Sunday, June 24, 2018

Bats And Balls

     Humorist P. J. O’Rourke has called liberalism “the philosophy of sniveling brats.” No doubt he had in mind the gimme mentality that’s prevalent among them, married to their tendency to whine, stamp their feet, and shout “It’s not fair!” when they don’t get whatever they’re currently demanding: “If you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to take my bat and ball and go home.” And indeed, that was an adequate characterization for the Eighties and Nineties: arguably as accurate as any precis of a “philosophy of governance” that has no intellectual underpinnings could be.

     Today, the “sniveling brats” have graduated to a new stance: “If you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to take your bat and ball and go home:”

     This is a phenomenon we have seen repeatedly over the last year and a half. Liberals try to rule any support for President Trump out of bounds. Anyone who expresses even the mildest support for Trump is read out of polite society. He is shunned; he should be fired from his job; if he writes anything, it shouldn’t be printed; he is publicly denounced and inundated with hate; his home, in some instances, is besieged and his children terrorized. If he ventures out into public, he is harassed by bullies. This is the essence of 21st century liberalism.

     And it is evil. It is incompatible with democracy or any kind of civil society. And, above all, it is completely crazy. After all, Donald Trump won the election. Donald Trump is the President of the United States. Liberals are trying to dictate, through mob rule and control over the press, that any support for the President of the United States is unacceptable and, if at all possible, career ending.

     John Hinderaker calls this “crazy and evil.” I concur on the “evil” portion, but I can’t see the Left’s behavior as “crazy.” It’s steadily getting them at least some of the things they want: concurrence from a good part of their “base,” obeisance from the major media, and a scattering of conciliatory gestures from the GOP, especially the “NeverTrump” portion thereof. As the old Army saying goes, “If it’s crazy and it works, it ain’t crazy.”

     Note how solidly the Left-inclined have cheered for Red Hen’s expulsion of White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family. Note how broadly they’ve approved of the ongoing harassment of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. Note how unabashed TIME has been about its fraudulent magazine cover. There was one miscreant on Twitter who opined that “fascists” – and you know who he had in mind, don’t you, Gentle Reader? – should be afraid to step outdoors:

     A few folks with significant influence are finally catching up with me:

     “I think we’re at the beginning of a soft civil war,” political scientist Thomas Schaller told Bloomberg’s Francis Wilkinson. “I don’t know if the country gets out of it whole.”

     I wonder what it took to get his attention? Some of us in the Right have been on this story for quite a while:

     It’s becoming a nation where an elite that is certain of its power and its moral rightness is waging a cultural war on a despised minority. Except it’s not actually a minority – it only seems that way because it is marginalized by the coastal elitist liberals who run the mainstream media.

     Today in America, we have a liberal president refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot free and smirking.

     Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself, and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious.

     That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.

     Kurt Schlichter wrote the above in April of 2015. He foresaw a swifter and more dramatic response from the Right than has emerged to this point. I don’t think we’ll have to wait much longer.

     Leftists believe that they can get away with these “one rule for me, another for you” tactics indefinitely. They believe it because up to now they’ve garnered the results they’ve sought, at least in part, with a perceptible shortage of consequences unfavorable to them. That’s about to change. Gatherings of conservatives, free-speech rallies, and talks by Rightist and nationalist luminaries are being equipped with security -- armed security. Police forces in left-wing-governed cities are being put on notice that if they don’t maintain public order under those circumstances, it will be done for them, and be damned to the consequences.

     I didn’t want to live long enough to see the blood of Americans running in the gutters. It appears I’ll have no choice.

Union Pacific (2016)

Un-progressivism.

Progressives, leftists, reformers, communists, and socialists proceed on the assumption that they have unique insight, insight that is magisterially informed by their boundless humanity and insight into the human condition. They have savoir faire. They know how to make human life better in a way that earlier ignorant schlubs, greedy capitalists, and aristocratic parasites didn’t. Ergo, they make plans for humans, whether they want them or not. Progressives are enlightened, therefore everyone else needs to toe the line and submit to wonderfulness.

Contrary to this nice fairy tale is this rather stark assessment of what it is that humans can know and predict about the world:

My 2 cents on the subject; Humans are nothing more than manifestations of the universe, just like squirrels, rocks, trees and a billion other thing that "exist". We will act out our nature and then we will disappear. The idea that we can change our nature or direct or control our course is a joke. We have no idea what we are doing, no idea what the consequences of our actions are and no ability to judge whether what we are doing is "good" or "bad". It is arrogant to take the tiny strip of knowledge that we have and extrapolate that into presumptions like "we need to do that or stop doing this".

A human looking out over the world and concluding what "should be" is like a chimpanzee trying to comprehend and diagnose a Ferrari. Whether or not YOU worry about the world it's going to do what it does as it has for billions of years longer than man has existed and probably will for billions more after we are gone.[1]

Socialists and statists who think they know how they can tear everything down and put it back together again with the flick of a wrist have always failed. Each new zealot attempting to try it again just this one more time ought to keep that image firmly in mind, that of the chimpanzee contemplating a Ferrari.

Notes
[1] Comment by brushhog on "The End Of Growth.” By Chris Martenson, ZeroHedge, 6/23/18.

Saturday, June 23, 2018

The Report on the IRS Abuses

Ho-boy.

This is a MAJOR whitewash of the charges against the IRS. For example:
...the Subcommittee investigation found no evidence of IRS political bias in selecting 501(c)(4) applications for heightened review, as distinguished from using poor judgment in crafting the selection criteria.
I believe that the only acceptable response to that is:
AYFKM?
For the record, this is the comparison of Conservative vs. Liberal groups (NPR report):
In all, 282 conservative groups were on the IRS list, about two-thirds of the total number of groups that got additional scrutiny.
The list also has 67 progressive organizations (16 percent of the total) and 21 nonpartisan civic groups, including three League of Women Voters chapters. 
USA Today agrees.
As applications from conservative groups sat in limbo, groups with liberal-sounding names had their applications approved in as little as nine months.  
Did the process of approval slow down for Progressive/Leftist groups - sure, a few had increased scrutiny. But not most. And none for as long.
Flores complained to the IRS last year after the Waco Tea Party's tax-exempt application was mired in red tape. The IRS asked the group for information that was "overreaching and impossible to comply with," Flores said: Transcripts of radio interviews, copies of social media posts and details on "close relationships" with political candidates. 
 The report of this was difficult, and - in part - flawed. The IRS withheld information from the investigators.
the Subcommittee was not permitted to review the actual 501(c)(4) applications selected by the IRS for heightened scrutiny and was also, at times, unable to determine how certain applications were finally resolved.
 Kinda hard to get to the bottom of this abuse of power when the head of the section refuses to cooperate.
When the Subcommittee later requested an interview to examine her role in the 501(c)(4) review process, Ms. Lerner asserted her rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution not to answer questions. The requested interview did not take place. For that reason, the Subcommittee’s investigation was unable to obtain Ms. Lerner’s testimony about key events, and its investigative results do not reflect any information she might have provided through interviews.
There's more - a lot more, but it's late and I'm tired.
 

