Unquestioning groupthink is a Leftist hallmark, especially for blacks. Antonia Okafor details how she escaped from that intellectual prison.
This Bookworm Beat has all shades of Progressive insanity (fake data, attacks on free speech, Chelseamania), complete with links and my trenchant comments.
Keep circling that drain. Before I get into the meat of this post detailing the worst emanations from the Democrats and their fellow travelers on their Left, I want to lead off with Kurt Schlichter’s article begging the Democrats not to change their current trajectory and tactics:
Look, Democrats, speaking sincerely as your friend, understand that everyone who says you need to take a deep look at yourselves is a racist, sexist, homophobe who won’t even ask about your preferred pronoun. Whatever you do, don’t you ever change.
The problem isn’t you. It’s those stupid idiots who won’t obey you because they’re stupid idiots. How can those idiots be so stupid?
Who knows? But what’s clear is that it’s not your fault. It’s theirs. So when the going gets tough, and you aren’t making progress – in fact, when you’re moving backwards – what’s the smart play? Double down!
Hey, the dealer’s showing an ace in a face-heavy deck and you’ve got a six, what do you do? Double down!
Can I boast? I had the pleasure of meeting Kurt a couple of weeks ago and he’s every bit as smart, funny, and personable as his writing. Lord, but I do envy a brain like that.
Statistically illiterate accusation that Trump voters are racist. You know all about American colleges and universities by now. They’re the places in which self-regard exceeds accomplishments, feelings trump rational thought, antisemitism is great than that found anywhere else in America (except, probably in Dearborn and the DNC), and the First Amendment is subordinate to students’ feelings (provided, of course, that those feelings are consistent with the Democrat Party platform).
Thomas Wood, an assistant professor at Ohio State University, has emerged from this sewer to announce that Trump voters are racists. He thought perhaps they were mere Nazi-style authoritarians but it’s worse — they’re racists. He knows this because he’s got charts.
Why are Trump voters racist? Because Wood specifically defined racism in such a way as to apply to Trump voters. That’s how they do it at universities nowadays:
To test this, I use what is called the “symbolic racism scale” to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican. This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it’s socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — “do you believe blacks are lazy” — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.
In other words, if you believe that only government can save perpetually hapless and helpless minorities, you’re not a racist. However, if you believe that minorities are rational, sentient beings who respond to incentives and disincentives in the same way as everyone else, and that they therefore deserve to be respected as our equals and not demeaned as perpetual wards of state, you’re racist!
You always win the game if you get to write the rules after the play is already run. Woods is a perfect example of why I keep saying that the best way to get America back on a track dedicated to individual liberty, free enterprise, and constitutional governance is to take every bit of federal money out of American “higher” education.
George Washington’s extraordinary accomplishments set the stage for American liberty — so of course Progressives must reduce him to a racist slave owner.
No figure was more central to the birth of our nation, first in war, then as a Constitutional Republic, than George Washington. In 1776, with the Revolution by all accounts lost and our army in tatters, it was Washington who led a ragged band of men in history’s most audacious, decisive and pivotal raids at Trenton and Princeton. It was Washington who, through 1782, kept the military together under unimaginable adversity and who, at the end of the war, stopped a military coup by his unpaid officers. It was Washington in 1783 who, unlike almost all other military leaders throughout history, laid down his sword at the end of the war and bowed to civilian control of the government.
It was Washington, called from retirement in 1787, who presided over the drafting and passage of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. It was Washington who, in 1789, was unanimously elected to serve as our President. And it was Washington who, eight years later, stepped down as President, establishing a precedent of a peaceful and orderly transfer of power. He was, as Lord Byron later wrote, the Cinncinatus of the West.
Few people in history have succeeded under the adversity Washington faced. Even fewer accomplished so much in both war and peace. None but he accomplished those in the furtherance of freedom from government. He is one of the few historical figures that was truly indispensable. And yet . . .
Enter Drake Univ. Prof. Jennifer Harvey – she a progressive with an exquisitely fine tuned sense of social justice and white guilt. Writing an op-ed at the NYT, she asks “Are We Raising Racists?” It seems that her seven year old daughter came home from school “singing the praises of George Washington.” Ms. Harvey found herself “dismayed” at this “one dimensional” teaching of history. Well, history does indeed have countless dimensions, all of which contribute to the context and understanding of any particular event of note. But Ms. Harvey had only a very selective second dimension in mind:
I’m too young to remember a time when dignity was considered a virtue, not only in individuals, but in entire groups. The other night, I was reminded of what I missed when I watched a 1944 U.S. Army Propaganda film, The Negro Soldier, which Frank Capra directed. The Army commissioned the movie because it was trying to reach out to blacks who were unwilling to enlist in the fight.
