor innocent black body, this time named Freddy Gray.

The trouble with this narrative is it is never supported by the facts. In most of these cases, the truth makes the liberal narrative appear insultingly stupid. Michael Brown was a giant thug. The guy in New York was a career criminal. Freddy Gray appears to have died by accident. Of course, Baltimore is a black city run by blacks and it has a black police force. Whatever problems they have are not the fault of the blue-eyed devil.

Conservative Inc. swings into action with its own spin on things. This piece by Kevin Williamson is fairly typical of their role in the public drama. They point out that the people in charge are all members of the CML and have been following all of the favored policies of the Cult for generations. Their argument is that the riots and the squalor are the logical result of liberal policy making. Kevin’s article makes that case in the specific as well as the general, referencing other dilapidated cities.

The problem here is other cities have extremely liberal governments yet they manage to avoid the mayhem we see in Baltimore or Detroit. Kevin briefly mentions San Francisco, but prefers to focus on the black arrests rates, as if they are somehow unwarranted or out of line with black arrest rates nationwide. He’s ham-handedly trying to argue that the pasty-faced lefties running these cities are bigots. The fact that the Hispanics and Asians seem to be doing just fine in these places is conveniently avoided.

Then there’s the other narrative, the one no one dares say for fear of being labeled a monster. On the television you see young black males mugging for the cameras as they commit pointless acts of mayhem. You see blacks running from burning stores with arms full of goods. Of course, the liquor store is robbed and you see blacks carrying away the liquor and beer. These scenes are narrated by the same old voices saying the same old things. To spice it up, they interview a local, who mumbles through the interview, confirming everything you see on TV.

This, of course, is the simple reality of places like Baltimore, Detroit, East St. Louis and so on. When the government banned private discrimination in in the 1960’s, whites fled the cities to avoid having to send their kids to school with blacks. Responsible and intelligent blacks tried to keep it together, but they threw in the towel in the 80’s and 90’s when crack turned American cities into war zones. They headed for the suburbs to live with the whites. What’s left in these urban reservations are low-IQ violent nitwits.

Of course, no one is allowed to say any of this in public. Racial solidarity requires blacks, who know better, to defend their dimwitted brothers rioting in the streets. Liberal whites think there’s profit in the riots so they cast about for a black hat on whom to pin the blame. Crime thinkers like John Derbyshire believe that the truth of things will eventually will out. I think John is right that reality will always win eventually, but I know I’ll never live to see it. Everyone alive today is too deeply invested in the myth that if we just turn the right knobs and push the right buttons, biology will be overcome. Fantasy is powerful stuff.

The fantasists may be onto something though. Baltimore has about 200,000 people that are useless. The males just want to commit crimes, get high and screw. The females just want to get high and screw. The city would love to ship them off somewhere, but somewhere does not want them either. John Derbyshire’s dream of race realism is not going to change the fact we have a lot of useless people and nowhere to send them.

Maybe we’re better off leaving reality as the hate that dare not speaks its name. The fantasy keeps everyone committed to papering over reality and doubling down after each failure. Ferguson will fade away and those people will go back to doing what they were doing before they got famous. Baltimore will go back to being Baltimore. The dogs will bark and the caravan will move on.

From Z Man: http://thezman.com/wordpress/