This $h!t is Getting REAL!

The Left is getting more unhinged every day.

I'm used to celebrities screaming obscenities at Non-Leftist politicians. I'm used to them threatening to kill them - heck, a few of them even attempt it.

Some of them seriously.

But, this?


And this? That wimpy-ass 'apology'? NOT good enough. Not nearly.



Threatening minors, because of who they are related to?

The Secret Service needs to get on this, putting a few of them in jail for a few days, until they get their little attitude straightened out.

AND, their employers need to come down on them as hard as Roseanne's boss's did.

Or, harder. This isn't just an insult that a MATURE person would have answered with:
Consider the source.
No - they are threatening DEATH, RAPE, and ASSAULT. Against minors and women.

Cowards.

Ultra-Quickies: When Only One Side Is Fighting, The Outcome Is Preordained

     I have a trademarked Fortress of Crankitude Day From Hell® before me, so for the moment I’m going to leave you with a few links and a very brief summation:

     Forces foreign and domestic have allied openly in a campaign to subvert, invade, and destroy the United States. They no longer conceal their premise: The U.S. and its laws, including its Constitution, and anyone who defends it, must be destroyed by any means necessary. Yet many in the Right persist in maintaining that “courtesy” and “propriety” are more important than fighting back in an effective fashion.

Courtesy and propriety are of no use to the dead.

     Verbum sat sapienti.

Disconnect.

People are right to be deeply disturbed by the ways in which the main narrative of their culture no longer maps to reality.
Main narrative = rationality, truth, constitutional government, majority rights, consent of the governed, civilization, family, innovation, productivity, self-preservation.

Reality = leftist delusion; lies; worship of totalitarian, arbitrary government; worship of minorities and foreigners; a revival of feudal rule; third-world transformation; enshrined deviancy; government manipulation; fiscal and monetary debasement; meek, unexplained surrender to savagery.

The president has the power to put troops on the border tomorrow but does not. Instead – deer in the headlights like – he gets caught up in a manufactured “crisis” of children being separated through no fault of the federal government but rather through the fault of the parents (or “parents”) of the children. Building a wall was his signature theme in the his campaign, yet he signed an appropriation act that essentially had nothing in it to fund that wall. This he did to ensure that our military obtain more money. Money to provide security for (or take it away from) foreigners thousands and thousands of miles from any border of ours that needs military protection.

It’s all song and dance about vaporous [nonsense] and the citizen still sees, day after day, tax money and funny money sluicing out to the dregs of society and foreign wars that secure or advance no observable interests of the people.

The seditious foreigner and the parasitic, rejectionist minority (and AntiFa auxiliaries) are the new aristocracy (or, perhaps more accurately, the new favored Janissaries) and Washington politicians get and hold power by licking the boots of the wealthy.

Billion-dollar MSM channels are nothing but a source of leftist glorification of the inundation of white people, race mixing, and the homosexual agenda. Anarcho-tyranny is the standing order of the day for all government officials with the exception of various Sheriff Arpaios and Judge Moores.

If the normal, white citizen isn’t deeply depressed or choking with barely-suppressed rage, he or she just isn’t paying attention. Those who do pay attention will not forever accept this wholesale attack on everything they value. Until that time, we live in a time of profound decay, cowardice, and treason.

"The End Of Growth.” By Chris Martenson, ZeroHedge, 6/23/18.

The “new” threat.

“New,” that is, if you’ve been in a coma for 60 years. It got started a long time before the end of the Soviet Union.
Since the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, it has grown apparent that the existential threat to the West comes not from Czar Vladimir’s Russian divisions returning to the Elbe.

The existential threat came from the south.

Half a century ago, Houari Boumedienne, the leader of a poor but militant Algeria, allegedly proclaimed at the United Nations:

“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”[1]
The same idea has been attributed to the late Moamar Gaddafi. Timeless and horribly accurate in either event. Amazing to think that Westerners just sit there sucking their thumbs while their replacement races and cultures breed profligately right here in River City, some with multiple wives and families financed by host nation taxpayers. Self abasement just doesn’t begin to cover the waterfront here.

If some human being has a brown or black skin then, when some kind of decision needs to be made about what to do about such a person, white people's brains just effing fly out the window.

Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?[2]
As someone else said but I repeat endlessly, the solution to problems caused by liberalism are illiberal solutions. And here we sit at this very hour, scared of our shadow and terrified to lay responsibility for anything pertaining to foreign children on their foreign parents (or bogus parents). Adults who dragged their children along on a 1,200-mile journey through Mexico to tell us lies and suck up our charity get a complete pass and we flagellate ourselves over children humanely separated from their “parents” and cared for in a responsible manner while the illegality of the parents’ behavior is sorted out.

Gigantic light bulb here: if the parents and children are upset over, surprise, separation, the parents can stay at home or seek “asylum” in Mexico. No separation at home or in Mexico. So can we say to ourselves that the "separation" is entirely on the parents?

Not in the mewling, pussified America of today.

Notes
[1] "Pat Buchanan Asks 'Has The West The Will To Survive?'" By Pat Buchanan, ZeroHedge, 6/22/18 (formatting removed).
[2] "Id.

Friday, June 22, 2018

Immigration Follies

The Z Man makes a lot of sense here.

The start of the 'child' detention problems. Amazingly, Ed Asner seems to figure in it, as his housekeeper had a child named as part of the suit.

So, now that Trump has reversed the policy that separated children from the adult(s) accompanying them, are the Progressives FINALLY happy?

Don't be ridiculous!

Because now the kids have to stay in the detention facilities with the parents. in other words, this is NOT going be a reboot of Catch & Release.

Expect an immediate reaction from the Democrat-supporting lower Federal Court judges. Can't have those nasty non-Leftists thinking they can defy the Permanent Leftist Government!

Fatigue Plus

     If you’re my age or not far from it, you might remember a phrase prominent in the political rhetoric of the Eighties and Nineties: compassion fatigue. It was advanced by various commentators – overwhelmingly on the Left, of course – to “explain” why Americans appeared to be turning away from the welfarism of the Democrats and back to an embrace of capitalism without guilt. We were simply worn out from “caring.” We needed a break from the troubles of largely faceless others, supposedly so we could concentrate on things nearer and dearer to us personally. But we’d be back to “caring” soon enough: after the Reagan Aberration and the Republican Revolt were sufficiently far behind us.

     I found the argument curious then. I find it ludicrous today.

     About twenty years ago, I donned my Adam Smith hat and set forth my own thinking about “compassion,” real and imaginary:

The Circle Of Care

     I came of age in the Sixties, a time when America was gradually being turned upside down. And that having been said, I'll spare you any soliloquy about the Sixties. It's the upside-down part that matters.

     I don't recall exactly when I learned about the duty of charity toward the less fortunate, but it was probably in my Catholic grammar school. The nuns were quite insistent about the obligation to help one's fellow man, when he was in genuine need. Every classroom had a "poor box," filled by contributions from the students. Its contents were periodically totaled and used for some charitable undertaking -- and I don't mean buying a color television for a family that didn't yet have one, or dragging a "homeless" man into a government-run shelter; I mean providing food or clothing for a struggling family that hadn't quite managed to make ends meet that month. Blauvelt parish, a blue-collar sector of Rockland County, New York, always had a few such.

     A lot of things come to mind about that poor box and its uses, but none so strongly as this: no one ever suggested that the money be sent far away, to people none of us knew personally. It was to be employed right there, in Blauvelt parish, among the people we knew. This was so obvious, so fundamental to the concept of charity, that the contrary idea was never considered.

     "Charity" derives from the Latin word "caritas," the concern for others that springs from personal connection. A related word of Greek derivation is "sympathy," the ability to "feel with" another person. These are not relations one can truly have with faceless and nameless strangers at a distance.

     True charity requires proximity, for at least two reasons. First, the necessary personal connection, the sense that one is helping one's own, fails at any great remove. Second, human fallibility and weakness guarantee that, just as some will fail to prosper on their own, others will fail to employ charity properly; indeed, to receive money from others sometimes makes one's troubles worse. When this occurs, the giver must give no further, for other measures -- criticism, instruction, discipline -- are clearly indicated. With any separation between the benefactor and his beneficiary, it becomes impossible to know whether help helps in fact, or only in theory and intention.

     Compare this ancient, common-sense approach to charity, preserved and perpetuated by all the great religious institutions of Man, to the modern concept. Today, our media would have us believe that charity is about voting for tax-funded, government-administered programs to redistribute our income to others we don't know. Some of the supposed beneficiaries are in far places where America and Americans are routinely vilified for their prosperity and derided for their generosity. Whatever rules modern charity observes are determined and enforced by salaried bureaucrats who pay no costs for any mistake. Volunteers and private institutions that attempt to take a role are tolerated, but distrusted. The apostles of modern charity would prefer that all of it be under the watchful eye of government monitors, to insure that no misleading messages about the importance of sobriety, continence, or self-reliance are packaged with the gifts.

     Obviously, there's been some change to the concept. I'd like to leave aside the political implications of this change for a moment and concentrate on the inversion of the circle of care.

     If proximity was regarded as the most important of the requirements of the old concept, it is considered no better than optional under the new one, and quite possibly a detriment. If personal concern, for both the bodies and the souls of others of one's direct acquaintance, was the fuel for the charity of old, the motive power of the new charity is rules: rules that direct the bureaucrat to shower largesse without regard for its actual effects, and rules that punish the citizen brutally if he attempts to avoid "contributing."

     The new concept of charity first rose over the old one in the late Sixties, when the American welfare state began its explosive growth. In the years since then, we've seen many other things explode as well: crime, vice, filth in the streets, and social pathologies such as fatherlessness and illegitimacy whose effects have eclipsed even the darkest predictions.

     Meanwhile, law-abiding, self-supporting Americans of the cities, they who are mulcted for the funds that support the new charity, have been drawing in upon themselves, isolating themselves as best they can from the madness that surges around them. Their circles of care have contracted to hold only themselves and their immediate families.

     Count Leo Tolstoy once spent a night wandering the streets of St. Petersburg, giving to the poor whom he encountered until his pockets were empty and his energy was spent. At the end of his sojourn, those to whom he'd given were a little better off for a short time, but he knew and admitted that he'd made no lasting difference in their lives, that as soon as they'd exhausted the night's benison, the darkness would return. He concluded that one should act with love toward those whom God has placed in his path, rather than to ride forth and scatter his substance widely and without regard for efficacy.

     Who are the needy whom God has placed in our path? Are they not our family members, neighbors and friends? Is it not these whom our circle of care should encompass?

     I still feel that way. Indeed, I’m ever more convinced that the politicization of “compassion” has transformed what was once a virtue into a vice: a way to feel virtuous without actually doing the work, and a way to feel superior to others who hold dissenting opinions.

     Yes, there was a lot of fatigue over it...but not because Americans had ceased to “care,” however that might be interpreted.


     I see my function – no, it wasn’t assigned to me by some authority – as noting the patterns and parallels others don’t deign to mention. One of the patterns most notable in contemporary American life is how the gulf between Left and Right manifests in the distribution of our attention. This isn’t a new topic, even here at Liberty’s Torch. However, an uber-pattern of importance has gone largely undiscussed. I’ve come to see it as critically important: certainly important enough to break out the large font:

Every one of the Left’s tactics induces fatigue in those at whom it’s aimed: we in the Right.

     It might not have been planned that way by a gathering of Leftist strategists huddled over a guttering candle. (Actually, I’d prefer to think that it was.) Yet the pattern is strong: the use of endless, mindless repetition and the vilification, not only of prominent public figures but of those of us who dare to have opinions that diverge from the Left, induces a terrible weariness in everyone on the receiving end. The principal response to deep weariness is to absent oneself, to find a retreat in which one will be free of the wearying influence.

