I’ve got some great posters for your viewing pleasure, covering everything from politics to culture to national security . . . and more!!
One of the cultural concerns that may have undone Hillary Clinton is the way in which America’s college campuses foster immaturity in the young adults consigned to their care. Parents used to send their children to college as a step on the road to responsible adulthood. Nowadays, thanks to safe spaces, trigger warnings, and microaggressions, it seems as if little distinguishes college students from toddlers in preschool. A recent video about special snowflakes nicely sums up what’s happening to our young people:
College snowflakes are easy to notice (and to ridicule), but the reality is that the entire statist wing of American politics is locked into immature behaviors, ranging from the terrible twos to the equally terrible teens. There was, therefore, an element of truth to Michelle Obama’s icky little boast to Oprah (queen of emotional navel-gazing) that Barack is the grown-up in the White House, modeling mature behavior, and the rest of us in America are the kids looking up to him for help and guidance. Actually, someone made a pithy poster of Michelle’s core messages:
To the Progressives, Barack may indeed be the “grown-up,” but he’s only the “grown-up” in the way the bossiest child in a group of five-year-olds is the “Mommy” or “Daddy” when the kids decide to play house.
I’ve compiled a list of Progressive behaviors and thought patterns that are indistinguishable from infant, toddler, child, and teen behavior and thought patterns. See what you think and then tell me where I’m wrong or add more if you notice I’ve forgotten something.
Three days ago, I wrote a #BoycottTheBoycotters post identifying the 194 businesses that were then boycotting pro-Trump Brietbart on the spurious ground that anything pro-Trump is racist and hate-filled. In the three days since then, Sleeping Giant, the Twitter page that is organizing the anti-Breitbart, anti-Trump boycott has added another 32 businesses to its list of American companies that are using politics to justifying commercially isolating Americans who support the Republican party and the Republican candidate.
I explained in my earlier post that the intellectual foundation for the boycott is completely wrong. I also explained that this boycott is a boycott of you, the American people. These businesses are saying that values, laws, and traditions that were unremarkable a mere eight years ago are now so far beyond the pale that they refuse to do business with anyone who dares to support a pre-Obama America.
You, the maligned American, have a choice: You can let them get away with this or you can push back — hard.
The image below shows the list of businesses as of noon on December 11 that have promised to boycott Breitbart (and, presumably, any other sites that fit the Breitbart parameters). Those businesses in red are the ones that have joined the list in just the last three days. As I said in my post title, the Progressives are moving incredibly fast to marginalize ordinary Americans and we need to respond just as fast. (Click on the image to enlarge.)
I’m sorry to be blunt, but the last 3.4 weeks have shown that there really is no nice way to describe today’s Democrats. Emotionally, intellectually, educationally, and culturally, they are dumb. This illustrated edition celebrates that stupidity. The last six items, though, will be on an upbeat note so you don’t go away simultaneously laughing and depressed:
The Progressive meltdown over Trump’s Electoral College victory continues unabated and has gone from the merely undemocratic practice of street violence and personal abuse to the seriously, dangerously undemocratic practice of seeking to undermine the legitimacy of an election. To the Progressive defense that conservatives were just as bad in 2008 or 2012 . . . well, as always, the Progressives are wrong.
Conservatives never took to the streets and abandoned themselves to mob violence. That is a strictly Leftist activity. There’s a straight line from shakedown artist Al Sharpton’s Tawana Brawley circus to the dangerous freeway obstructions that the Left currently loves to so much. These are not about freedom of expression; they are a form of blackmail directed at a functioning society.
Conversely, Tea Party rallies, which were directed at Obama’s policies, not his legitimacy, were cheery affairs, after which the attendees cleaned up their litter. This was true political expression, not mob violence.
Even worse than mob violence, though, is the Progressive attack on democracy itself. What Progressives are doing is drastically more dangerous than the fact that a significant subsection of conservatives were convinced that Obama, who baited them by hiding his birth certificate, failed to meet the constitutional requirement that he be a native-born American.
