I always worry I won’t find Stupid Leftists posters, but every week, whether it’s abortion, borders, race, gender, guns, etc. they keep outdoing themselves.
I always worry I won’t find Stupid Leftists posters, but every week, whether it’s abortion, borders, race, gender, guns, etc. they keep outdoing themselves.
This awesome illustrated edition is filled with wit and wisdom about elections, #Blexit and #WalkAway, immigration issues, the Second Amendment and more.
Today is Guy Fawkes Day, when the English celebrate the survival of a really terrible king who never bathed and the brutal torture and execution of a crazed religious fanatic. Who doesn’t love a holiday like that?
And what better way to celebrate than with a huge bolus of posters covering everything from the upcoming election, to #WalkAway and #Blexit, to immigration, to Trump, to the usual Leftist insanity. I know you’ll enjoy these:
Democrat hypocrisy: Kavanaugh hearing reveals hate for Due Process, Men, Whites, Black Conservatives, anything else that smacks of normal life in America.
Kanye again makes sense. This time, he says quite correctly that Americans are individuals, so politics should be personal, not a matter of group think.
Group-think, which denies people’s individuality and insists that they have no meaning separate from whatever group the politicians believe best serve the politicians’ goals, is the essence of Marxism. Stalin, who understood that Marxism always leads to the grave, summed up the ultimate type of group think: One death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.
Yesterday, Kanye went on Jimmy Kimmel and called out this Marxist group think in his inimitable Kanye way, by saying that people are denying their basic individuality when they allow group identity to dictate their politic choices. Being true to yourself means refusing to allow group think to silence you:
Just as a musician, an African-American, a guy out in Hollywood, all these different things — everyone around me tried to pick my candidate for me. And then told me every time I said I liked Trump, I couldn’t say it out loud or my career would be over, I’d be kicked out of the black community. Because blacks, we’re supposed to have a monolithic thought. We can only like . . . can only be Democrats and all.
What it represented to me is not about policies, because I’m not a politician like that. But it represented overcoming fear and doing what you felt, no matter what anyone said. And saying, “You can’t bully me. Liberals can’t bully me; news can’t bully me; the hip-hop community, they can’t bully me.” Because at that point if I’m afraid to be me, I’m not longer “Ye.” That’s what makes “Ye.”
Roseanne has learned the hard way that racial insults (or even racial allusions) are forgiven only when white Leftists make them about black conservatives.
You may have heard that ABC, a Disney subsidiary, cancelled Roseanne’s megahit reboot of her old show. The reason given was that Roseanne sent out a tweet criticizing Valerie Jarrett for being a Muslim Brotherhood stooge and likening her looks to a character in Planet of the Apes.
I gather that the offense was not that Roseanne said Valerie Jarrett holds views common to a murderous, genocidal organization that seeks world domination. The horror of it all was the suggest that there’s a simian look to Valerie Jarrett:
ABC promptly clutched its pearls and cancelled an unusually successful show:
ABC Entertainment President Channing Dungey said in a statement on Tuesday that the network would not be producing the show’s second season.
“Roseanne’s Twitter statement is abhorrent, repugnant and inconsistent with our values, and we have decided to cancel her show,” Dungey told Fox News.
A rep for Barr did not return Fox News’ request for comment. She was also dropped from her talent agency, ICM Partners.
I have a bunch of points I want to make, so I’ll just throw them out here in no particular order:
1. I have no problem with insulting Valerie Jarrett. I won’t expand on that here, but you can check out the following links: this, this, this, and this. I applaud anyone who tackles Jarrett, but you have to make a clean tackle to score a point. Roseanne, apparently unaware of the unspoken rules about arguments that implicate race, made a dirty tackle. If you attack Jarrett, attack her political, social, and economic views. They are easy and fair game.
2. There is no way you can compare black people to anything simian without looking bad. One of the internet’s favorite games is likening celebrities, including political celebrities, to their animal twins. Indeed, for eight years, this was probably the top animal = celebrity image:
Although the picture is kind of cute, it was not meant as a compliment. We all remember the “Chimpy-Bush-Hitler” meme.