The movie qua movie was a resounding success, undoubtedly paving the way for Americans accepting Truman’s executive order integrating the military and, perhaps, moving the American conscience forward towards the Civil Rights movement:
The film began shooting in 1943. The movie crew traveled the United States, visiting over 19 different army posts. The final movie totaled 43 minutes long and received official support in 1944. At first, The Negro Soldier was intended for only African American troops; however, the creators of the film decided that they wanted to distribute the film to a wider military and civil audience. Nobody was certain what the impact of the film would have on viewers, and many people feared that African Americans would have a negative response to the film. However, when the first African American troops saw the film, they insisted that all African American troops should see it. Furthermore, after both African Americans and whites were surveyed about their response to the film, the filmmakers were shocked when over 80% of the white population thought the film should be shown to both black and white troops, as well as white civilians.
Although the Wikipedia article from which I quoted, above, does not say it, TCM stated that blacks did in fact respond to the movie’s message by enlisting in significant numbers. I think you’ll see why if you take the time to watch the movie yourself. Because of it’s importance in American history, the U.S. National Archives restored it and you can see the entire movie here:
There are no people more committed to black inferiority than racist whites who flatter themselves that they’re loving Progressives who are taking care of blacks. I figured out this white racism problem after the Rodney King riots, when the media tried to push the “rapture” defense for Damian Williams, one of the people caught on camera beating the bejesus out of Reginald Denny — that is, that Williams, animal-like, was so caught up in the rapture of the moment that he was unable to control himself. I thought then, and continue to think now, that this was racism of the type that would appeal to every two-bit white supremacist.
My feeling about blacks — indeed, about all other races — has always been that the only primary difference between them and me is skin color. Everything else falls into either the ordinary bell curve of intelligence and competence or under the umbrella of learned behavior, whether it’s learned through community culture or through government incentives and disincentives. Leftists, though, are pretty sure that blacks are congenitally dumb and must be perpetually protected from their own mental handicaps.
I’ve never seen this type of condescending, racist, attitude from the Left more clearly demonstrated than in this short Ami Horowitz video about voter ID laws:
The miserable sexism of Hillary’s supporters. I’ve agreed with myself to disagree with Jonah Goldberg about Donald Trump, while still greatly respecting and deeply appreciating Goldberg’s take on just about everything else. In the wake of Hillary’s 9/11 collapse, followed by her dehydration, followed by the media castigating as sexist anyone who dared suggest the woman is ill, followed by her “oh, it’s just pneumonia,” followed by the entire media admiring Hillary for the strong female way in which she “powered through” things, Goldberg had this to say:
But here’s the thing. After weeks of bleating that it was sexist to raise questions about Hillary’s health, the immediate response from the very same people was an irrefutably sexist argument. Men are just a bunch of Jeb Bushes, low-energy shlubs laid low by a hangnail. But women are the Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Bangas of the species. (For non-longtime readers, this translates from the original Ngbandi, “The warrior who knows no defeat because of his endurance and inflexible will and is all powerful, leaving fire in his wake as he goes from conquest to conquest.”)
This raises a subject of much fascination to “news”letter writers who are fascinated by it. I don’t want to go too far out on a limb, because you never know if you’ll fall into raging torrent of angry weasels, but I gather that the word “sexist” is supposed to have a bad connotation. That was the sense I got taking women’s studies courses at a formerly all-women’s college. I’ve also drawn this conclusion from a fairly close study of routine political argle-bargle.
The problem is we don’t really have a word for observations and statements that simply acknowledge that men and women are . . . different. Not better or worse. Just different. If I said that dogs aren’t the same as cats, no one would shout, “Dogist!” Everyone would simply say, “Duh.” In fact, if I said to about 90 percent of normal people, of either sex, that men and women are different, the response would be “duh” as well.
The frustrating thing is that feminist liberals like to have it both ways (and not in the way that Bill pays extra for). Women are “different” when they think it means women are “better,” but when you say women are different in ways that annoy feminists — for whatever reason — they shout, “Sexist!” Lena Dunham rejects the idea that women should be seen as things of beauty, and then gets mad when she’s not seen as a thing of beauty. Women should be in combat because they can do anything men can do, but when reality proves them wrong, they say the “sexist” standards need to change. And so on.