(Incidentally, my feeling has long been that he was indeed born in Hawaii. What I think he’s hiding is in the transcripts, which will probably show that he falsely claimed Kenyan or Indonesian birth to get admitted into college and to obtain financial aid. And of course, they’ll show that “the smartest president ever” was a really bad student. This is just a theory, though, and I freely admit that I have no evidence to support it.)
Yes, many conservatives did attack Obama vigorously in an effort to roust him from office and, as the Progressives love to note, Trump was part of that “birth certificate” constituency. The important thing to remember, though, is that this conduct was directed against Obama. The goal was to prove that Obama was unqualified ab initio and had no right to be in the White House.
Progressives are doing something much more extreme than attacking a candidate (although their frenzied effort to equate him to Hitler is dire and dangerous): They are challenging the entire republican democratic process that underlies America’s smooth and safe transition of power every four to hate years. While their hatred is directed at Trump, they’re attacking the heart of the country itself. Moreover, they’re escalating.
During the primaries, Progressives pushed Donald Trump’s candidacy with a vengeance, convinced that he was the one candidate Hillary could surely beat. Moreover, if Trump did win the Republican primary, these same Progressives had a plan — which they carried out enthusiastically — to destroy Trump utterly through every Progressive outlet available, from the news media, to social media, to useful idiots in Hollywood, to the equally useful idiots not in Hollywood. As it happened, the Progressives were correct about their ability to raise Trump up and wrong about their ability to control and destroy him once he’d served their goals.
I for one, am extremely grateful that the Left succeeded in the first phase of their plan to pervert the election process. While Trump was never my first choice for President, Hillary was always my last choice, and I’m not sure any candidate other than Trump could have beaten Hillary’s Democrat machinery. She was ready for a conventional campaign, not an unconventional one. Schadenfreude can be an awfully great feeling when a rabid partisan media and a dangerously corrupt candidate are so arrogant they cannot imagine defeat (although they’ll cheat to ensure victory) and then fail spectacularly.
That I’m pleased with how the Progressive scheme backfired with Trump, given that it benefited me, I’m very worried that the Progressive decision to repeat the same pattern with neo-Nazi Richard Spencer that it used with Trump, may follow the same pattern as the anti-Trump scheme, to both America’s and the world’s detriment. You’d think that the Progressives would have figured out that it’s a huge gamble to build up someone they find objectionable for a short-term benefit and assume that, once that benefit is achieved, they can destroy what they created. And yet . . . the Progressives never learn.
What’s that definition of insanity? Ah, I remember: Doing the same thing over and over, but always expecting a different result. That pretty much defines the Progressive party and everything it does, but with special emphasis today on the dangerous “Richard Spencer game” that the Progressives are playing.
Since I started on my real-me Facebook many years ago, I have filled my feed almost entirely with two things: (1) offbeat, funny, and quirky stories to entice my friends to read my feed and (2) stories about rising antisemitism at home and around the world. For domestic stories, I daily link to news stories about rampant, naked antisemitism on America’s college and university campuses; the antisemitism powering the BDS movement; the antisemitism that’s become integral to the Black Lives Matter movement; the antisemitism that animates intersectionality; and the antisemitism in the Nation of Islam, which gave birth to Keith Ellison. Each of those incubators for antisemitism, of course, is a core Democrat constituency that neither the DNC nor any Democrat candidate (including Hillary) has ever disavowed.
For international stories, I point daily to the doings at the UN, to Iran’s routine assertions that it will annihilate Israel (a goal closer to reality thanks to Obama’s willingness to hand hundreds of millions of dollars to Iran), to the blatantly antisemitic attacks that terrorists have folded into the larger terrorist attacks that grabbed headlines; and to the endless Palestinian depredations against Israeli citizens. During the knife intifada, I was posting stories about murderous attacks every day — and sometimes several times a day.
Invariably, the articles I posted to Facebook came from specialty publications, catering to conservatives, Jews, and Israel supporters: Israeli newspapers, Jewish blogs, Stand With Us, UN Watch, Campus Watch, the Gatestone Institute, and the Clarion Project, to name just a few. I turned to these specialty publications because most of the stories never made it into the mainstream media.