Bush isn’t the only famous person whom the internet compared to something simian. A 30-second search yield several more celebrity = simian images:
The important thing to note is that all of the men in the above pictures are white. Roseanne transgressed one of America’s major shibboleths, which is that you never liken a black person to any creature in the simian family tree.
I happen to agree with this shibboleth. There are too many centuries of such comparisons in America, and they were always meant to imply that blacks were subhuman. The fact that Roseanne’s comparison was to superhuman simians (the sympathetic, brilliant apes in the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise) is irrelevant. It simply smells bad thanks to centuries of intentional, demeaning racial prejudice aimed at exploiting blacks and depriving them of the liberties inherent in all human beings. [Read more…]
It’s an old-fashioned Bookworm Beat with news from all over, much of it heartening, because we’re living in Trump’s America.
I’m enjoying living in Trump’s America. Good things are happening — and, with Wolf Howling’s help, I’ve got a collection of good things, interesting things, important things, silly things, and thought-provoking things for you to enjoy:
Leftists are panicking as the “Dark Web” threatens their hegemonic control over “victim” groups. Yesterday I wrote about what might be the deeper meaning behind the Jordan Peterson phenomenon, which cuts across all of the Left’s carefully drawn tribal and victim lines. I’m not the only one noticing that what’s happening goes beyond mere pop culture popularity. The Left is noticing it too — and is worried, as evidence by the panic surrounding reports of a “Dark Web” made up of free thinkers from across the political spectrum.
As Wolf Howling told me, “It is two parts proggie arrogance, two parts virtue signalling, and one part bemoaning the ludicrous idea that conservatives have that they are under attack. Oh, and woman are under attack from Trump and Jordan Peterson may not run a cult, but his following is ‘cultlike.'” And of course, because this is a Jew writing for the New York Times, their article opens with the obligatory “Israelis are evil colonizers,” without a thought for Israel’s historic and legal claims to the land or the Palestinians’ genocidal obsession to wipe Jews off the map around the world, starting with Israel.
No matter what the Left does, some people insistently retain their values. A huzzah for a mother with values.
And no matter what anyone does, you will always have the stupid people. So who rang the “it’s nine lives” dinner bell??? Amazing that this group did not become Darwin Award winners. They quite literally cheeta’d death. [rimshot]
Still, it will take a long time to erase race-hustling ideas from people’s brains.. The term “white privilege” has nothing to do with institutional (and racist) favorable treatment for whites, and everything about a certain segment of American blacks complaining about being held to color blind standards. Exhibit One – the lynching. Exhibit Two – Los Angeles and STD’s. [Read more…]
This illustrated edition has nothing to do with today being the 112th anniversary of the Great San Francisco Earthquake. I just wanted to acknowledge it.
Considering that each of us in America is a person of color, there’s no need for us to buy into the Democrats’ ancient obsession with racial hierarchies.
I am not that color. I’m pale, but I’m not white.
The fact of the matter is that there are no “white” people on planet Earth. Those designated as “white” may be pale, but we always have tinges of brown under our skin, whether it trends pink or a sallow yellow. This is not surprising, given our common African ancestry. A more accurate description of those called “white,” therefore, would be “Brown of Recent European Origin.” (BREO.)
Meanwhile, those in America who are called “black” aren’t black. This is black:
America’s black people are not that color. They’re darker than I am, but they are still all shades of brown. This is not surprising, given that their African ancestry is more recent than mine. A more accurate description of those called “black,” therefore, would be “Brown of Recent African Origin.” (BRAFO.)
We can do the same with brown-skinned people from Latin American (BORLAO – Brown of Recent Latin American Origin), brown-skinned people from India (BRIO – Brown of Recent Indian Origin) and those from Asia (BRASO – Brown of Recent Asian Origin). If you like, you can feel free to add Brown of Recent Middle Eastern Origin to the list (BORMEO).