Hillary Clinton is like a broken Zoltar the Fortune Teller machine shouting all sorts of platitudes about being the first female president, cracking glass ceilings, yada yada yada. She openly says that we need a first female president because a first female president would be so awesome. But she also wants to say criticisms that would be perfectly legitimate if aimed at a man are in fact sexist when directed at a woman. That is a sexist argument.
No campus safe spaces for Jews. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. I’m happy to report that when it comes to the aggressive special snowflakes on America’s college campuses, consistency is never a problem. You see, it turns out that the whole thing about safe spaces and microaggressions and triggers and political correctness doesn’t apply to Jews:
But little has been said about how the idea of “intersectionality” — the idea that all struggles are connected and must be combated by allies — has created a dubious bond between the progressive movement and pro-Palestinian activists who often engage in the same racist and discriminatory discourse they claim to fight. As a result of this alliance, progressive Jewish students are often subjected to a double standard not applied to their peers — an Israel litmus test to prove their loyalties to social justice.
You and I have been tracking this problem for years, but I’m hoping that Jewish parents will start realizing that there’s a problem on American campuses. As it is, in today’s world, I would have to say that the single biggest reason that American Jews are so hard left is that they are so likely to go to college, which they get exposed to the pernicious disease that is Leftism. This has been going on for at least 40 years — I was exposed in Cal, although I was eventually able to build an immunity — but it’s gotten worse of late.
“Ipse dixit” is one of the more charming Latin phrases you’ll find in legal writing. It translates to “he himself has said it.” (As an aside, Gilbert & Sullivan aficionado’s may recognize that little phrase from H.M.S. Pinafore.) What the phrase means is that the author asserts as authority the fact that he is asserting something as authority. Another way to describe this type of argument is “boot-strapping.” The best way to understand what I’m talking about, though, is to read the incredible love letter that Caroline Siede has written to Hillary Clinton over at Boing-Boing: “To find Hillary Clinton likable, we must learn to view women as complex beings.”
As the title indicates, Siede’s premise is a simple one: Those who don’t like Hillary Clinton are guilty of sexism. Women are complex. Both men and unenlightened women hate complex women. Therefore, because Hillary is a woman, men and unenlightened women hate Hillary. QED.
You can take Siede’s analysis for whatever you think it’s worth. What I found more interesting was what I discovered when I followed up on her innumerable hyperlinks. The hyperlinks, of course, are meant to imply that every statement Siede makes is factually valid. In fact, though, following the hyperlinks more often than not led to people saying “this fact is true because I say it’s true.” I’ve dealt with lawyers who write legal briefs like that. You’ll find a hundred case citations in the brief, none of which are on point. They exist merely to lend heft to an otherwise invalid argument.
To illustrate my point, let me take just the first two paragraphs from Siede’s love letter to Hillary and to all misunderstood, complex women everywhere, and then walk you through the hyperlinks:
Whether you realize it or not, you’ve spent your entire life being trained to empathize with white men. From Odysseus to Walter White, Hamlet to Bruce Wayne, James Bond to the vast majority of biopic protagonists, our art consistently makes the argument that imperfect, even outright villainous, men have an innate core of humanity. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Good art should teach us to empathize with complex people. The problem comes not from the existence of these stories about white men, but from thelack of stories about everyone else.
That’s something I’ve been thinking about a lot during this increasingly insane presidential election season. Particularly as I try to wrap my head around the fact that Hillary Clinton is on one hand the most qualified human being to ever run for president of the United States, and, on the other, one of the most disliked presidential candidates of all time. In fact, Donald Trump is the only candidate who is more disliked than Clinton. And he’s not only overtly racist, sexist, and Islamophobic, but also unfit and unprepared for office. How can these two fundamentally dissimilar politicians possibly be considered bedfellows when it comes to popular opinion?
And here’s a breakdown of the hyperlinked items in the above two paragraphs:
The older of my two dogs is very high-strung and she got so frightened by the wind that carried the fog in tonight that I’ve had to sequester her and me in my home office so that Mr. Bookworm, who needs to get up for work tomorrow, can sleep. She shows no signs of settling, so I’m blogging.
No matter how you slice it, Trump is the less risky gamble. Writing in the Claremont Review of Books, Publius Decius Mus quite graphically presents the issue that I have been arguing all summer:
2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.
Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.
Precisely. Trump, with all his flaws, is better than Hillary. Up until a few months ago, one could argue that Hillary is just another garden-variety Leftist and that the American republic will survive despite her.
That’s all changed now. Knowing as we do of her extraordinary corruption — whether in running the State Department as a Pay-for-Play profit center for herself, her husband, and her daughter, or deliberately exposing all of America’s state secrets to try to hide her gross malfeasance — electing her to the presidency means that America has fully embraced banana republic status.
In the wake of a Hillary victory, thanks to Comey and the American voters (including all those #NeverTrumpers), there will no longer be a rule of law in America that applies equally to all citizens. We will in one fell swoop have destroyed a legal system that goes back 1215 when England first put into writing in the Magna Carta a policy saying that no one, not even a king, is above the law. As of now, Hillary and her cronies are above the law and it will be a disaster if the American people put their imprimatur on that utterly corrupt, anti-democratic principle.
One more thing: As Publius Decius Mus explains, Hillary’s been wrong about every single policy stance she’s ever taken (including the ones where she’s changed her stance repeatedly according to the latest poll data), while Trump, in his fumbling, bumbling way, has been right about all of the most important policy issues facing America. So maybe he’s not so bad after all.
The Prager U video below, narrated by and based upon research from, Heather MacDonald is actually titled “Are The Police Racist?”. However, watch it and you will learn that modern-day Democrats have achieved something that the Social Darwinists of the 19th century, and the eugenicists of the 21st centuries could only dream of:
They’ve put ostensibly “pro-black” systems in place that, in fact, have fostered a culture of auto-genocide amongst blacks. Between encouraging black abortion and putting into place policies that ensure unending black crime (everything from placing the blame on others for black lawlessness, to denying guns to law-abiding citizens, to replacing fathers with welfare, to demonizing police) that keeps the black population violently reduced — at the hands of their fellow blacks.
Now that you have the proper frame of mind, watch this deeply depressing, data-rich video about an incredibly successful Leftist push to get blacks killed:
No wonder 1984 is no longer required reading in high schools. One of the Little Bookworms, after a summer of sloth, decided to read something noteworthy before returning to school. Her choice was George Orwell’s 1984, which I would include in any top 25 or even top 10 reading list.
Despite how wonderful 1984 is, both in terms of style and content, my Little Bookworm managed to pass all the way through a very highly rated public school without any exposure to Orwell at all — no 1984, no Animal Farm, no The Road to Wigan Pier, and no Politics and the English Language. George Orwell is persona non grata in our local high school.
My Little Bookworm did give me some insight into why public schools are loath to teach one of the greatest writers and thinkers in the English language. When we asked what her takeaway was from the book, she had this to say: “That whole Thought Police thing Orwell wrote about — it’s just like Political Correctness. There are no clear rules, but you have to think correctly or you get into trouble.”
Islam, the rapey religion. Not all Muslim men are rapists. Indeed, most Muslim men are not rapists. But when we look at the vast increase in rapes in countries such as Sweden or Denmark, or when we see sexual assaults across Germany, or when five-year-olds are raped by a group older boys here in America, it’s not a coincidence that a disproportionate number of these rapists and assaulters were raised in the Muslim tradition. As Robert Spencer explains, rape is hardwired in Islam.
Once again that this blog’s motto is proven correct. My blog’s motto is “Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.” The only thing wrong with the motto is that the word “liberal” is a poor substitute for a whole category of Leftists and totalitarians of all political and religious stripes. Otherwise, it’s entirely accurate — as is beautifully shown by the story of Kasim Hafeez, who was raised on a steady diet of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic conclusions. These conclusions led him to being a rabid anti-Israel activist — something that changed dramatically when he read Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel. Confronted with actual facts, Hafeez did a volte face on his previous prejudice and now tours campuses as a pro-Israel activist.
Facts favor conservativism, which is why the mainstream media works so hard to hide them.
How hard does this media work to hide facts? This hard: Larry Correia minces no words when he describes how appalling the American media is when it comes to reporting the news. He sees them as engaged in a four step dance of information death:
First, is there anything we can milk from this story to bolster our worldview? Y/N
Second, is there anything in this story which could potentially make democrats look bad? Y/N
Third, is there anything in this story which will make republicans look stupid or evil? Y/N
Fourth, does this event in some way affect us personally? Y/N
This algorithm explains why, when George Bush waited three days during Hurricane Katrina before making an official visit, so as not to disrupt rescue efforts, every outlet painted him as an out-of-touch racist. Meanwhile, when Obama refuses to leave the golf course, only to announce that, in the face of the worst Hurricane since Sandy, he’ll visit sometime next week, the media is utterly silent. Go here and read exactly how Correia’s questions play out in real time.