Throughout the years, my Facebook friends have responded to these posts in two ways: my few conservative friends invariably commented on these posts; the rest of my friends — all of whom are Progressives — ignored them entirely.
So let me sum up here: For the last decade at least, the American mainstream media has downplayed or ignored rampant antisemitism at home and abroad, including antisemitism at the heart of the Democrat party. Likewise, for the last several years, my Progressive friends have been equally willing to turn a blind eye to this antisemitism. Indeed, they’ve been supportive of Obama’s increasingly overt efforts to isolate Israel from both the US and America, leaving it (and the Jews within it) prey to the thugs surrounding her, including a potentially nuclear Iran.
Let me distill that summation even more: Throughout the Bush and the Obama years, Progressives have been entirely okay with surging, violent antisemitism, both at home and abroad.
Here it is: Your daily reminder that the revamped website for the Watcher’s Council is a brilliant collaborative online effort called WOW! Magazine. Since I last posted an update, Council members and their friends have uploaded all of these spot-on articles:
- Gang Rape A Girl, Get A Slap On The Wrist; Help Convict Them? 16 years In Jail
- Jill Soloway — Exhibit A for the premise that if Leftists didn’t have double standards, they’d have none at all
- VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Flees When Student Calls Her Out For Lying About Her Ethnicity
- Forum: Can America Unite Again?
- NY/NJ Islamic Terrorist Taken into Custody after Gun Battle
- Jews and Guns
- Democracy In Action
- Colin Kaepernick: You Have the Right to Remain Silent
- Amazing Israel – Doctors Cure Paralyzed 6-Year-Old Girl
- U.S. wire payments to Iran Prove Obama Lied About Money Laundering
- The Bookworm Beat 9/18/16 — the “people are singing” edition and open thread
- The Trayvon Martin Case: Once More Out Of The Twilight Zone
- Does Progressivism — and its claim that there’s a “rape culture” — unduly burden boys?
- Sally Kohn appoints herself Chief of Speech Police
- Hillary Is Telling The Truth (For Once)
- Another predator takes advantage of a “gun-free” zone
- Special Sunflower Stricken with Offendeditis over Trump Hat
- Noted Gun Control Cultists do what they do best, lie
- American Workforce Shrinks While Foreign Workforce Increases
I don’t believe I’m exaggerating when I say that, if you visit WOW! Magazine regularly, you will be as caught up on the headlines as a New York Times or Yahoo News reader except that, unlike the readers of those publications, you’ll have a solid grasp of facts and be thinking about serious and honest indepth analyses.
I never watch the Emmys, and I say that with a great deal of pride. As last night’s anti-Trump exhibition showed, television is no longer about either entertaining or informing the American people; it is, instead, about “progaganda.” That’s not a typo. It’s a great neologism my friend Wolf Howling came up with to address the fact that whether watching their shows, attending their schools, or listening to (or reading) their news, you will be made to embrace the Progressive agenda.
For those who have drunk the Kool-Aid, it’s irrelevant (a) that the Progressive agenda has come close to destroying black America; (b) that it is making America incapable of defending itself against the radical threat of fundamentalist Islam; (c) that it is anti-science insofar as it pretends that the XX and XY chromosome pairing in humans is meaningless or that the planet is melting, all actual evidence to the contrary; (d) that it is aggressively trying to destroy the First Amendment’s promise that people can hold to the core tenets of their faith without government prosecution (except when those tenets tell them to bomb, behead, shoot, or stab others); and (e) that it pushes a vision of Big Government that, when carried to its logical conclusion, invariably ends up with government killing more people than all the individual “haters” or gun “nuts” or “Bible clingers” combined. What matters to the Left is that it feels good about itself. Its intentions are all to help the “little people,” never mind that the effect of those intentions predictably destroys those it aims to help.
This intro brings me to Jill Soloway, celebrated in Hollywood for having made a show about a transgender person who, if I understand correctly, pretends not to have paired XY chromosomes, but insists instead on being treated as a person with XX chromosomes. (I have to admit that I’m always confused about the terminology: what does “transgender man” or “transgender woman” mean? I cannot tell if the sex modifier in those phrases refers to chromosome reality or body dysmorphic wish-fulfillment.)