There, I’ve just solved America’s racial problems. We’re all brown people. Each of us is a person of color. It’s just that, although all of us have genetic roots in Africa, some of our more recent genetic roots come from geographic regions that have massaged the deepest brown tones out of our skin. If you insist on categorizing people by color, feel free to call up those geographic regions, but never lose sight of the fact that we are all brown. [Read more…]
Are Trump supporters racist? By abandoning both facts and logic, That Atlantic claims Trump is a neo-Nazi, so his supporters must be racists too.
My Progressive friends have been on fire this holiday weekend, posting all sorts of articles from anti-Trump mainstream media publications. When I wasn’t cooking, eating, or stuporously digesting, I glanced through a few of them. It would take too much time to fisk them all because, as is the case with Ruth Bader Ginsburg decisions, they are all long, long articles, with the MSM manifestly hoping that length, repetition, and partisan fervor will hide warped facts and contorted logic.
Just for the heck of it, though, I’ve fisked one of the The Atlantic’s latest offerings because it overflows with outrageous assumptions and arguments. In The Nationalist’s Delusion, the author, Adam Serwer (or, as I came to think of him, Adam Sewer) promises to prove to us that “Trump’s supporters backed a time-honored American political tradition, disavowing racism while promising to enact a broad agenda of discrimination.” Well, with that agenda, how could I stop myself from seeing what it takes to make good on that promise?
The article starts with an endless riff about the Louisiana voters who once elected David Duke to Congress. The riff wraps up with Trump’s long-ago prediction that voter anger at Bush Sr.’s weak economy would lose voters to a hypothetical “Duke for President” run or a real Pat Buchanan run. Serwer’s logic is (1) Duke once won a Louisiana seat in Congress and (2) Trump explained why he thought Duke won, therefore (3) Trump is a neo-Nazi. Reading that syllogism, all I can think of is the Professor’s oft-repeated complaint in C.S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe: “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” Whatever school Serwer attended clearly failed the Professor’s test.
In the face of Serwer’s syllogism, which is ridiculous on its face, it’s important to follow-up by reading Serwer’s own effort at summarizing what Trump actually said. Trump’s words had nothing to do with white supremacism:
A few days after Duke’s strong showing, the Queens-born businessman Donald Trump appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live.
“It’s anger. I mean, that’s an anger vote. People are angry about what’s happened. People are angry about the jobs. If you look at Louisiana, they’re really in deep trouble,” Trump told King.
Trump later predicted that Duke, if he ran for president, would siphon most of his votes away from the incumbent, George H. W. Bush—in the process revealing his own understanding of the effectiveness of white-nationalist appeals to the GOP base.
“Whether that be good or bad, David Duke is going to get a lot of votes. Pat Buchanan—who really has many of the same theories, except it’s in a better package—Pat Buchanan is going to take a lot of votes away from George Bush,” Trump said. “So if you have these two guys running, or even one of them running, I think George Bush could be in big trouble.” Little more than a year later, Buchanan embarrassed Bush by drawing 37 percent of the vote in New Hampshire’s Republican primary.
In February 2016, Trump was asked by a different CNN host about the former Klan leader’s endorsement of his Republican presidential bid.
“Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay?,” Trump said. “I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So I don’t know.”
Serwer concludes that Trump revealed “his own understanding of the effectiveness of white-nationalist appeals to the GOP base.” My read on the above is that Trump learned that, if the political class betrays its trust, there is an opening for a new candidate — any new candidate, not just a white nationalist.
To Sewer, er, Serwer, it’s neo-Nazis all the way down. Thus, having duly established (to his own satisfaction) that Republicans are Nazis because Trump supported Duke’s white supremacism, Serwer offers a paragraph manifestly intended to tie modern-day Trump supporters to Duke and, by association, to all Nazis: [Read more…]
Edward Blum understands America’s promise and, to that end, he is fighting hard against academia’s obsession with race, sex, and sexual orientation.
For those who haven’t applied had contact with academia lately, whether for themselves or a child, all of the applications are done on-line. And as is so often the case with digital replacements for old-fashioned paperwork, the absence of paper means that the organization solicits far more information than would ever have been considered necessary or, for that matter, feasible, back in the old paper days.
The Little Bookworm and I have spent the last I-don’t-know-how-many days dealing with the Common App, the Coalition for Colleges App, and a variety of dedicated state college application sites. All demand more information than I remember being responsible for back in the 1970s, when I applied to college. (Having said that, my fund of knowledge on the subject is somewhat limited, as I applied only to one university and got admitted there. Easy-peasy.)
What has me seeing red with every single application is the page dedicated to classifying the student by race, sex, and, if they’ve updated their application recently, “gender identification.” And of course, there are the essays that delicately probe whether a person is “disadvantaged” or a “social justice warrior” (with the latter being a “good thing,” rather than something that would send any sensible person out of the room screaming.)
All of these questions should be deleted. What should matter is a student’s academic ability, based upon grades and test scores. It’s disgraceful — and intensely Democrat — to seek to divide, classify, and rate people by their race, country of hereditary origin, sex, or this imaginary new concept of “gender identification.”
It turns out that there’s someone out there fighting this battle against academia’s profoundly divisive, un-American position:
Mr. [Edward] Blum is not a lawyer. But he is a one-man legal factory with a growing record of finding plaintiffs who match his causes, winning big victories and trying above all to erase racial preferences from American life.
Mr. Blum, 65, has orchestrated more than two dozen lawsuits challenging affirmative action practices and voting rights laws across the country. He is behind two of the biggest such cases to reach the Supreme Court: one attacking consideration of race in admissions at the University of Texas, which he lost; the other contesting parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, widely considered one of this country’s most important pieces of civil rights legislation, which he won.
Now, in his most high-profile cause of the moment, he has asserted that Harvard University’s affirmative action policies amount to an illegal quota system that denies high-achieving Asian-American students admission in numbers commensurate with their qualifications. He has already forced Harvard to turn over, under court seal, years of highly sensitive data about demographics, test scores and even some personal essays, and he now has a powerful ally in the Justice Department, which is looking into a similar complaint.
Mr. Blum said he was acting on a pure principle — that people should never be judged by the color of their skin.
I wish him all the luck in the world — and, thanks to our having Trump in office, we may finally be on our way to a color blind, race blind, gender-orientation blind education system.
While we old folk are focused on the MSM, Red Pill Black (aka Candace Owens) and other young people are spreading the conservative gospel via lively videos.
A few months ago, I wrote about some heartening information: There is a very large population of young conservatives in their twenties and thirties, who are invisible to older folks because their medium is videos, rather than the written word.
We older folk see Milo Yiannopoulos and Steve Crowder, because they use the written word, but the energy is with these vloggers. As my young friend told me, they’re putting out videos that get hundreds of thousands of hits. Meanwhile, cable news thinks it’s a big thing when it gets a couple of million viewers each night (which is highest number Rachel Maddow has ever achieved on her best day).
One of the most charming and interesting conservative vloggers is Candace Owens, aka Red Pill Black, a young black woman who is funny, thoughtful, and very, very interesting. No wonder, then, that Owens has 147,000 subscribers — and that subscriber list came about as a result of only 14 videos to date.
Think about that: With almost no overhead, and a fairly limited inventory, Owens has 147,000 people who want to hear her talk on important subjects both delighting and vexing Americans today. Moreover, if you check out the Red Pill Black video line-up, you’ll see that between 250,000 and 500,000 people, on average, take the time to listen to what Owens has to say. WOW! I would kill to have even a small percentage of her audience. Rachel Maddow would probably kill for that too.
South Park tackles an appropriate response for people who discover that, at the DNA level, they’re not as Caucasian as they thought they were.
For 150 years, Democrats used the Big Lie about race to justify slavery and Jim Crow, and now they’re using the Big Lie technique to challenge gender norms.
I want to share a thought with you that starts with slavery and ends with transsexuals. To get from one to the other, I have to start with one of the few decent classes I had when I was at UC Berkeley. That senior seminar looked at the history of race relations in America versus those in Brazil.
When I took the class, I had no interest whatsoever in the history of race relations. I was an English history major — the English isle, to be precise — and everything else was a distant second. Still, it became apparent to me very quickly that I was not alone and that I would not get into my preferred seminar. You see, back in the day, when it came time for enrollment in senior seminars, the history teachers would seat themselves at random intervals in the big lecture room at Dwinelle Hall. Students would then approach the teachers as supplicants, begging to get into this or that seminar.
As soon as I walked in the room, I saw that the professors teaching the seminars in which I was interested were besieged. I had no desire to hurl myself into that scrum. Instead, I checked out the teachers who were not surrounded by adoring students.
Only one of the other teachers caught my interest because he was so darn handsome. After I ascertained that he had openings in his seminar and that it worked for my schedule, I signed up, not even caring what he was teaching. And so it was that I ended up learning about the history race relations in the US and Brazil.
Fortunately, for me, that handsome young graduate student was an excellent teacher. It made up for the fact that he was happily married, had a baby, and would in any event not have been interested in me. It also made up for the fact that the reading materials were deadly dull.
Thirty years later, the only takeaway I had from the class is that America was rather unique in its “one drop of blood” approach to racism. In Brazil, there’s a great deal of racism, but it’s on a graduated scale. The darker you are, the more racism you face and the lower your status in society.
Meanwhile, in America, it doesn’t matter what you look like. If you’re known to have even a drop of black blood in you, you’re black. Nor is that a racial view that’s changed since both slavery and Jim Crow ended. After all, Barack Obama, half-black and half-white genetically, was our “first black president.” He wasn’t really, of course. He was our “first half-black president” — but that’s not the way things roll in America.
The stigma against that single drop of blood has been so strong in America that it made for a great subplot in Edna Ferber’s Showboat, which started as a book, made it to Broadway as a groundbreaking musical, and then got made into two Hollywood movie musicals. (The 1936 version of the movie is the one to see.)
If you’re familiar with Showboat’s plot, you know that, when the showboat passes through Mississippi, a vengeful man, furious that the beautiful Julie LaVerne has rebuffed him, reports to the authorities that she is, in fact, a black woman. Given that her husband, Steve, is a white man, they have violated Mississippi’s miscegenation laws and he demands their arrest. The couple avoids arrest when Steve cuts Julie and licks her blood, enabling his friends on the boat to state honestly that he has that “one drop of black blood” in him. [Read more…]
Progressives pretend that their transgender politics are based on science but they’re not; it’s fantasy all the way, which is a disservice to children.
The other day, NPR had a fascinating article. Because it is fascinating, allow me to quote some of the more interesting points:
Why Caitlyn Jenner can never be a woman
The man formerly known as Bruce is still a guy with a dick, testes, and a male skeleton, trying to be one of the girls.
Being female is a bright and shiny diamond, and here in America in the age of Hillary and Women’s Marches, everyone wants to wear it like a pussy hat on their head. The attitude, the language, the humor, the makeup, the style, all of it is covetable, and everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Madonna to Ashley Judd is trying to get high — and rich — off it.
But, like diamonds, a woman is created under extreme pressure and high temperature, deep down in the recesses of her core. It is sitting on the toilet when you’re thirteen, alternately fascinated and disgusted by the blood flowing from you for the first time. It’s watching your body going through the changes of pregnancy, everything from morning sickness, to suddenly sprouting Pamela Anderson boobs, to your blooming belly that’s periodically warped out of shape by the infant’s movements, to the pain and triumph of labor, to having your breasts go from being sex objects to being a baby’s private juice bar.
Being a woman is pre-menstrual syndrome, and menstruation, and post-menstrual syndrome. It’s hanging with your girlfriends when you’re all ugly ducklings, desperately jealous of the early bloomers, unaware that early bloom often fades quickly. It’s listening to your girlfriends’ lament, knowing that they’ll listen to you too and, even better, knowing that this is a sharing experience and that none of you will try to tell the others what to do. It’s keeping an eye on your friend who’s drinking too much, even though she promised not to, and making sure to get her safely home rather than running the risk that she’ll hook up with someone who makes her feel bad or, worse, find herself roofied and raped.
Being a women is up in the bones, the fragile bones, with their broad hips and their shoulder construction that means girls’ softball has that weird underhand pitch, instead of the overhand throw guys use. It’s in the muscles which, even if women try to beef them up with testosterone, will never be as strong as a man’s. It’s in the uterus and the ovaries that help create and then grow an entirely new human being, and in the breasts that produce the perfect food to sustain that human life.
And it is the ultimate in male privilege, really, for a man to see that diamond, all shiny and hard and unbreakable, and pluck it for his own, like it’s a gift from Tiffany’s, with seemingly zero regard for the pressure, the heat, the pain it went through — that we went through — to earn that shine.
That’s an amazing essay, isn’t it? Moreover, it’s one that I bet you never thought you’d read at NPR. And if you want the truth, you never will read it at NPR.
One of the categories I long ago set up for articles I’m saving to include in a round-up was called “politics as usual.” I’ve since changed it to “there’s nothing usual about politics.” The fusion of the Trump presidency, the collective Progressive mental breakdown, and the culture wars means that just about everything I read lately comes as a surprise. I’m pretty sure I’ve gotten no Christmas cards yet this year (a variation from the norm) because my Progressive friends are too depressed. They’re feeling like that gay couple in LA that canceled their celebratory Christmas party.
I am feeling celebratory — for the first time in eight years. I feel like the Americans at Yorktown when the British surrendered in 1781, as their band played The World Turned Upside Down. There’s still a lot of fighting to be done, as the links below show, but we’re gaining traction.
No, you don’t get to change the rules after you lose the game. The Lefties are desperately trying to undo the Electoral College (or, indeed, to do anything else they can think of to undermine a fair election the outcome of which they dislike). What Lefties don’t understand is that, had there been no Electoral College, Trump would simply have run a different campaign, getting more votes out in red states. What Lefties do understand is that the Electoral College stands in the way of the entire United States becoming a colony of California, which Michael Barone explains marches to the beat of a different drummer:
[F]or the first time in the nation’s history the most populous state was a political outlier, voting at one extreme in the national political spectrum.
The trend is recent — and clear. California was 14 points more Democratic than the nation this year, versus 10 points in 2012, 9 points in 2008, 6 points in 2004 and 2000. In the nine elections before that and after California passed New York to become the most populous state in 1963, the average of California’s Democratic and Republican percentages was never more than 5 points off the national figures. In four of the five elections between 1964 and 1980 (the exception was the McGovern year, 1972) it actually voted more Republican than the nation as a whole.
The case against abolition is one suggested by the Framers’ fears that voters in one large but highly atypical state could impose their will on a contrary-minded nation. That largest state in 1787 was Virginia, home of four of the first five presidents. New York and California, by remaining closely in line with national opinion up through 1996, made the issue moot.
California’s 21st century veer to the left makes it a live issue again. In a popular vote system, the voters of this geographically distant and culturally distinct state, whose contempt for heartland Christians resembles imperial London’s disdain for the “lesser breeds” it governed, could impose something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation. Sounds exactly like what the Framers strove to prevent.
Barone’s is an interesting, but somewhat abstract, analysis. A look at how the votes played out in real time in New York helps explain in concrete terms how doing away with the Electoral College means that the United States will be governed by the hard-Left coastal cities, plus Chicago:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3, 797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
And California’s arrogance to the contrary, while it would probably be fine for America if California left (as many are now threatening to do), it’s doubtful whether it would be good for California.