In the same vein, Ann Coulter details how the media relentlessly twists anything that a conservative says, throwing it before uninformed Americans as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, when it is more often a combination of vicious lies (often leavened by gross ignorance and staggering laziness):
Last August, Trump said the following about the way he was treated at the first GOP debate: “(Megyn Kelly) starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions, and you know, you can see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her — wherever, but she was, in my opinion — she was off base.”
This was nearly identical to what Trump said about Chris Wallace a few sentences later: “There’s a big difference between Mike Wallace and Chris Wallace because I watched them last night, you know, blood pouring out of his eyes, too.”
Suddenly the words “her wherever” were being described as a clear-cut reference to Megyn’s menstrual blood! (I have it on good authority that Chris Wallace has never menstruated.)
Trump expressed shock, saying of his accusers, “They have all dirty minds — I never even thought about it … I was thinking of ears or nose.” (Accused by the same forces of something revolting, Whittaker Chambers gasped, “What kind of beasts am I dealing with?”)
The day after Trump allegedly referred to Megyn’s period, I happened to have a number of social engagements with people who hadn’t heard about the scandale. So I gave them Trump’s exact words, told them the media were in hysterics about it, and asked them to guess why.
None of them — an Obama-voter, a conservative actor and a union organizer — were able to guess the ludicrous interpretation being placed on Trump’s words. At least one was visibly angry about the accusation (probably because he was on his period). But after a few weeks of media propaganda, even he flipped and became totally convinced Trump was, in fact, referring to Megyn’s menstrual blood.
Most people are highly suggestible. That’s why companies spend billions of dollars on advertising.
It’s almost refreshing when a New York Times writer drops the charade and announces that he’s abandoned any pretense of “reporting” the news and is all in for pure advocacy aimed at destroying Donald Trump. And it’s gotten so bad that even the Rolling Stones’ hard Left partisan Matt Tabbibi is getting worried that modern American journalism is giving itself a bad name. Thus, he stops casting stones only at Fox news and starts throwing a few in the direction of his ideological fellows.
Just remember, when the Second Amendment goes, so does the First. And you know what it’s going to look like when the First Amendment comes under the same attacks as the Second, right? It’s going to look just as it appears in Like Frank Constanza’s subtle and brilliant “We need sensible speech control.” Jonathan Swift would have appreciated satire this good.
The class divide between #NeverTrumpers and the rest of us. On my mother’s side, both of her parents came from incredibly wealthy, upper-class European families, one Jewish, one Protestant. Although WWI and WWII destroyed the wealth, I was raised with manners that ensured I could consort with royalty, should I ever be invited to do so. On my father’s side, his mother came from a solidly upper middle class German Jewish family; his father was a charming ne’er-do-well from Romania. He always aspired to my mother’s level of class.
Put simply, I was born in a snobbish home and educated to be a snob. I was rigid, condescending, judgmental, and tied into an American class system which holds thata university degree, preferably from one of the “better” colleges , is the true measure of a person.
Real life taught me how wrong my values were. The best values are those from Judeo-Christian morality, which is not tied to wealth or education, but to a simple commitment to those values. The best people don’t come from the Ivy Leagues. Instead, they are people, no matter sex, race, religion, country of national origin, or level of education, who try to live up to Judeo-Christian morals; who are kind; who have sound common sense; who value America for her American values, rather than trying to turn her into a hierarchical European echo; and who look for those same qualities in other people — again, without regard to sex, race, religion, country of national, or level of education.
I mention all of the above because Jack Cashill nails about the class divide between those conservatives who however enthusiastically or reluctantly have come to embrace Trump and those who very enthusiastically reject him. Of course, this doesn’t mean all Trump supporters are “good” people and all NeverTrumpers are effete snobs. It does mean, though, that if you’re going to draw a bright line between the two groups, that’s the easiest line to draw. Back in 2008, the conservative elite swallowed hard and accepted Sarah Palin. Eight years later, though, Donald Trump is a working class bridge too far (and that’s true despite his wealth and the rarefied world in which he’s always traveled).