Solway, rather than accepting her award with a polite thank-you took it upon herself when backstage to let America know how evil those who don’t embrace Progressive thinking really are:
So Jews were otherized in Nazi Germany to gain political power for Hitler, and right now Donald Trump is doing the same thing. He’s otherizing people. He calls women pigs if they don’t look like beauty pageant contestants. He blames Muslim and Mexicans for our problems. He makes fun of disabled people. This is otherizing with a capital O, and has been used in our history before to start and win wars, and he needs to be called out every chance he gets for being one of the most dangerous monsters to ever approach our lifetimes. He’s a complete dangerous monster, and any moment that I have to call Trump out for being an inheritor to Hitler, I will.
Now, much as it pains me to admit it, Solway’s right partially. There is a presidential candidate who is openly “otherizing people,” entirely dismissing their humanity, and making it quite plain that they are so evil that they cannot be saved but are, instead, a blight on the body politic. It’s just that Solway got her candidate wrong:
Yesterday, I read (out loud) the worst “rebuttal to a speech” ever. Today, I read something less amusing, but also important: It’s a disturbing parenting article that places a serious emotional burden on boys — the same boys who today live in an anti-male society. A little background:
One of Progressivism’s favorite issues is “rape culture.” According to them, middle-class American women are at perpetual risk of rape. This is an inference drawn from the fallacious claim that American college girls have a 1 in 5 chance of being raped — making your average campus more dangerous than a South African slum.
Obsessing on this false statistic allows these cultural warriors to ignore actual rape cultures, in Rotherham, England; in Sweden; in Germany and other parts of Western Europe; in Australia; and, of course, across the Muslim Middle East. While our Western-reared young men are told that rape is a criminal act and a moral outrage, young Muslim men across the world are told that infidel women (and children) are theirs for the taking.
Not only are American males not engaging in an orgy of rape, they’re really not doing much of anything. They’re still a diminishing species in American colleges. Thus, as of two years ago, regardless of race, the story was the same: many more female high school graduates than male graduates head off to college.
Once they graduate from college, the women grads tend to earn somewhat less than the men grads but I, being a failed feminist, believe that this does not mean that employers are paying women less than similarly situated male colleagues (which would be illegal). Instead, I think it’s a combination of women’s majors (more liberal arts than STEM); women’s life choices, which tend to revolve around part-time work or other limited-time work to facilitate parenting; and the fact that, when employees have to ask for raises, women don’t ask.
The last few years have been hard on men, especially older white men because the recession was worse for them than it was for women. And of course, young men are more likely to commit suicide than young women (three-and-a-half times more likely, in fact).
With this data in mind, the article that bothered me today is an opinion piece in the Washington Post parenting section: “My teen boys are blind to rape culture.” Jody Allard laments that her boys, 16 and 18, roll their eyes when she starts on a harangue about “rape culture.” Worse, they call her out on her claims:
My time today was dedicated almost entirely to Navy League matters. The San Francisco chapter has a great president who has two admirable goals: (1) to ensure that members are educated about and supportive of America’s maritime services; and (2) to try to make San Francisco every sailor’s and marine’s best shore leave ever. You can get some inkling of the San Francisco Navy League chapter by liking its Facebook page.
Of course, being out and about limits my blogging but fear not! Thanks to WOW! Magazine, the new collaborative online magazine from the Watcher’s Council, you’re a click away from reading astute commentary about . . . well, about everything: politics, social issues, national security, world affairs — you name it, someone on the Watcher’s Council probably has something to say about it.
So, even though I wasn’t blogging, fellow Council members were, and here’s a straight-out list of articles you may want to read:
- School Attacks: Feeling Good Or Saving Lives, Part 4
- Broadway Fundraiser For ‘Black Lives Matter’ Canceled Over BLM’s Anti-Semitism
- Oh, The HORROR!!!!!!!!
- Huffington Post Deletes Post Telling Young Women to Cover Up at Football Games
- (Video) Kid Rock To Cheering Crowd: “F*ck Colin Kaepernick!”