     In the matter of political engagement, that means a retreat from politics.

     One of the open secrets about the American electorate is how fundamentally conservative it is. The great majority of us aren’t political activists in any sense. We merely want to be left alone to labor over our own vines and fig trees, where “none shall make me afraid.” But that majority went largely unnoticed in the years between the Reagan Administration and the election of Donald Trump.

     A fundamental virtue of a regime of limited government is that it makes it possible for the average Joe to ignore the State most of the time. When governments burst their bonds and begin to intrude into every area of human life and enterprise, this is no longer possible. The private citizen is compelled, for the sake of his life, liberty, and bank balance, to be aware of the State, in whichever form it’s relevant, regardless of what he’s doing or contemplating. And that is supremely wearying.

     It’s natural for the citizen so State-ridden to “pull in his horns:” to shrink his circles of activity and sociality to the point where the State is unlikely to notice him. In a sense it’s a survival response, as allowing one’s energies to be sapped by engagement with a parasitical force one cannot negotiate with, much less control, reduces the resources available to cope with more immediate needs.

     I suspect that the commonplace “they’re all thieves so why bother?” representations of the politically disengaged are largely cosmetic, donned to conceal a deep weariness that it would embarrass them to express. I further suspect that that weariness is one of the goals of the political Establishment, predominantly on the Left but with a growing component among prominent supposed conservatives as well.


     Time was, I believed that the attitude toward popular engagement with the political system went as follows:

  1. The Democrats seek a high degree of engagement, from the belief that their positions are the more popular.
  2. The Republicans seek a low degree of engagement, from the belief that their positions are the less popular.
  3. However, if the Democrats expect the turnout to be low, they’ll work to lower it still further, because the cohorts that most reliably vote are its mascots: e.g., government workers, union members, and welfare state clients.

     The developments of recent decades have caused me to revise those opinions:

  1. Non-Establishment Republicans, knowing that the country is fundamentally conservative, want a high turnout, especially in the “heartland” states typically disdained by the Democrats and their media allies.
  2. The Democrats would prefer to depress “heartland” turnout, which would raise the profile and the power of the coastal regions where its mascots are numerous and its media allies are influential.
  3. The political Establishment, regardless of party, would prefer that only its allegiants and hangers-on be politically alert and engaged. That way lies the indefinite perpetuation of its power, prestige, and perquisites.

     For group 1 in the revised enumeration, an energized citizenry that welcomes political engagement is critical. For groups 2 and 3, inducing political fatigue in the electorate would appear to be a potent strategy.

     I could go on from here in several directions. I could note the sameness of the nightly news broadcasts, which repeat the same stories night after night and routinely privilege the positions and statements of the Left. I could note the world-weary attitudes and soporific styles of the most prominent “conservative” commentators, nearly all of whom remain NeverTrump diehards who’d rather drink hemlock than allow that the president is amassing a formidable list of achievements. (I could also note the old “joke” definition of “conservative:” “One who never wants anything to be done for the first time.”) But I trust my Gentle Readers’ intelligence will make that unnecessary.

     I don’t have a detailed prescription for how best to resist induced political fatigue. An important component of the strategy might be to pay less attention to the news – not zero, but sufficiently less that its mind-numbing effects fall to a level one can easily resist. Another component might be to allocate a greater share of one’s attention to local affairs, for it’s the government nearest to you that has the greatest likelihood of (and propensity for) doing you harm. We who prattle about the need for term limits on federal offices – highly desirable, to be sure, but impossible without a Constitutional amendment – seldom take note of the lifelong careers local politicians spend in town, county, and state offices, whether elective or appointive.

     In any event, let’s contrive to remain energized. If it means turning off the television and spending less time at the computer, so be it. Don’t let “them” weary us out of our freedom.

Ultra-Quickies: Awakening In Progress?

     As a rule, we can rely on the major media to back essentially any claim made by the Democrats about the eeeeevil Republicans, especially the eeeeevilest of all, President Donald Trump. But it appears that this rule just might be sprouting exceptions:

     Immigrant children as young as 14 housed at a juvenile detention center in Virginia say they were beaten while handcuffed and locked up for long periods in solitary confinement, left nude and shivering in concrete cells.

     The abuse claims against the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center near Staunton, Virginia, are detailed in federal court filings that include a half-dozen sworn statements from Latino teens jailed there for months or years. Multiple detainees say the guards stripped them of their clothes and strapped them to chairs with bags placed over their heads…

     The complaint filed by the nonprofit Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs recounts the story of an unnamed 17-year-old Mexican citizen apprehended at the southern border. The teen fled an abusive father and violence fueled by drug cartels to seek asylum in the United States in 2015.

     After stops at facilities in Texas and New York, he was transferred to Shenandoah in April 2016 and diagnosed during an initial screening by a psychologist with three mental disorders, including depression. Besides weekly sessions speaking with a counselor, the lawsuit alleges the teen has received no further mental health treatment, such as medications that might help regulate his moods and behavior.

     See also the video embedded in this article in which a CNN reporter dares to ask a Democrat Senator whether she was outraged about the treatment of illegal alien children during the Obama Administration, when it actually occurred.

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Outrage, Inc.

     It should come as no surprise that the illegal-alien detention policies that have the Democrats’ glands in a lather (along with those of miscellaneous washed-up Hollywood has-beens) were signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996. Equally unsurprising is that those policies were enforced by the Clinton, Bush II, and Obama Administrations. Still more of a yawn is that the photos of “kids in cages” are uniformly either fakes or shots taken during the Obama years.

     Yet reasonable people continue to puzzle over the wherefores. That’s because reasonable people don’t feel a need to feign outrage for political purposes. As we don’t feel that need, we have difficulty imagining why anyone else would.

     But feigning and fomenting outrage is now the principal strategy of the American Left. That such campaigns are centrally orchestrated and conducted can no longer be plausibly denied. The onset is too discrete; the shrieks of outrage are too well tuned. The unanimity displayed by the participants – elected officials, media allies, and various activists – cannot be a spontaneous phenomenon.

     As with all the other strategies and tactics Leftists have deployed and perpetuated since the Sixties, they use it because it gets them what they want, at least in the near term. What it gets them is the key to the phenomenon.

     Leftist mouthpieces, including elected officials, lie, distort, conceal, misattribute, and generally manipulate information to get private citizens’ attention. In their awareness that ordinary men can’t focus on many things at once, leftists strive to keep us occupied with whatever they can feign outrage about. At minimum it serves the purpose of disrupting anyone else’s contributions to the discourse “By drowning their speaking / With shrieking and squeaking / In fifty different sharps and flats.”

     (Apologies to Robert Browning for that last. Is anyone up for a rousing chorus of “Four legs good, two legs bad” -- ?)

     The Left cannot permit the roaring economy, the prospects for a solution on the Korean Peninsula, the overall improvement in international trade policy, and the general return of citizen confidence in the United States to receive public attention. Their media megaphones and celebrity foils will shout until their throats burst to prevent it. The question before us is what we in the Right can do to counter this stratagem.


     It’s pretty BLEEP!ing difficult to conduct a reasonable and orderly discussion of public policy when someone is shouting into your ear through a bullhorn. When mated to personal harassment tactics the Left uses with neither inhibition nor fear of untoward consequences, such disruption can discourage just about anyone from remaining in the game. The recent doxxing of Stephen Miller and public harassment of Kirstjen Nielsen should be viewed as integral parts of the overall strategy.

     What countermeasures are available? There’s no hope of getting Democrats on Capitol Hill to moderate themselves. The media are inherently unfriendly toward the Right and cannot be reasoned out of their stances. The Left’s activists are essentially cultists incapable of reason.

     Kurt Schlichter and others have advocated turning the Left’s tactics against them: forcing them “to play by the new rules.” If we could do so, that would have a chance of working...but how many conservatives and libertarians would be willing to harass individuals, to foment hatred toward political opponents, and to organize and participate in campaigns of disruption against public events that feature Leftist luminaries? My estimate, based in part on my own distaste for such activities, is “not bloody many.” Besides, most of us have other demands on our time.

     Counter-campaigns through media acceptably disposed toward us, with some assistance from sympathetic public figures, have less of a chance of working. The de facto partitioning of information sources that virtually everyone practices today renders such campaigns largely a means of “preaching to the choir.” Leftists listen only to other Leftists; they cannot be swayed by anything in a Right-inclined channel of distribution.

     The “default” response is to keep doing what we do and pay no mind to the shriekings and squeakings. The logic behind that has some appeal; as social and economic conditions improve, private persons will be ever less inclined to invest attention and credence in the Left’s synthesized “crises.” The joker in this deck is the Left’s use of moral outrage. The proclamation that some phenomenon is an inherent offense to the morals and sensibilities of decent persons is inherently attention-getting. Moreover, as Eric Hoffer has told us, “a grievance is most poignant when almost redressed:” the better things become for the many, the more energizing become the sufferings of the few...even if the few are vanishingly few and their sufferings are faked.

     Of one thing we may be sure: the Left will continue to use the outrage stratagem as long as it continues to pay dividends. And with that, I yield the floor to my Gentle Readers.

Selective outrage.

The massive deaths, destruction of towns, cities, infrastructure, the maiming, physical and mental, the dislocation that has sent millions of refugees fleeing Washington’s wars to overrun Europe, where governments consist of a collection of idiot stooges who supported Washington’s massive war crimes in the Middle East and North Africa, produced no outcry comparable to Trump’s immigration policy.

How can it be that Americans can see inhumanity in the separation of families in immigration enforcement but not in the massive war crimes committed against peoples in eight countries? Are we experiencing a mass psychosis form of cognitive dissonance?

"Paul Craig Roberts: 'The Entire Western World Lives In Cognitive Dissonance.'” By Paul Craig Roberts, ZeroHedge, 6/21/18.

Wednesday, June 20, 2018

This Might Explain a Lot of Things

Don Surber has his take on the slowness of the investigation.

It's Summertime, and the Living is Easy...

...and I'm being unusually lazy. Most days I have my posts out by 8 am (M-W-F). Not now. I'm getting into an Island Mode - not drinking margaritas before breakfast, but...

I started following these links, and decided the most efficient way to handle it was to link to the original. I've OneTabbed the links, and will get to finishing them later. It's available for both Chrome and Firefox. Haven't tested Brave yet to see.

Quickies: At Last Recognition Is Taking Place

     First, watch the following video. I don’t want to hear any demurrers. I'll permanently block anyone who comments that “I don’t watch videos.” A smartphone addict who says such a thing is merely caricaturing himself. Watch it:

     It appears that the world just might be catching on...and catching up with me.


     Second, let me get it out: I told you so. All of you with smartphones glued to your hands, who can’t look away from the screen long enough to greet your spouse when he comes home from work...or your spouse when you get home from work...or your parents when you finally return home from school, or soccer practice, or wherever.

     You are not functioning as a self-aware, volitional being invested with the awesome powers of evaluation and choice. You’ve surrendered that estate and are being led around by a device. You are being programmed. (You may take it as gospel that I know something about programming.)

     You are not alive, by the standards that properly apply to human life. You’re a robot. Less, really: you’re a mechanism walking a treadmill. You have the power to turn it off and dismount...but you won’t use it.

     Is this contentment...or enslavement?


     Third, it’s time for those of us who care to act.

     Yes, I’ve written about this before. The subject is too important to allow it to rest after one screed, or a dozen of them.

     It’s not just about the deterioration in the prevailing level of courtesy. It’s not just about drivers causing accidents by texting while driving...or pedestrians getting hit by cars as they scroll through their Facebook notifications while crossing the street. It’s about the gift of life itself.

     If you’re not fully attentive to what’s immediately around you, you’re not a functioning human being. The state of “absent presence” – physically in locale A, but attention on separate “locale” B – makes you highly vulnerable. Others will make your choices for you, and you won’t even be aware that it’s happening. You’re not capable even in theory of looking after yourself.

     Time was, everyone grasped this. You wouldn’t be allowed out of the house without a minder if you didn’t.


     Fourth and last, here’s the program:

  • No smartphone usage at meals. No excuses shall be made for anyone.
  • No smartphone for anyone who doesn’t pay rent. Time to get tough, Mom and Dad.
  • No smartphone usage in any social setting, whether it’s a massive party or a single dinner guest.
  • No accepting a smartphone as a condition of employment. It’s a collar attached to a digital leash, and you know it.
  • And need I say this? Zero tolerance is to be extended to anyone who dares to break any of the above rules. If he needs his fix more than he needs you, get rid of him.

     You get one life. Don’t let a device designed to enslave you take it away.

Be Here Now.

     (Applause to CM Blake for the video.)

The eternal bottom line of all leftist discourse.

“Today's Left has no Soviet Union as a beacon," Radosh notes, "but its reflexive hatred of the American system is intact.”[1]
Nothing will ever satisfy the left. The finely woven tapestry of our civilization is contemptible in their eyes. The idea that it's been a gradual accretion of minor advances, small reforms, affection, charity, and refinements sometimes in the category of genius is rejected out of hand and all that stretches to the horizon is but the product of avarice, hatred, and appetite.

What shining orb of love and excellence it is that will replace this vast criminal construct is long on rhetoric and short on specifics. "Brotherhood," a "classless society," and no discrimination against freaks and cannibals seem to be central features of the formless leftist paradise.

Not to mention police with arbitrary power. That's always there though never acknowledged except in unguarded moments.

Notes
[1] Ron Radosh quoted in " Seeing Red." By Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley, Claremont Review of Books, 5/20/02.

Ultra-Quickies: You’ll Laugh Your Slats Off

     ...and that’s not something I often say about an article from the American Spectator:

     Herewith is an excerpt from the hypothetical report by the Pleasant Valley School District’s Office of Inspector General:
     We asked Teacher 1 why she and Student A had been in her car at Midnight. She replied that he had been doing poorly in her class, and she was tutoring him. We acknowledge that such additional instruction would be a valid and proper pedagogical undertaking. Nevertheless, we asked why they were not wearing clothes. She explained that they had become hot and sweaty, and she believed that it was important that teacher and student should eliminate physical discomforts to maximize the learning experience.

     We asked why they had an open bottle of vodka and a box of condoms. She explained that these items had been left in the car by her husband. Since her spouse is not an employee of the school district, we were unable to question him regarding this matter.

     While we found Teacher 1’s answers to be unpersuasive, she made no direct declaration as to why she had engaged in this drunken, naked and nocturnal meeting with Student A. Consequently, we have no definitive proof that she was motivated by a desire to engage in sexual relations. Therefore, we make no finding regarding her motive or intent.

     You know what the author is talking about, don’t you, Gentle Reader?

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Ultra-Quickies: A Good Law Being Properly Enforced

     The existing law that mandates the separation of illegal alien children from their presumed parents is a good one that must continue in force – and it must be enforced to the letter. Here’s why.

     First, adult detention facilities are no place for children. The probability that a child put into those conditions will be abused is high. Keeping them in a separate, children-only facility is far better for their safety.

     Second, there are only two possibilities concerning their “parents:” either they are, or they aren’t. In the former case, the deterrent effect upon prospective illegal entrants with children is strengthened by the foreknowledge that parents will be separated from their children for an indefinite period. In the latter case, the adults are attempting to exploit the children as tickets to entry. They must be denied that token. Moreover, the adults having resolved to exploit the children once already, the probability of other kinds of exploitation increases in the event they are denied entry to the United States.

     The Democrats and the NeverTrumpers are engaged in their own campaign of exploitation, of course. The existing law goes back to 2002 and was enforced by the Bush II and Obama Administrations exactly as it’s being enforced today. The notion that illegal alien children (or their parents) are somehow being abused by ICE is a pure phantasm with no truth to it. In fact the kids are kept in comfortable surroundings packed with entertainments and diversions. They’re regularly fed and checked upon medically. They receive a degree of supervision and protection beyond what many American children enjoy. They’ve probably never had it so good in their lives.

     Of course, now that I've said that, we may expect that bleeding-heart types will seize on it and protest the eventual repatriation of the kiddies “back to squalor after they’ve become accustomed to American standards of comfort and safety.” Some things are entirely predictable, even in political combat.

Respect For The Law...Enforcers

     When tales of police peculation, arrant injustice, and unconscionable cruelty accumulate, the public’s attitudes toward the police become chilly. It’s an entirely natural reaction; decent men don’t think well of indecent men, and the worst sort of criminal is one who carries a badge. The unfortunate consequence is a diminution of public respect for the law itself, which comes to be seen as a cover for plunder and the exercise of brutality. That, too, is natural; it’s exceedingly difficult to distinguish the law from its enforcers and their methods, especially given the enormous degree of discretion and the near-total immunity from accountability the police and prosecutors’ offices have been allowed by the courts.

     We may therefore assume that the recent report from Department of Justice Inspector-General Michael Horowitz will occasion a great decline in respect for the FBI and the laws it purports to enforce. Indeed, the signs are all around us that this is already an accomplished fact.

     But what consequences will that decline in respect have for ordinary, non-badge-carrying Americans?


     The most serious crimes the FBI has historically investigated have been kidnappings, espionage, and sabotage. (Yes, they’ve stuck their snouts into a lot of other crimes that had an interstate aspect, usually to the detriment of the investigations involved.) Sabotage is generally rare in peacetime. Espionage today principally targets corporations, which are loath to invoke the attention of the FBI for several reasons, some of which are good. Kidnappings, however, are perennial. They touch individual American lives and families. The FBI’s investigations of such crimes are a great part of the reason for its historical admiration and prestige.

     But now we can see that the FBI has been corrupted. The upper reaches appear to be beyond salvage. No one can say how deeply into the rank and file the rot has penetrated. Moreover, the IG’s report, which lays out a minutely circumstantial case for that corruption, concludes by dismissing its own findings. Though thick with evidence of political corruption, its conclusion maintains that the corruption had no effect of importance.

     The incredulity among Americans who respect facts and can perform straightforward inferences has pinned every meter in the country. The self-protective character of the Horowitz report is too blatant to deny. Horowitz himself is now suspected of involvement...or perhaps of having been threatened should he dare to point an openly accusing finger at certain parties. For practical purposes, it wouldn’t matter either way.

     If we leave aside matters of reputation, what consequences are likely? Will President Trump act against the appointed officials plainly revealed to be politically-driven scum? Will state and local law enforcement departments fight any more determinedly to keep the FBI out of their investigations and operations? Will ordinary Americans be less willing to assist in FBI investigations?

     Perhaps someone should ask the advice of Steven Hatfill or Richard Jewell.


     Federal law is already a minefield. Its tangles can be used to trap just about anyone, as Harvey Silverglate has told us. Add the incredible U.S. Code provisions that criminalize “lying” to a federal investigator, and it becomes plain that no one in his right mind would want to come under the FBI’s scrutiny. On that subject we can consult Martha Stewart and Lewis Libby.

     When corrupt persons attain the presidency, the baleful power of the FBI becomes threatening to anyone the regime might view as hostile. So far, that power has targeted only persons of public prestige and persons who possess information damaging to the regime...but there’s no guarantee that it will remain that limited.

     The political weaponization of the FBI is a link in a chain. We were allowed to discover another link in the IRS’s differential treatment of conservative groups. During the Obama Interregnum election-integrity groups were targeted as well.

     But we mustn’t expect law enforcement itself to conform to the law! Hearken to Kurt Schlichter:

     The IG report sidestepped the most critical point, the one that is resulting in the American people losing their last remaining fragments of faith in our system, the fact that there are demonstrably two sets of rules, that there are two brands of justice in America.

     There is one for you, me, and everyone else not in the elite – the infuriated, angry Normals. And there is another one for the elite.

     With the issuance of the Horowitz Report, the Department of Justice has placed itself above the law. With that, American society – the first and only truly free society the world has known – has become a Society of Status, in which who you are and what friends you have looms infinitely higher than any other consideration.

     How can respect for the law be divorced from the blatant partisanry and corruption of the law’s enforcers – a corruption our elected officials appear willing to tolerate? Have we fallen into the abyss – the middle-class anarchy of which we’ve been warned – wherein private Americans will habitually refuse to engage law enforcers, and disdain to assist in the enforcement even of laws of which they approve?

     I fear for my country.

Monday, June 18, 2018

It Strains Credulity...

     ...after all this time and so many "unfortunate" deaths, to think that this – an element in a long series – could possibly be a coincidence, “just one of those things:”

     Please endure the synthesized voice and watch it.

     What’s the body count now? How many threats to the Clintons’ power and wealth have died mysteriously, and just in time to prevent a revelation?

     The Clinton family is more dangerous to America than today’s Cosa Nostra. At least those gangsters only kill one another.

The Posts Just Write Themselves

I visited Bookwormroom today. Here's a small sample:



But, wait - there's more!



Oh, right! That's incredibly believable!



Go, check the site out. These graphics are a semi-regular feature.

Intelligence Is Neither Wisdom Nor Prudence Nor Judgment

     Take note, all you cockeyed optimists out there.

     From behind the Uber-Curmudgeon persona types a 66-year-old man in shaky health. (The traditional phrase is “one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.”) I thank God for all my blessings, emphatically including the shaky health. Here’s why.

     Yesterday afternoon, a dear friend named Joe, perhaps the brightest and most capable person I’ve ever known, did a stupid thing: He mounted a ladder. Now, for many persons that would not be deemed an unduly hazardous thing to do...but Joe is 71 years old. He fell from that ladder, breaking his pelvis and nearly all his ribs and compromising his lungs badly enough to require intubation. He spent the day in the ICU, has already undergone one bout of surgery and will undergo another quite soon. Whether Joe will survive his mishap is unclear.

     Joe and I have several things in common...but not the “shaky health” part. Joe is (was) robustly healthy and looks (looked) twenty years younger than his calendar age. He retired from law enforcement just last year. I’m certain he mounted that ladder thinking nothing would happen to him...certainly nothing of the sort that did.

     I would never have mounted that ladder; I know I’m aged and frail. My shaky health would have defended me against such an error of judgment. Joe didn’t have my advantage. Nothing had ever hurt him before this.

     You, the Temporarily Able-Bodied, should start cultivating some respect for the perils that come with advancing age BEFORE you get to your fifties and sixties. Gravity is not your friend. Neither are machines with fast-moving parts. Neither are doe-eyed young women wearing pleading looks. (Admittedly, that last temptation can be hard to resist. Resist anyway. You’ll thank me.)

     An IQ that resembles a California zip code is no good unless you remember to use it. Ask Joe when he comes out of surgery later today.

Sunday, June 17, 2018

Ultra-Quickies: Insight In A Compact Package

     Daniel Greenfield has written an impressive yet concise analysis of President Trump’s negotiation approach. It’s plain that the Trump System has evolved over his decades in real estate and other commercial involvement, but in American politics at the federal and international level, it’s a cleansing force, a hurricane that’s thrown all the “professionals” back on their heels.

     The article has a single fault: the title. Trump isn’t interested in ruling the world. He merely wants the best deals he can get for America. He’s single-minded about it, without illusions that he can achieve his objectives without disrupting established arrangements or ruffling feathers. His clarity about his priorities is the key to his effectiveness.

     The moguls of the world of business and commerce have always valued personal friendships and amicable relations, but the truly great ones have always been willing to make an enemy if it was necessary to gain their objectives. In the words of my sainted father, they’ve always been willing to call a spade “a fucking shovel.”

     Eventually some punch-drunk reporter, at long last willing to admit to the president’s ability and effectiveness, will humbly ask Trump for an explanation. I predict that Trump will smile and say something like “It’s the way we do it in Queens.” And the reporter will begin a journey into home truths about Mankind that New Yorkers learned long before the rest of the world.

Saturday, June 16, 2018

Ultra-Quickies: I Loves Me A Good Solid Irony

     Don’t expect much from me this weekend, as I’ll be away from Cyclops most of the time and guzzling huge volumes of delightful New York wines and busy with other matters of interest. However, I’ll ring in now and then to cite something of particular interest, such as this conjecture:

     Page and Strzok have become notorious for the anti-Trump texts they sent to one another. The IG report cited these texts as evidence that Strzok's decisions may not have been free of bias.

     One decision in particular stood out. Strzok seems to have been instrumental in delaying a key lead in the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. In September 2016, the FBI discovered Clinton emails on the laptop of former Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). Rather than pursuing this lead in the Clinton investigation, the FBI — and Strzok specifically — sat on it....

     On October 28 — a mere eleven days before the presidential election — Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress announcing the discovery of Clinton emails on the Weiner laptop. The FBI obtained a search warrant to review the emails two days later, on October 30. Finally, on November 6, two days before the election, Comey sent a final letter to Congress stating that the review of the emails on the laptop had not changed the FBI's conclusions on Clinton.

     The author of the article thinks that alone might have tipped the election to Donald Trump. Please read it all. Then proceed to this heaping helping of sarcasm from Sharyl Attkisson. You’ll be both appalled and amused.

Passionate indifference.

The press is mad, crazy to report on the evil Bashar al-Assad but when it comes to reporting on a ghastly war in Yemen – and U.S. support for the Saudi and U.A.E. dirtbags waging it – the lap dog press all can’t find a pencil sharpener.
Maybe the media barons have decided to take sides and are no longer interested in balanced reports or just articles reporting development on the ground. If we take Yemen, the same journalists expressing strong justified conscious indignation about civilian deaths in the war imposed on Syria are totally numb, unavailable to cover the Saudi Arabian war on Yemen supported by the US and the UK establishments.

The same journalists who are so excited about any bomb dropped by the Syrians or the Russian air force in their war to liberate cities have been relatively quiet about the thousands of civilians killed in the northern city of Raqqah by the US Air Force which destroyed over 80% of the city and left ISIS mines to kill more inhabitants returning to the ruins of that Syrian city.[1]

Everyone knows why helping to kill Houthis is vital to the security of the United States, right? Right?!

Notes
[1] " Syrian Dirty War Backfires on International Media." By Elijah J Magnier, 4/25/18.

Friday, June 15, 2018

“Diversity,” “Science,” And Facts

     The Left has been straining to redefine “truth” for some years now:

     Truth is an evaluation: a judgment that some proposition corresponds to objective reality sufficiently for men to rely upon it. The weakening of the concept of truth cuts an opening through which baldly counterfactual propositions can be thrust into serious discourse. Smith might say that proposition X is disprovable, or that it contradicts common observations of the world; Jones counters that X suits him fine, for he has dismissed the disprovers as "partisan" and prefers his own observations to those of Smith. Unless the two agree on standards for relevant evidence, pertinent reasoning, and common verification -- in other words, standards for what can be accepted as sufficiently true -- their argument over X will never end.

     An interest group that has "put its back against the wall" as regards its central interest, and is unwilling to concede the battle regardless of the evidence and logic raised against its claims, will obfuscate, attack the motives of its opponents, and attempt to misdirect their attention with irrelevancies. When all of these have failed, its last-ditch defense is to attack the concept of truth. Once that has been undermined, the group can't be defeated. It can stay on the ideological battlefield indefinitely, preserving the possibility of victory through attrition or fatigue among its opponents.

     The concept of truth is intimately bound up with an even more fundamental concept: fact. As such, the Left’s promulgation of nonsense-notions about “truth” must be coupled to a strident, insistent denial of facts the Left deems unpleasant.

     When you encounter the statement “A fact cannot be biased,” Gentle Reader, you’re looking at the assertion the Left hates above all other things. It’s the reason for their tendency to resort to ad hominem denunciations and imputations of low motives. Facts that cross-cut their aims cannot be allowed to stand.

     Today, in reference to recent Leftist pronouncements that “science” needs more “diversity,” Francis Turner at L'Ombre de l'Olivier notes some unpleasant facts:

     There is considerable and growing evidence that some ethnicities have a genetic predisposition to higher IQs than others. The highest appears to be Central/Eastern European Jews and there’s a lot of evidence that this is actually an evolutionary trait that has occurred over the last millennium. On the other hand there is considerable evidence that Africans (and some others e.g. Australian Aborigines) have a significantly lower average IQ than humans as a whole by at least one Standard Deviation (~15 points). This remains true even when you account for known IQ negatives like childhood nutrition. It’s true you don’t need an Einstein level IQ to be a good scientist (or even an adequate one), but IQ and mathematical/logical reasoning do correlate and successful scientists are definitely a solid one or two standard deviations above the 100 population average. If ethnicity one (E1) has an average IQ of 100-1SD and ethnicity two (E2) has an average IQ of 100+1SD then given the normal distribution the proportion of E1 that is 2SDs above the full population average (100) is around 2% (3 SDs above their population average) while the proportion of E2 is about 20% (1 SD above their population average) – Note I have rounded the numbers for easier sums, go look them up yourself. Given an equal number of E1 and E2 one would therefore expect about ten times as many people in E2 to be capable of a scientific career than those in E1.

     That’s the sort of multiply-confirmed fact that pins the Left‘s outrage meter. It makes ridiculous all their demands for “diversity” in the sciences and elsewhere. It also puts an absolute boundary around their political aspirations. And they can do absolutely nothing about it.

     Mind you, non-whites do participate in the sciences. There have been a number of Asian scientists of note, especially in physics. There have also been a few Negro scientists – and their achievements are ballyhooed way, way out of proportion to their actual significance. But the overwhelming majority of black participation in the sciences is (and has always been) in the provision of support functions rather than as “chief investigators.” Such workers are necessary, but they seldom achieve national or international recognition.

     The quest for cosmetic diversity – i.e., diversity of skin color – is rudely impeded by the requirement for high intelligence and the ability to reason with symbols. You’ll seldom encounter a PhD in the hard sciences with an IQ below 130. A significant percentage of them would test higher than that. (In this we have the reason the Left has condemned IQ testing and striven to prevent it from being discussed: It correlates all too strongly with future success in fields that demand high intelligence.)

     In the usual case, Leftist agitators frustrated by such facts will do what they did to weaken the armed forces: they’ll demand that the standards be softened to increase “minority” participation. They’ll provide a tailwind to their preferred “minorities,” as has been the case in college admissions standards. And they’ll raise hell over any indication that some “minority” is “under-represented” in some institution they’ve chosen to attack.

     In our era, such tactics tend to get the Left what it wants. It has significant support from various government agencies with extra-Constitutional powers. The media and educational establishments are enlisted in its cause, as well. The combination can be too much for the typical institution to resist.

     All that stands in the way of this deliberate attempt to dumb down the sciences are facts: nasty, ugly little facts that have been multiply verified, and which no amount of propaganda can gainsay. It falls to us to keep those facts from being occluded or effaced.