Roger Simon expands upon one of the many reasons the mainstream media loathes Trump. The most obvious reason that the media loathes Trump, of course, is that media members, all college educated, cling to Leftist shibboleths that Trump rejects. Another reason, Simon notes, is that the Obama era has been spectacularly good for the rich (and upper echelon media figures are all rich) and spectacularly bad for the blacks and other working class, lower class and unemployed class people that the media assures us can find social and economic succor only from Democrats. Read the whole thing. It’s good.
The Black Lives Matter movement is part of a grander Leftist plan. Pastor Stephen E. Broden argues compellingly (lots of facts and analysis, the way thinking people should argue) that the Black Lives Matter is turning American blacks into pawns as part of a grand plan to turn America into a truly socialist nation. (And Venezuela’s travails tell us how that will turn out.)
This seems like an appropriate place to address something I’ve long felt about the way in which Democrats treat blacks. They encourage them in vice, not just to keep them stuck on welfare and voting Democrat. They also do it to maintain their own sense of superiority, which is the educated Leftist’s underlying justification for refusing to demand that blacks live up to the same standards of behavior as these educated, elitist Leftists do themselves.
This thought, which has been floating in my brain for awhile, crystallized when Wolf Howling reminded me of something that Martin Luther King said: “Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that.” What he was telling his audience, of course, was that they had to be self-reliant and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, because the whites were not going to help them.
What occurred to me was that whites of the time liked this crime rate, even if they complained about it. That is, they weren’t only discriminating against blacks because they felt blacks to be inferior. Instead, they were encouraging criminal behavior because it proved their thesis that blacks were indeed inferior.
Democrats haven’t changed a single bit since then. You poor African Americans, they say. What would you do without us, they ask. The only thing keeping you from complete breakdown is our policies — the very same policies that encourage the breakdown of the family, the marginalization of black fathers, and the dearth of policing. America’s Leftist elites don’t just need blacks on the welfare plantation to buy black votes; they need blacks on that plantation to reinforce the whites’ own sense of superiority.
The media is desperately afraid that Donald Trump’s speeches to black Americans are letting the cat out of the bag. Because they cannot dare address the substance of his speeches, they’re castigating them as utterly meaningless because he gave them in white enclaves, rather than a black community — as if a black community, brainwashed by the Left, would give Trump the opportunity to speak. By getting the message out however he could, though, Trump put on the airways something blacks need to hear.
And what they need to hear is that conservatives respect blacks and believe that they are capable of every damn thing conservatives live in their own lives: getting educated, holding jobs, having stable marriages with children raised by both a mom and a dad, and being law abiding. It’s only the Left that assures blacks this is impossible, and then creates the political and economic circumstances that make this assurance seem like the truth.
The SJW race war invades science fiction. Yes, SJWs will leave no stone unturned when it comes to living in perpetual attack mode. This time the target is science fiction. Larry Correia ably fisks this nonsense. I’ll simply add that the SJWs aren’t making as much progress in the computer gaming and science fiction realms as they are in other places for two reasons: Reason number 1 is that the young men who are seriously into gaming and science fiction (and it is usually men) tend to be remarkably single-minded and don’t care much about being called out for alleged social sins. Reason number 2 is that many of these same young men pride themselves on having logical, engineer-style brains, so they’re willing to make the effort to deconstruct the illogical nonsense that powers every SJW campaign.
SJWs make their greatest headway against the gainfully employed. Another thing about the science fiction/gaming geeks (a term I use lovingly, not disrespectfully) is that they’re either not career oriented, or they’re working with like-minded folks, or they’re young enough not to have adult obligations (mortgages, children, etc.). The SJWs count their greatest successes amongst those who have the most to lose when they’re in the SJW crosshairs. There’s no one more vulnerable than an actual adult, with an actual job, and actual adult obligations and responsibilities. The case of Judge Ruth Neely is instructive.
More to come. My computer keeps freezing up and my family keeps calling me….
From a Facebook Post by Police Officer Jay Stalien:
I have come to realize something that is still hard for me to understand to this day. The following may be a shock to some coming from an African American, but the mere fact that it may be shocking to some is prima facie evidence of the sad state of affairs that we are in as Humans.