- Tim Kaine: Muslim Brotherhood Ties, Communist Groupie, And Grifter
- The Bookworm Beat 9/13/16 — the “I feel deplorably faint” edition and open thread
- A Tribute To Adolf Hitler, Progressive Pioneer
- The Deplorables – The Movie
The New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof thinks that were Jesus’s Second Coming to happen any time soon he’d be upset that those religious people most closely associated with him (aka Christians) are rejecting the Democrat party platform. John Ellis does a good job of explaining that Jesus was not a bearded Progressive but was, instead, the incarnate intermediary between man and God. Indeed, Ellis’s article goes much deeper than that, by pointing out that Kristof’s “expert” is, in the classic sense of the word, a “heretic.”
Because I lack Ellis’s depth of knowledge about core Christianity and about heresy, I thought I’d amuse myself by going a different route. I haven’t read the New Testament since 1980, when I took a “Bible as Literature” class at Cal. (Can you imagine a time when a state-funded school could still teach that kind of thing? And yes, even at Cal they still offered traditional learning classes back in the day.)
I’ve placed lessons from Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount (from the Book of Matthew) in one column and, in the other column, I’ve set out my opinion as to whether those statements mesh with modern Progressive preaching and acts. Please note that, because I am not a religious scholar — especially not a Christian religious scholar — I am taking Jesus’s words at face value when deciding whether Progressives are in sync with his teachings or not.
I apologize if this post runs too long. The fact is, though, that I rediscovered what I first learned in my class at Cal: The Sermon on the Mount is vivid, thought-provoking, intensely humanist and, in the King James Version, exquisitely beautiful. In addition to appreciating the philosophy, I enjoy recognizing all the phrases that have worked their way into the English language (although today’s generation has probably abandoned most of them).
I’ve been struggling to come up with a down-and-dirty definition of modern Progressivism. I know that we can just call it socialism with an American accent, but that’s inaccurate. We need to define it correctly because doing so allows us to see and address Ground Zero — the creation point — of this toxic ideology.
As any good conservative knows — especially those who have read Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change — American Progressivism was a political movement that originated more than a hundred years ago. Some early Progressives liked to borrow some ideas and words from socialism, as was the case in Jean Webster’s 1912 classic Daddy-Long-Legs. In that quite charming book, the heroine, Judy Abbott, is a foundling sent to a posh college modeled on Vassar. Once there, she pronounces herself a Fabian, meaning (to her) a socialist who wants to bring about change slowly, without an actual revolution.
Despite borrowing a few linguistic trappings, though, American Progressives were never European-style socialists. The difference between American Leftists and their European counterparts was a matter of class — the Europeans had classes and, technically speaking, Americans did not. Sure, America had her rich and her poor, and some families who could trace their wealth back a few decades, but Progressivism arose in a time when America was still an economically dynamic country, one in which people’s status was based on wealth, not birth, and they could rise and fall depending on their luck, hard work, and financial acumen.
In this, Americans were unlike Europeans who had ancient, deeply stratified, practically immobile classes. As Alan J. Lerner wrote for My Fair Lady, “An Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him.” England was not alone, of course. Lerner could have written the same words about every European country, and indeed just about every other country in the world.
My Progressive friends are flooding my Facebook feed with posters dedicated to what they perceive as the “wit and wisdom” of avowed socialist and Democrat Party candidate Bernie Sanders. I thought I’d take a look at what passes for intelligence from Bernie Sanders and his acolytes on the Left. My comments are below each poster. Please feel free to chime and, most definitely, to correct me if I’m wrong:
You’ll constantly see Bernie use this type of “cause” and “effect” rhetoric. To Bernie, too many millionaires and billionaires equals poor children. In this, he is just as sophisticated as the Climate Changistas who attribute every weather event and every societal wrong to climate change.
Here’s the reality about those poverty stricken children, and it has nothing to do with the Koch Brothers (who are Bernie’s favorite bête noire and scapegoat). In a free(ish) market system, there is one sure way to become financially secure: study, marry, and have children, in that order. If you skip studying (and this is true no matter how useless America’s higher education system is), you’re less likely to have money. And if you skip marriage on your way to children, you’ve virtually consigned those children to poverty:
A dramatic rise in unwed births and the accompanying decline in marriage are the most important cause of child poverty in the United States. As Chart 1 shows, in 2009, 37.1 percent of single-parent families with children in the U.S. were poor. In the same year, only 6.8 percent of married couples with children were poor. Single-parent families were nearly six times more likely to be poor than were married families.
The overwhelming majority of poor families with children in the U.S. are not married. (Overall, a third of all families with children at all income levels are not married.) But a staggering 71 percent of all poor families with children are unmarried. By contrast, married couples comprise only around 29 percent of poor families with children. (See Chart 2.)
I’m trying to think of ways to get the mentally flabby, but still impassioned, Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed to start figuring out that their way is not working. My latest effort was to post a link to the news story talking about how France’s Front National leader Marine Le Pen, who is routinely classified as far right, is set to gain votes following the last two horrible days in France. My comment was a simple one:
No matter the country, if the mainstream party refuses even to acknowledge what people reasonably perceive to be an existential threat, the people will inevitably look to that fringe party that promises to protect them.
I understand, of course, that using the word “mainstream” to describe France’s socialist party is ridiculous, but remember — I’m not preaching to the choir, with the choir consisting of intelligent, reasonable people who look at the world as it is, rather than trying to mold it to some Marxist fantasy. Instead, I’m trying to reach people who believe that Obama and France’s socialist government occupy the comfortable middle. I want those people to start processing a couple of ideas:
Idea Number One is to get them to start being very, very worried about governments and media that consistently deny the existence of Islamic terrorism. This is the right time to do it because, after the attack on Paris (which all sophisticated Progressives consider their spiritual home), my friends started to do something weird: They linked to articles blaming Islam for the terror. That is, even as the Obama administration took it upon itself to teach us, once again, that Islam is an entirely peaceful, they were looking at The New Yorker. I think part of why this is happening now, and did not happen to these Progressives after the Boston Marathon bombing, is because (a) there’s something clinical and distant about a bomb and (b) they could say it was just two crazy, messed-up brothers being lone wolves together. The Paris massacre, however, came complete with utterly appalling footage of an organized, paramilitary assault, complete with the casual murder of a defenseless, wounded man.
Given that the Progressives in my world are having a vulnerable moment, nows the time to get them to look at the Obama administration and the Democrat party and media (but I repeat myself), and to start wondering why the administration and the media consistently insist that there’s no such thing as Muslim terrorism. I know that, in my journey from flabby Leftist to thoughtful conservative, cognitive dissonance made the difference. My “crossing the Rubicon” moment came about because of the vast disconnect between MSM reporting and my actual, first-hand knowledge of Israel. As I’ve seen in my own case, and through conversations with other former Lefties, when you start questioning any one part of the narrative, suddenly you start question all of the narrative.
Idea Number Two assumes that the Progressives aren’t quite willing (or will never be willing) to abandon their beloved Leftist governments. In that case, I want them to start realizing that there are things worse than having their government defend America against terrorism. And what’s worse is that, when the leaders do nothing to stop terrorism, than their leaders will lose — and, worse (from a Progressive viewpoint), they’ll lose to “far right” candidates who promise to care for the people. Progressives fear conservatives a whole lot more than they fear terrorists, and reminding them that their intransigence on self-defense plays into conservative hands might motivate them to start demanding that their Leftists governments make the tough decisions that allow them to push back an enemy that transcends borders, nations, generations, race, gender, etc. (David Goldman takes an unsparing look at what that hard-line might be.)
I can see in my mind’s eye that some of you are already gearing up to tell me that I’m wasting my time and that Lefties will never change their minds. I’m sorry to say, but that’s wrong and they will, provided that they get the proper trigger to do so. I changed my mind, and so did a lot of other well-known conservatives: Thomas Lifson, Michael Medved, David Horowitz, the Power Line guys (although I can remember which ones), our own Charles Martel, and many more. People change and I do think we have an obligation to do what neither the Muslims nor the Marxists will do: to convert through kindness allied with facts and reason, rather than through coercion, state action, and violence.