I used to be so torn inside growing up. Here I am, a young African-American born and raised in Brooklyn, NY wanting to be a cop. I watched and lived through the crime that took place in the hood. My own black people killing others over nothing. Crack heads and heroin addicts lined the lobby of my building as I shuffled around them to make my way to our 1 bedroom apartment with 6 of us living inside. I used to be woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of gun fire, only to look outside and see that it was 2 African Americans shooting at each other.
It never sat right with me. I wanted to help my community and stop watching the blood of African Americans spilled on the street at the hands of a fellow black man. I became a cop because black lives in my community, along with ALL lives, mattered to me, and wanted to help stop the bloodshed.
Christine Amanpour is not a journalist. She’s a vicious, unprincipled, loud-mouthed, bullying partisan hack, who has no interest in investigating issues but, instead, simply wants to imprint her hard Left, anti-West narrative on everything she touches. That’s why it’s so delightful to see Daniel Hannan refuse to let her bulldoze him and then put her firmly in her place.
Amanpour, incidentally, is typical of the transnational self-styled “elite” who have sought to control the Western world for their own benefit for the past 20 or so decades. While they’ve enriched themselves, they’ve impoverished the middle class, and reduced the very poor to such an infantile, dependent level that they can no longer care for themselves. My dream is to see the middle and working classes throughout the Western world rise up and, through the democratic process (i.e., the ballot box), remove all power from the hands of Amanpour and her ilk. They are fatuous, yet horribly dangerous, people who need to be sidelined. In a just world, Amanpour would be cleaning the toilets at a gas station, not broadcasting her toxic (and often highly antisemitic, and therefore anti-Israel) effluvia to the world.
Summer is a difficult time for blogging, because everyone is home all the time. Although I’m a sociable, extroverted person, I need at least a little solitude to think and write, and I’m not getting that. Time to blog has been in even shorter supply the past few nights because we’ve been watching ESPN’s O.J. : Made in America, a ten-hour documentary about O.J. Simpson from childhood through to his most recent incarceration.
Although I know that ESPN is the ugly love-child of the old “Wide World of Sports” and MSNBC (in other words, sports with a hard Left spin), I remember enough of the events in real time to know that it was a factually honest documentary. Indeed, even its focus on race was appropriate, because that, of course, is what the trial ended up being about.
Since I did spend so much of my life recently watching about OJ, I figured I’d share with you some of the thoughts I had as I watched.
Just yesterday, I wrote that suburban communities get addicted to federal funds and, once having done that, they are stuck with federal policies that require those same communities to commit slow suicide. Today, with perfect timing, there’s a news article making my point.
As readers of Cyra McFadden’s classic novel, The Serial: A Year in the Life of Marin County, know, Marin County, which had once been a Republican bastion, started trending Left in the early 1970s. The transformation was complete by the early 1980s. Marin County is now one of the bluest of blue counties in America. Also, in neighborhoods such as mine, the people buying in were children or weren’t even born yet during Marin’s conservative past.
The only barrier to moving to Marin is money: If you have unlimited amounts of money, you move to Tiburon, Ross, Greenbrae, or Belvedere. If you’re rich, you move to certain neighborhoods in San Rafael, Greenbrae, Larkspur, Sausalito, Novato, and Mill Valley. If you’re the “working rich” (meaning that you work damn hard to move to a mid-level house in an affluent community), you move to Corte Madera, Novato, Greenbrae, Fairfax, San Anselmo, San Rafael, Larkspur, Sausalito, and Mill Valley. If you’re low-income Hispanic (and, often, here illegally), you move to San Rafael’s Canal District. If you’re low-income black, you move to Marin City (which shares affluent Sausalito’s K-8 school districts and results in one of the highest funded, lowest performing school districts in America).
In Marin, there are no government ukases and there are no CC&Rs limiting people from moving into communities based upon race, religion, country of origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identification, etc. All of those limitations became illegal in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed. Instead, you move where your savings and income take you. The only racial dividing line in Marin is an unspoken one that keeps poor Hispanics in San Rafael and poor blacks in Marin City. This racial line gets enforced by gangs within the community. The blacks and Hispanics are not friends.
Fair Housing of Marin (“FHM”), which is a local iteration of Obama’s Housing and Urban Development agency, is unimpressed by the facts on the ground. As far as it’s concerned, Marin County is still a seething cauldron of deliberate racism; and infected pustule with a toxin in it stretching back decades, to the beginning of the Roosevelt administration. That’s how it came about that FHM held a recent forum explaining that current Marin residents must make reparations for past wrongs: