Monday, August 26, 2019

Art, Entertainment, And Money

     You can make money by entertaining people, if you’re good enough at it and are noticed for that. Quite a lot of Americans strive to build careers as entertainers. If the entertainer observes the usual legal and ethical constraints, it’s as acceptable an occupation as any other.

     Part of the reason many persons pursue one of the arts – fiction, poetry, music, drama, painting, sculpture, athletics, what have you – is to make money. Indeed, artists who hope for financial remuneration from their work are almost certainly a large majority. But what would predictably, reliably make money isn’t always what the artist would like to do, or what he’s best equipped to do. It’s a tension that’s existed since we first deemed certain pursuits to be arts.

     That tension can warp an artist’s mind, to say nothing of the effect on his bank balance. But it arises from effects that no one can undo.


     When Johannes Gutenberg invented the movable-type printing press in 1439, his immediate aim was to produce and distribute the Bible. The Bible was the one and only book of general importance. He who owned an actual copy of it was fortunate indeed. But an invention as versatile as the printing press would not long be confined to the production of Bibles. There were other books people wanted reproduced in volume, and the rich ones among them offered incentives for doing so.

     Thus, patronage, long a key factor in the support of the visual and musical arts, became a part of the written arts. But printing presses and those skilled in their operation remained scarce for a long time. Those who wanted their works reproduced had to bid against one another for the press owners’ efforts. That’s how the first publishing companies were born.

     A lot of water has passed under Mankind’s bridges since then. There are still vanity presses, of course. They don’t command a lot of respect, but they’re out there, available to the writer who wants to see his name on the spine of a book and is willing to pay for the privilege. Respectable publishers are in business to make a profit by selling books to readers, rather than by selling them to their authors. But to do that, they must solve a perennially difficult problem: accurately predicting which books will sell in volume.

     This is so difficult a task that to remain in business, most conventional publishers – i.e., those that concentrate on producing and selling hard-copy books rather than eBooks – must be supported by a larger, more reliably profitable organization. Indeed, owing to the proliferation of genres and sub-genres, accurate prediction of readers’ tastes has steadily grown harder. The pressure on conventional publishers is at an all-time high...as is the pressure on a writer who looks to his fiction for his principal income.


     The explosion in eBook publishing has complicated matters still further. Publication in electronic format was at first regarded as the lowest of publishing’s slums, suited only to writers who have neither stories to tell nor skills for the telling. That lack of prestige caused conventional publishers to shun the eBook for a long time – far too long for their financial health. Readers, once they got used to their Kindles and NOOKs, found the eBook an adequate publication medium with several advantages that compensate for its limitations. The coalescence of eBook formats around two dominant ones, each easily converted to the other, helped to resolve matters of availability and eReader compatibility. The sale of eBooks swiftly rose to equal and then surpass the sale of conventionally published books.

     Conventional publishers, desperate to shore up their finances, belatedly got into the eBook act. Unfortunately, they brought baggage with them that impeded them despite the advantages that could have accrued from their institutional prestige. The eBook hasn’t served them nearly as well as it’s served the legions of small, eBook-only presses that cater to “independent” writers.

     But the flood to eBooks is not an unmixed blessing for writers. It’s so easy to produce an eBook, and so easy to make it available through Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Walmart, and several other online retailers, that getting attention for one’s works is harder than ever. So many writers are “talking” that any individual one must “shout” to be heard at all. Making a living by writing fiction remains a tough challenge.

     A few indie writers have succeeded, especially in the speculative genres. The best known ones emphasize relentless productivity. Their novels arrive in barrages, series of a dozen or more volumes with a common setting and protagonists. It’s difficult to criticize this approach, if the end in view is revenue. Nevertheless, there are drawbacks, especially for their emulators.


     Since the releases of the various volumes of the Futanari Saga, a number of my fiction readers have written to ask a common question: “Why did you write this?” (Most of them go on to say “I mean, I liked it, but...”) I wrote that series for the same reason I write everything: to explore certain ideas in a fictional setting. One of them – transgenderism – has ignited a great deal of public controversy. So I decided to delve into it from a skewed perspective: the fictional existence of women born with male genitals, whose condition is involuntary and irreparable.

     While I wouldn’t turn down big revenues as long as they come without strings, it’s more important for me to write about the ideas on my mind than to pursue big bucks. It’s a personal choice that not all writers make. Indeed, not all visual artists make it, as we can see from the large amounts of schlock that decorates so many living room walls.

     One of the downsides of the eBook explosion has been what I think of as “The Forty-Niner Effect.” The discovery of gold in northern California caused a lot of people to flock thither in hope of great riches. A few of them prospered mightily, but far more of them were bitterly disappointed. Some even starved to death. Of the unfortunate ones, how many could have prospered more and lived better by “staying home” and plying some more conventional trade?

     Writers in the age of the eBook face the same sort of temptation. The fabulously successful ones inspire emulators. The emulators are usually disappointed by their results. A lot of them become bitter. But far worse by my lights, among those who fail to prosper financially are some gifted storytellers who’ve sloughed their own, unique ideas to pursue the big bucks. There’s a tragedy for you.

     Of course, it’s the Curmudgeon Emeritus to the World Wide Web saying this: a writer so obsessed with originality that he won’t set his fingers to the keys unless he’s certain that what he has in mind has never even been attempted before. So as usual the proper seasoning is cum grano salis.

     Still, I personally know two highly gifted writers who’ll tell you from dawn to dusk (and all night long if you have the staying power) that they only do it to make money. They have yet to make much. Yet both of them have broached exciting, fictionally unexplored ideas to me that they’ve “left on the shelf:” in one case to turn out a series of formulaic space operas; in the other to produce (shudder) vampire novels. And I look at my Kindle, and fret over the lack of anything fresh and original to read, and I sigh.

Sunday, August 25, 2019

“Christian Nationalism”

     The relevant article is here:

     A gaggle of representatives from theologically liberal denominations recently issued a statement against Christian nationalism in America, claiming that it threatens both American democracy and the ability of our religious communities to live in peace.

     To be sure, Christian nationalism is an extremely odd place to find the threat to religious freedom in a world that increasingly makes demands like “shut up and wax that woman’s b-lls.” But the irony goes deeper than that. It’s not some stroke of blind chance that lead to religious freedom in the Christian West—it was, in fact, due to our Christian faith.

     The article is worth reading in its entirety. However, I argue that its premise – i.e., that “religious neutrality has failed” – lacks sufficient power to propel his recommendations in their entirety. Besides, how can something fail if it doesn’t exist?


     Author Matthew Cochran’s strongest point is that “religious neutrality,” in the dictionary sense, does not exist and never has existed – anywhere. That ties directly into his observations about “tolerance:”

     Under the guise of religious neutrality, too many Christians have been tricked into withholding their good judgment from matters of state. This has led to some profound changes, but there’s nothing religiously or morally neutral about them.

     We have, for instance, allowed women to choose whether to murder their offspring, but this is not neutrality—in this, the state blatantly values personal autonomy and privacy more than it values love or the right to live. We have forced people to speak as though men are actually women or act as though two women can be married to one-another, but this is not neutral—it demands that Christians set aside their understanding of marriage and sex. Even something as simple as getting rid of blasphemy laws that respected the name of Jesus Christ was never “fair” or neutral—it only cleared the way for new blasphemy laws that respect sexual deviancy and other politically correct subjects du jour instead.

     The Left has made capital out of the notion that “religious neutrality” should bar persons with certain beliefs from public life. Recently, we had the case of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and another involving Brian Buescher, a nominee to one of the District Courts. There’s no argument that this tool must be taken away from them. But it should be addressed separately from the larger subject of the promotion of Christian nationalism.


     The core of the problem arising from the free exercise of religion is that our Supreme Law, which states:

     Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

     ...lacks a definition of religion that would serve to distinguish the protected sort from unacceptable creeds that seek the protection afforded to religions. As matters stand, anyone can formulate a creed of whatever sort, founded on any theology or none, and promulgating any ethical creed, and claim that it’s a religion that deserves the protection of the law. The simplest approach to religion – the union of a theology with a moral-ethical code – is insufficient. It omits to specify what constitutes a genuine theology, and what would pass for an acceptable moral-ethical code.

     At this time there are three million persons resident in our lands who adhere to a “religion” that advocates:

  • Slavery;
  • Theocracy;
  • Wife-beating;
  • Unilateral divorce;
  • Conversion by the sword;
  • Polygamy and concubinage;
  • Enforced codes for dress and grooming;
  • The execution of apostates, heretics, and blasphemers;
  • The execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and fornicators;
  • War by which to eliminate all competing religions from the world.

     If any Gentle Reader of Liberty’s Torch believes that the advocacy of those things deserves the protection of the law, I’ve slipped into the “bearded Spock universe” without noticing.


     Cochran is correct that America’s conceptual basis proceeds directly from the nearly unanimous adherence to some variety of Christianity at the time of the Founding. However, his conception of a workable Christian nationalism needs work. It fails to say which aspects of Christian doctrine and practice are integral to our conceptual base and our public norms, and which ones are not.

     For example, Catholics, the largest individual denomination within American Christianity, observe certain holy days by obligation. We are required to attend Mass on those days. Until recently, we were also forbidden to perform “servile work.” This is a sectarian requirement; other varieties of Christianity do not include it and would bridle at the suggestion that it might be imposed upon them. Similarly, a couple of the smaller Christian denominations forbid wives to work outside the home. That wouldn’t be greeted warmly by the others. A nationalism founded on Christianity would perforce need to specify the extent to which Christian precepts and doctrines are to be honored by the law.

     Christians agree on the Ten Commandments of the Book of Exodus, and on the two Great Commandments that underpin them. Yet even here, many sincere Christians would object to having all of them become law. After the excisions and qualifications required to achieve consensus, Christian nationalism would be reduced to an acknowledgement of Christianity’s contributions to the political philosophy expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

     Perhaps that would be valuable by itself. After all, the Left-dominated educational system is striving with all its might to deny it. But its nebulosity makes it seem a very weak tea.

Saturday, August 24, 2019

An Announcement: Free Fiction!

     On Saturday, August 24, 2019 -- my little book The Athene Academy Collection is free at Amazon:

     Become acquainted with the futanari. Despite being genetically women, they possess male genitals. Athene Academy, the most unusual college on Earth, was created specifically to serve them. The three novelettes in this collection are about their unique trials, and those of the men and women who teach them, work with them, and love them.

     These novelettes are “prequels” to my three novels Innocents, Experiences, and The Wise and the Mad.

Foreign Student/Workers Preferences

This program is responsible for keeping many Americans unemployed/underemployed.

NC: IF the GOP DOESN'T Reference This...

...they're giving the election away.

Despite being a large city, Charlotte, like much of NC, is still a relatively conservative Southern city. Most of the people living in and around Charlotte are hoppin' mad about the way that the increase in crime, and the general lack of maintenance of city amenities/services has left the city more and more looking just like any Northern slum.

So, the focus of city council and other legislators is more concerned about reassuring the Left that Charlotte is a Rainbow-y, Bend-Over-and-Welcome-the-Illegal-Aliens kind of a place, rather than deliver on responsibilities to their actual citizens.

Zoom in on this link to see the extent of REPORTED crimes, and compare to neighboring cities. Crime is not confined to the inner city, and is leaking out into the surrounding parts of the county.

Gov. Ray Cooper will not gain votes by vetoing this legislation that required local sheriffs to cooperate with ICE detainers. Many are tired of being fearful of assaults and robbery by those who have no legitimate reason for being here.

The McCready-Bishop runoff is Sept. 10th. It can't come too soon, as the ads are omnipresent. It's gotten so we keep switching from channel to channel to avoid the viciousness.

When Smart People Say Foolish Things

     “I do not need protecting,” she said. “I can take care of myself.”
     “You are a fine fencer,” I said. “Unfortunately, life is more complicated than a fair dueling situation.”
     “I know that. I'm not a child. But—”
     “ 'But' nothing! He did the same thing I'd do if you were mine. He's protecting himself as well as you. I'm surprised he let Brand know about you. He's going to be damned mad that I found out.” Her head jerked and she stared at me, eyes wide.
     “But you wouldn't do anything to hurt us,” she said. “We-we're related.”
     “How the hell do you know why I'm here or what I'm thinking?” I said. “You might have just stuck both your necks in nooses!”
     “You are joking, aren't you?” she said, slowly raising her left hand between us.
     “I don't know,” I said. “I need not be-and I wouldn't be talking about it if I did have something rotten in mind, would I?”
     “No... I guess not,” she said.
     “I am going to tell you something Benedict should have told you long ago,” I said. “Never trust a relative. It is far worse than trusting strangers. With a stranger there is a possibility that you might be safe.”
     “You really mean that, don't you?”
     “Yes.”
     “Yourself included?”
     I smiled. “Of course it does not apply to me. I am the soul of honor, kindness, mercy, and goodness. Trust me in all things.”

     [Roger Zelazny. The Guns Of Avalon]

     The above, from one of Zelazny’s justly famous Amber novels, nicely captures the internecine quarrels of the royal family of that realm. Its ruler, Oberon, has gone missing and is presumed dead. Every one of his sons and daughters wants the crown. Every one of them is willing to murder all the others to get it. For any one of them to trust any other would be an act of insanity – and therefore, trust among them is nonexistent. That’s the perspective from which Corwin, one of Amber’s princes and the narrator in the above, is speaking to his niece Dara, whom he’s only just met.

     The absence of trust makes room for the operation of other qualities that trust can – and sometimes does – obscure. One of them is dispassionate analysis.


     As long as I’m in a quoting mood, here’s another:

     "Excuse me, Miss," Stromberg's voice boomed out. Teresza jerked her head around to find the sociologist and most of the class staring straight at her. "Yes, you who're holding Mr. Morelon's hand in a grip of steel." A titter ran through the hall. Teresza flushed. "Do you have an opinion on the subject?"
     "Uh, no, Professor." Teresza rose and gathered her thoughts as best she could. "I was just surprised to hear that they had all that junk."
     Stromberg smiled broadly. "Everyone is, Miss...?"
     "Chistyakowski."...
     "Well, you may take my word for it, Miss. In 2061, thirty-four percent of the economy of the richest sector, which was called the United States, was devoted to entertainment and diversions. As a category, that outstripped the second largest sector, medical services, by more than two to one. If our histories are accurate, its products were consumed with an unbelievable avidity, and its customers were perpetually hungry for more." He leaned forward over his lectern and peered hard at her. "Would you care to venture an opinion as to why they wanted so many frivolities and distractions?"
     Two hundred pairs of eyes pressed against her as she groped for a response. She squeezed Armand's hand and tried to think.
     The household she and her father kept was simple and modest. They had all they needed and a handful of minor luxuries, but no one would have thought their lifestyle lavish. Yet she couldn't think of anyone she knew whose surroundings were substantially more opulent. Not even the Morelons, whose wealth would have sufficed to buy the Gallatin campus ten or twenty times over.
     But why would anyone want to be surrounded by all that junk in the first place?
     "Professor," she said slowly, "I can't help asking the question the other way around. We could have all that stuff if we wanted it, couldn't we?"
     Stromberg grinned suggestively. "Indeed we could, Miss."
     "So why don't we?"

     Teresza’s question is the question of the day. Indeed, it’s the question of our nation and our era. And apparently the answer to it, though in plain sight, is being ignored or overlooked by some very bright and articulate people.


     The second citation above concerns the colony world of Hope, which is utterly without governments of any description. Thus, it lacks the overheads subjugation by a government imposes: laws, regulations, armies, police forces, other agents and agencies, and the taxes required to support them. The absence of those overheads has allowed the colonists to advance from pretechnological subsistence to roughly the technological-economic status of the United States in 1960 in only twelve hundred years – and that despite an ecology that’s lethally hostile to Earth-derived life. The colonists, descendants of a group of anarchist exiles who called themselves Spoonerites, like their ungoverned status just fine. Hope society emerged as family-oriented.

     That was also American society in 1960. While certain technologies were still maturing in 1960, all the elements were present to give swift rise to every one of the fripperies of today. Yet there was no pressure for those things. Rather, American adults concentrated on making a living, maintaining peaceful and orderly households and communities, and producing and raising their children.

     America’s markets in 1960 were appreciably freer than they are today. The six decades since have seen an explosion of coercive laws and regulations, nearly always under the overt rationale of “protecting the consumer.” The emergence of virtually all the luxury consumer-non-durable goods of today followed the imposition of all those laws and regulations, and – of course – the explosion in taxation that accompanied them.

     The federal government soon discovered that taxation was not enough to fund its new voracity. The Laffer Effect defeated rates above a certain revenue-optimum level. The sole alternative was to borrow. The Federal Reserve system guaranteed that large-scale federal borrowing would result in inflation.

     The accelerating rise in the cost of living compelled Americans to embrace the two-income family. For many, overtime labor became the way of survival. The repercussions were not long in coming. The reduction in the amount of time and energy that went to family and community matters was felt almost immediately. Children needed something to substitute for the attention of their parents, and parents needed something to distract their children from their parents’ obsessive concern with expenses, debt, and their futures.

     The proliferation of consumer fripperies was a response to these things, not the cause of them.


     Some very smart people, quite as concerned with the deterioration of our families and neighborhoods as I, have assailed our markets as “too efficient.” The late Robert Nisbet, a towering intellect, once wrote that “our markets may be too efficient for life on a human scale.” I have no doubt that he was sincere. Nevertheless, the correlation between the explosion in luxury consumer non-durables fooled him as it has fooled others.

     You’ll see a lot of opinion writing that echoes Nisbet these days. Most of it is by self-described conservatives. Here’s a recent sample. Yet there’s nothing conservative about measures that enable the advancement of government power and intrusion. Objections to the freely chosen behavior of Americans in the American marketplace can only empower the statists among us. Rather, we should be looking at reducing the size and intrusiveness of our 88,000 governments – federal, state, county, municipal, and school district – back to pre-World War I levels.

     Would that guarantee a return to the family-oriented society of those years? No, it would not. There are no guarantees in sociodynamics. But it would remove the propellants that powered our flight from it. Moreover, it would restore a great part of the freedom Americans once enjoyed: an autonomy untroubled by fears of not being able to meet present or future bills. It would reinstitute conditions in which Americans’ paramount attention could go to things close to home, rather than to a rat race toward a potentially illusory security.

     I’ll let Professor Arne Stromberg, holder of the Edmond Genet Chair in Sociology at Gallatin University, the foremost center of higher learning on Alta, the northern continent of Hope, close this tirade:

     “Families are the fundamental building blocks of a stable society. Extended families—clans—are the best conceivable environment for the rearing of children, the perpetuation of a commercial forte, and the germination of new families and their ventures. A clan like yours, Miss Albermayer, conserves a brilliant genetic line and a priceless medical specialty at the same time. A clan like yours, Mr. Morelon, makes possible a benign agricultural empire and produces natural leaders one after another while connecting Hope to its most distant origins. And all healthy families, which cherish life and bind their members to one another in unembarrassed love, can find far more to occupy and amuse them than they need."
     Teresza's mind lit with memories of the way the Morelons had enfolded her and made her one of them. No day could have been long enough for all they had to say and do and share with one another.
     "When Earth's regard for families and their most fundamental function deteriorated, her people ceased to enjoy the sorts of ties that had held them together throughout the history of Man. Without families, and especially without children, they groped for other things to fill their time, whether to give them a sense of purpose, or to distract them from the waning of their lives. Some invested themselves in industry or commerce, but without the sense of the family line to be built up and made prominent, those things failed to satisfy. Others immersed themselves in games, toys, fripperies, and increasingly bizarre forms of entertainment, which palled on them even faster. Still others made a fetish out of sex; there was a substantial sex industry on Earth, though it tended to operate in the shadows and was seldom openly discussed. They needed emotion and substance, but all they could contrive was sensation and novelty, and they pumped an ever greater share of their effort and wealth into seeking them. That's my thesis, for what it's worth."
     The hall was silent. Teresza peered furtively at the faces of the students nearest her. The majority of them were wet with tears.
     "For us," Stromberg said, "it's enough that we're happy, secure, and free. We don't really need to know definitively why our statist forebears traveled a path so different from our own. But it's among the great mysteries of social science, and worth thinking about from time to time even in isolation."

     Indeed it is.

Another Instapundit Link

It's been happening over the last year or so. Of course, an Instalaunche is not what it used to be, but - I'll take the referrals gladly.

The real issue is:

Will this keep China from invading Hong Kong? Will this cause ordinary Chinese citizens to begin resisting the Chinese authority over every facet of life?

Will this, in fact, become the Chinese Solidarity Movement?

The chances improve if Americans, who have been propping up the Chinese economy with their voracious consumption of inexpensive imported products, act to put pressure on the Chinese government to stand down from their invasion prep.

Go read the original post.

And take action.

Quickies: The Best Policy Is Always To Go To The Source...

     ...and David L. Burkhead does so today:

     People talk about being “against fascists.” There are some problems with that, however. As the founder of Fascism, Benito Mussolini said about the movement:

     “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”

     Please read it all.

     Mussolini coined the word fascism from the Latin fasces, a bundle of wooden rods Roman slaveowners used to flog disobedient slaves. Fascism is about naked force: “the power of the Rods and the Axe,” used to coerce submission from those who would prefer to go their own way. That force, when placed in the hands of the State and allowed to reign unbounded over all other things, is the defining characteristic of the totalitarian state, whether it calls itself the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, a People’s Republic, or the World Stronghold of Barbies and Peeps.

     “AntiFa” isn’t fighting against fascism. It’s fighting for it.

Friday, August 23, 2019

Quickies: “Dangerous Worlds”

     Among my favorite passages in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters, this one is at the top:

     This, indeed, is probably one of the Enemy's motives for creating a dangerous world—a world in which moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.

     The speaker in the above is Screwtape, a devil high (low?) in Satan’s service. I had occasion to revisit that passage today, and it struck me as I contemplated it that it explains the perennial popularity of adventure fiction of all kinds and genres. Contemporary America is remarkably safe. The typical American’s likelihood of incurring real danger in his daily business is very small. And there are institutions and individuals who labor to keep it that way, and to make it even safer if possible.

     Adventure fiction, whether it’s a thriller set in something approximating the real world or an item of fantasy, horror, or science fiction, allows us to “visit” a dangerous realm where, as Lewis says above, moral issues really matter. There’s no disguising right and wrong, nor can one confuse them with one another, when life and limb are on the line, whether it’s the protagonist’s own well-being, that of his loved one(s), or that of an ideal the protagonist has pledged himself to uphold.

     No doubt you’ve seen this before:

Hard times create hard men.
Hard men create good times.
Good times create soft men.
Soft men create hard times.

     We’re somewhere between the late third and the early fourth phases of that cycle today. I think most of us are aware of it. Yet rare is the man, whatever his convictions, who would elect a greater degree of danger for himself or those he loves. He’d much rather enjoy such a realm vicariously, in fiction of his preferred genre.

     Food for thought.

And, Finally the Fog Lifts!

I had been struggling for most of the last year with mental fogginess and lack of energy/ambition. Not at all like me.

I was reading last week that Singular has been associated with Alzheimer's; Sarah Hoyt said that she'd been struggling with the same symptoms I had, and she'd eliminated the med.

I've been off for 4 days - what a difference! I whizzed through a load of tasks that had been hanging around for the better part of a month in just a few hours. I'd been working on the certification for insurance products, and just barely passing the tests, after several tries.

Today, first time scores of 96-100% - same type of tests.

I'm beginning to wonder just how much of elder senility and "senior moments" is due to such drug side effects. Yeah, I realize that, sometimes, you just have to bite the bullet in the short term, and accept unpleasant consequences, if it keeps you alive and healthy.

But, still. 4 freaking days, and it's like I'm myself again!

And, now, for a Disaster in Process - but, not really.

A bride and groom were just about to cut into their cake, when the table collapsed. Now, for some women, this would have been an occasion for screaming, crying, and histrionic emoting for social media.

Not this girl - she recovered nicely, and laughed off the mishap.

Now, that's a woman with a sense of proportion! I predict a long and happy marriage for this couple - she is clearly mature and sensible.

Quickies: Laughter Is The Best Tactic

     A few Gentle Readers have made note of the new “Monopoly: Socialism” game Hasbro has introduced as a parody of the original. It does look wildly funny, especially as Hasbro has accurately caught the essence of both socialism and the socialist promoter. But what a lot of younger folks don’t realize is that this isn’t the first of its kind.

     The first “socialism game” was meant seriously.

     Some years ago there was a university professor named Bertell Ollman. Ollman was a socialist. He sought tirelessly for ways to promote the socialist ideology...and eventually happened upon the idea of representing it in a game. He designed a game board and some rules, persuaded some like-minded friends to try it out with him, and decided to give it a go in the marketplace. He titled it “Class Struggle,” borrowed heavily to produce and distribute it, and sent it forth.

     “Class Struggle,” to put it gently, didn’t find many takers. It lost Ollman a lot of money. But he did write a book about his experiences: a moderately funny book, in its wrongheaded way. You can still get it at Amazon, if you’re interested.

     There are socialists who can have failure take them by their ideology’s throat and half-strangle them, and still never give it up. There are socialists who’ll claim that the failures of socialism throughout history “weren’t real socialism.” And there are socialists who’ll blame every failure of a socialist program on “enemies” determined to “sabotage” their noble ideal.

     Hasbro has the right idea: Make fun of them. And note: the Left is completely humorless. Thus, they regard any jape at them as a lethal attack, which reinforces the public’s perception of them as humorless scolds who merely want to control all our lives.

     “The devil...the prowde spirit...cannot endure to be mocked.” – Saint Thomas More

Elitism, 21st Century Style

     Somewhere in my vast humor files, I have an old New Yorker cartoon of two obvious Christian clerics walking down a city street. One is speaking to the other; the other is plainly displeased by what he’s hearing. The caption:

     “When will you admit it, Perkins? I am holier than thou.”

     I got a big laugh out of it, back when. Today it’s practically a schematic for the behavior of the luminaries of the Left.


     My Gentle Readers have all encountered the term virtue signaling by now. Its meaning is pretty plain; no need to go into a painfully detailed exposition on it. The subject I have in mind this fine rainy morning is competitive virtue signaling: the new indoor sport by which left-wing politicians and mouthpieces who seek prominence among their admirers – some in the quest for high office, others hoping for a billet at the New York Times — strive to outdo one another.

     Competitive virtue signaling is inherently as lucid as its base phrase: Smith seeks to persuade listeners that he’s “holier” than Jones and Davis. The applications of the tactics available are circumscribed by the issues the left-inclined regard as “America’s sins.” Perennially popular venues include “slavery,” “racism,” “inequality,” “the environment,” and “colonialism.”

     The thinking, if that notion be applicable to such activities, is that he who castigates America and Americans most severely for these things will stand out from the field. He’ll become a “leader” to those who subscribe to the Left’s gospel. His statements will be amplified by his perceived virtue, hopefully to his elevation.

     It’s clear that this sort of competition is zero-sum at best. It’s just as clear that the “issues” constitute a constrained field in which to exercise one’s powers of condemnation and promised redress. People eventually feel they’ve “heard enough” about issue X. Sometimes they begin to wonder whether they’re the targets of Smith’s rhetoric. They want something new...at any rate, something else.

     As always, innovation is driven by imaginative and energetic persons dissatisfied with the status quo.


     For Smith to rise in the Left’s elite requires that he out-virtue-signal others who seek the adulation of the masses. But once the current “conceptual domain” for virtue signaling is saturated, what’s he to do? He can’t rant any more intensely about the existing subjects than his competitors. Neither can he innovate within the domain. What now?

     The answer, of course, is to expand the domain: i.e., to broaden the conceptual arena for virtue-signaling by adding new “issues” about which to rant. Several have been added in recent years:

  • “Environmental racism”
  • “Trans acceptance”
  • “Food justice”
  • “Hate speech”
  • “Triggerings”

     Those are the ones that come to mind as I write. There are others. If Smith manages to introduce a new subject to the virtue-signaling domain, he will naturally be the first to plumb its possibilities. His competitors will race to catch up. When they have done so, it will be time to find a new subject that will support further proclamations of America’s crimes and the Left’s moral superiority.

     If this progression has a hard terminus, beyond which further expansion of the virtue-signaling domain is impossible, I’m unable to find it.


     The competition for elite status on the Left doesn’t have an exact equivalent on the Right. The closest we come at this time is among the “NeverTrumpers:” “conservative” commentators who refuse to accept Donald Trump as the legitimate president despite his having been elected to the post. These compete with one another in finding ever more rarefied ways to criticize President Trump on his style and manner. Their conceptual domain is very difficult to expand, especially as President Trump is compiling a remarkable record of success at the very things the NeverTrumpers have claimed to advocate but have never delivered.

     The NeverTrumpers are steadily being squeezed out of the political space they once dominated: the Right-leaning opinion-editorial press. But what else would we have expected, given that Trump’s successes are multiplying, his popularity is rising among all demographic cohorts, and the nation’s overall metrics of prosperity and security are steadily strengthening? If there’s even a possibility of expanding the NeverTrump conceptual domain, I can’t see it...and apparently neither can the NeverTrumpers.


     Kurt Schlichter has a good column today on the falsity of our “elite.” That falsity is revealed most dramatically by the “elite’s” inability ever to deliver on what it claims it advocates:

     What have they ever solved? Hell, they created most of these problems in the first place. They whine about student loans, but who set up the college cash machine that is American academia? Our medical system is a wreck? Dudes, our medical system is Obamacare, and you’re the ones who stuffed it down our gullets!

     In what way has our garbage elite proven itself capable of doing anything right, much less overseeing our doctors, protecting our newly-disarmed citizenry and controlling the weather? In no way – which is why they hate accountability, and why the elite’s lapdog media is entirely unconcerned with the elite’s constant screw-ups and utterly focused on the invented flaws of those of us who refuse to be serfs of incompetent elitist twerps.

     Shall we have a big “of course?” Anyone who’s paid enough attention these past few decades knows the truth of Schlichter’s observations. A nation whose “elite” has taken it from putting men on the Moon to putting men in women’s lavatories has no substantive claim to its status. But the virtue signaling has continued nonstop...and it will continue onward, as long as there are persons who pay more attention to rhetoric and style than to substance and performance.

     Ignore what the virtue-signalers say. Watch what they do. It’s often good for a laugh, if nothing else.

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Surmises About Strategies

     It’s unwise ever to assume that no one else is as perceptive – or as smart – as you are. There are plenty of smart folks wandering around. Some of them possess knowledge you don’t have. Sometimes that knowledge comes from experiences you don’t share. Sometimes it comes from information you’ve been denied.

     Concerning all such things, it’s also well to remember that smart and good aren’t guaranteed to appear in the same people.


     I’m a smart guy. I’d like to think I’m a good guy. I’d also like you, Gentle Reader, to think I’m a good, smart guy. It’s a combination to which every politician aspires. It would lead you to trust him. It would help to make him persuasive.

     Help. Not guarantee.

     Now add the third attribute: knowledgeable. Not everyone is knowledgeable about the same things. If Smith is generally regarded as a good, smart guy but not particularly knowledgeable about some topic, what he’ll bring to a discussion of that topic is his reasoning power, as applied to information others will supply. But he won’t have the kind of authority allowed to an expert on the subject who “has all the facts.”

     When expert Jones arrives and tells Smith that “the facts” don’t support his logic, Smith will be set back on his heels. There are, of course, possible rejoinders to Jones’s assertion. What facts? Who gathered them? Were they neutrally assembled or “cherry-picked?” If third party Davis should agree with Smith’s implication that “the facts” should be brought out and studied in the light of those questions, then Jones’s “expert” status will count for less. But if Davis should concede Jones’s “expertise,” Smith’s reasoning will be peremptorily dismissed.

     Because the domain of knowledge is so vast, very few persons know much about more than one or two subjects. Most of us are humble enough to admit this. Even a long lifetime will seldom bring a man intimate knowledge of more than one or two areas. Of course an older man’s authority can be challenged on the grounds of his “overly rosy memories” or his “obsolete perspective.” And it will be, if there are topical zealots around who promote a view contrary to his.

     The consequence is a dominance of subject-focused discussions by “experts.” The “expertise” involved is sometimes genuine...but not always, as the case of Michael Bellesiles should indicate.


     One of the Left’s long-term strategies is to persuade Americans that the “expertise” on various subjects of public importance is the property of the Left. For examples, consider the following subjects of intense public debate:

  • Private ownership of firearms.
  • Alternative educational systems.
  • Medical care and medical insurance.
  • The economic contributions of illegal aliens.

     On all four of those subjects, Leftist mouthpieces have bellowed that “the facts” support their positions:

  • Private persons should be forbidden to own firearms.
  • The “public” schools are just fine (except that they need more money).
  • Government-funded, government-managed health care is superior to the free market.
  • Access to the United States should be open without conditions to all immigrants to our shores.

     However, on those subjects and many others, “the facts” are not as the Left would have us believe. As Americans come to realize this, the trend toward skepticism about the claims of “experts” grows ever stronger. For the present at least, that’s a healthful trend that should be encouraged. But it does have a downside. The ultimate destination of an ever-accelerating skepticism is absolute cynicism: the conviction that “no one can be trusted.”


     The American Right no longer has a unitary identity...if, indeed, it ever did. Today there are at least two camps of importance on the right side of the political spectrum: the populists and the “ur-conservatives.” These two groups are as hostile to one another as they are to the Left, and on some subjects possibly more so.

     The populists put Donald Trump in the White House. If they have a coherent agenda, it’s the Trump agenda, which in essence amounts to putting American interests and the priorities of legitimate Americans above all else, regardless of the issue under discussion. We have seen elements of this agenda enacted over the two and a half years behind us. The results have been positive to date, which is the strongest honest statement anyone can make about a current in public policy. Is there a possibility of a reversal of fortune? Of course; isn’t there always? But for the moment, based on current developments, President Trump is proving to be the right man for our time.

     The “ur-conservatives” are nominal Republicans who regard the Trump shakeup of federal “business as usual” as a negative thing. Most of them don’t criticize the president’s results on factual grounds; that would be foolish. But they can natter about “institutional instability” and “public manners” as if those things were of higher importance. Their critique is thus more about style than substance. It’s focused on the continuation of existing arrangements and the preservation of existing institutions, including the “deep state.” It can make one wonder which side of their toast is buttered, and by whom.

     I’ve labeled them “ur-conservatives” because their attitude is the one that conforms most closely to the dictionary definition of conservative: “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.” It has little to do with the virtues of particular policies. It’s more about keeping existing applecarts from being upset...even if that should prevent new applecarts from being filled.

     As we would expect, these two Rightist camps have plainly opposed strategic visions. The populists point to current results and argue for their continuation. If they had a mantra other than “Make America Great Again,” it might be “why get off a winning horse?” The “ur-conservatives” lament stylistic and procedural changes and the disruption of existing institutions – especially their own – and predict calamities to come. Their mantra might be “Just wait; you’ll be sorry!”

     And both have some valid points to make.


     I’m an old man. I grew up in a time when we ate whatever we pleased, just about every high school had a shooting club, only boys could join the Boy Scouts, and violence was something you had to watch on TV. It wasn’t an era utterly free of problems. We had ongoing tensions with the Soviets, some degree of interracial unease, a slowly growing federal deficit, and ruinously expensive toll telephone rates. But America in the mid-Sixties was a very pleasant place to live, especially if you enjoyed Mission: Impossible and Bonanza.

     Moreover, we weren’t at war with one another: over race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious creed, or political positions. We got along. That stands out above all else.

     The conflicts of our time arise from a large number of sources and issues, but just about all of them are exacerbated by two factors: “experts” and politics. Worst (of course) are the “experts” who align themselves with specific political postures. These appear to have as their aim the precipitation of ever worse social and political strife, possibly eventuating in large-scale violence.

     Yes, the media play a part. Yes, our political differences could and should be subordinated to a freedom-of-expression ethic and a willingness to allow the other guy his right to his opinion. Yes, the “experts” would be far less toxic to public peace if they weren’t endlessly being shoved in our faces by one or another cable channel. Yes, yes, yes.

     But here we are. Every side has its strategy. Every side is in it to win it. Every side has its pet experts, whom it promotes at every turn. And every side is participating in the escalation of the combats fragmenting our society.


     My Gentle Readers have been writing to me quite a bit lately. The tone of the email has been trending confused, even worried, as if to say: “Are you all right, Fran? Your latest stuff has been pretty strange...well, stranger than usual.” I suppose this piece is just part of that pattern. Yet as with everything I write, it’s flowed from my personal perspective, my experiences, and my reflections on the events of the day.

     It might seem too bizarre a tangent even for the famously erratic Curmudgeon Emeritus to the World Wide Web, but you might want to spend a few CPU cycles on this: I’ve been listening to a lot of old pop music lately. Old as in you first heard it on your AM Radio. Old as in actual melodies and harmonies, even some occasional counterpoint. Old as in no politics, no sex, and no Anglo-Saxon vulgarities. The Beach Boys. The early Beatles. The BeeGees before disco. Chad and Jeremy. The Dave Clark Five. Donovan. The Hollies. Jay and the Americans. The Kingston Trio. The Lovin’ Spoonful. The Mamas and the Papas. Paul Revere and the Raiders. Spanky and Our Gang. And my all-time favorites, The Association.

     When I arrived at college, I discovered something surprising: those groups and their music were almost uniformly dismissed as “plastic.” Why? They sounded good. They sang in smooth voices and played their instruments like musicians. They were non-vulgar. They weren’t trying to sell you on some political position or promote some trumped-up “crisis.”

     It took a while for me to realize that those were the reasons my fellow collegians dismissed them.

     It was one of the symptoms of the troubles to come, the proverbial “clouds the size of a man’s hand” on our social and political horizons. And it is difficult for me, at this remove, to believe that it had no genesis other than a change in tastes.

     There was a strategy in play even then. We were unable to see it, even as it operated on us.

     I think I’d better close now. Have a nice day.

Pearls of expression.

This sort of thinking [progressive hysteria about "hate speech"] is very similar to the basic concept that underlies the practice of magic, the non-sleight-of-hand-type of magic that is, - the idea that you can produce effects in the physical world simply by uttering the right word or combination of words.[1]

Notes
[1] "Bring Back Bron!" By Gerry T. Neal, Throne, Altar, and Liberty, 8/15/19.

Corrected 8/23/19.

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Dem Candidates Fumble Condemnation of Antifa

See here.

What Men Need To Be

     There are subjects about which I shouldn’t write. Not because I have nothing to say about them, mind you, but because even thinking about them raises my blood pressure close to the catastrophic failure level. Worse, those subjects have been multiplying at an alarming rate. It suggests that fairly soon I’ll be reduced to doing my frothing at the mouth in total silence.

     Whether for good or for ill, my Gentle Readers send me links to all manner of articles, including articles on subjects of the variety mentioned above. (No, I’m not about to ask them to stop.) So regardless of my cardiologist’s recommendations, I daily confront examples of irrationality and viciousness that light my boilers and get steam pouring out of my ears. And before you ask: Yes, I have one before me this morning:

     Women are challenging incumbents up and down the ballot, banding together to demand action on gun violence, going undercover to fight misinformation online, pushing for consequences for perpetrators of sexual assault, organizing against laws restricting access to reproductive care.

     And every so often, we stop to look for the men in the room. We scroll through our Twitter feeds, our group text threads, our email chains. We look for the ones who chimed in, took a stand, organized their workplaces or their communities.

     Too often, we’re left craning our necks. We have male allies in Congress and in our workplaces and at home who’ve made important contributions to the fight for gender equity, to be sure. But we have many, many more men on the sidelines.

     If you’re a conservative – of either sex – the above ought to incense you. At the very least it should have you repressing some very naughty language. As Dad was a Navy man, I assure you that I’d be right there alongside you.

     “Action on gun violence.” Excuse me? Don’t we already have laws against assault with a deadly weapon? Or do you have it in mind to take our guns from us?

     “Perpetrators of sexual assault.” Got anyone in mind? Bill Clinton, perhaps? Maybe Joseph Biden? Or is this an attempt to refuel the “#MeToo” wagon that’s making men shy away from women in more and more venues?

     “Misinformation online.” From what sources? The New York Times’s recent attempts to persuade us that the duly elected President of these United States is actually a Russian agent? Or its more recent initiative to persuade us that America’s founding principle has always been slavery? Or are we talking about “progressives’” drive to censor Americans who disagree with them?

     And what’s this about “restricting access to reproductive care” – ? Is your concern about the expense of in vitro fertilization services? Do you have even one example of a pregnant woman being denied gynecological or obstetrical services? Or is this another veiled attempt to conflate “reproductive care” with abortion?

     If the authoress of the article is hoping for male allies for those “causes,” I wouldn’t advise her to hold her breath while she waits.


     It’s been said that we all get more conservative as we get older. That pattern isn’t without exceptions. I’ve known a couple of people who got more left-inclined over time. I haven’t seen one of them in some years, but I’m still in touch with the other, so the “aging makes you grow more conservative” rule does have exceptions.

     What aging does seem to do to each of us, quite reliably, is to reduce our tolerance for bullshit. Life’s too short always to be mucking out one’s mental stable. That includes feminist bullshit. I’ve certainly had enough of it, and I know I’m not alone in that regard.

     This Reshma Saujani appears not to be in touch with the trends: specifically, what she and her feminist allies have done to drive American men away from women. For that is the direction in which American men have been moving for nearly twenty years. Let’s list some of the causative influences:

  • Employment law’s preferential treatment for women;
  • The “guilty until proven innocent” standard on women’s allegations of male sexual misconduct;
  • The destabilization of marriage through “no-fault” divorces;
  • The destruction of fathers’ rights under modern family law;
  • The pauperization of divorced men through specious “child support” provisions;
  • Women’s increasing disdain for families and children, including their own;
  • The feminization of education, from grade school through university education.

     Those are just the ones that come to mind at this early hour. There are others.

     While all that’s been going on, with the entirely understandable consequence that American men are retreating from engagement with women, women have come to exhibit many of the maladies that were once regarded as “men’s problems:”

  • Drinking to excess;
  • Shortness of temper;
  • Constant fatigue and mental lapses;
  • Slovenliness, vulgarity and foul speech;
  • A tendency to lash out at family members;
  • And of course, constant complaints about being unappreciated.

     Could there be any better evidence that the supposed gains women have made since the advent of post-war feminism have actually been losses – for all of us?

     Yet women are still demanding more privileges – free birth control, free abortions, special workplace accommodations, seat quotas in corporate management, et cetera – and whining about not having any “male allies.”

     If Miss Saujani expects men with any significant amount of self-respect to sign onto that, she’s seriously deluded. Yet her article appears in Fortune, a place I’d not have expected to see such nonsense. Nor is it her first publication there.

     Better do your ally-prospecting among the soyboys and beta cucks, Reshma baby; you won’t get much action from genuine men.


     As I’m feeling even more exercised at the moment than I was when I first set my fingers to the keys, allow me a brief personal statement.

     As the song goes, there’ve been some women in my life. You could say I’ve known my share. Most of them have been decent sorts, even those who parted company with me on unfriendly terms. But the emergence of aggressively demanding, “entitled” women, including a growing number who openly proclaim men to be “the enemy,” has made it harder for me to trust any woman. They don’t show the telltales quickly enough for me to award the classical “benefit of the doubt.” So I tend to avoid them in just about all venues and all circumstances: socially, occupationally, at my parish, and in my neighborhood.

     My attitude is hardly unique. I’ve known just as many men as women. Ever more of them are taking a noli me tangere attitude toward the “fairer sex.” It’s safer that way, even if can make one’s nights a bit lonely.

     When I met the woman who is now my wife, I was on the verge of vowing to stay away from women for good. And there have been moments since then when I’ve wondered if it might have been the best course even so.

     To any American women who have suffered through this diatribe: It’s time to choose. You can be an “entitled” harridan enlisted in the war on men, or you can be a decent person who takes us as we are and asks nothing more. Men are not going to award their love, their respect, or their fellowship to the former sort of female, no matter how good she looks in a bikini. We’re certainly not going to ally ourselves with your anti-male “causes.”

     Consider yourselves warned.

Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Seductive Questions

     Certain questions have a terrible power about them. They can stop the mind of him who confronts them. That derives in part from the questions themselves, but in equal or greater measure from the context in which they’re posed. Not all questions are proper in all contexts.

     Here’s a Wall Street Journal article that creates a context for such questions:

     The leaders of some of America’s biggest companies are chipping away at the long-held notion that corporate decision-making should revolve around what is best for shareholders.

     The Business Roundtable on Monday changed its statement of “the purpose of a corporation.” No longer should decisions be based solely on whether they will yield higher profits for shareholders, the group said. Rather, corporate leaders should take into account “all stakeholders”—that is, employees, customers and society writ large.

     It is a major philosophical shift for the association, which counts the chief executives of dozens of the biggest U.S. companies as its members. The group, led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO James Dimon, is a powerful voice in Washington for U.S. business interests. It represents a broad swath of American industry, counting among its members the leaders of technology giants and manufacturing companies, airlines and institutional investors, to name a few.

     The Business Roundtable’s old statement of purpose espoused economist Milton Friedman’s decades-old theory that companies’ only obligation is to maximize value for shareholders.

     “Each of our stakeholders is essential,” the new statement says. “We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

     It all sounds quite noble, doesn’t it? Though it approaches hubris to differ with Milton Friedman, one of the Twentieth Century’s few genuine geniuses. But here come the unpleasant questions:

  • Who identifies those “stakeholders” and by what criteria?
  • Who determines the priority order of those “stakeholders?”
  • Who determines when some “stakeholder’s” claims have been adequately addressed?
  • Is that prioritization absolutely rigid – i.e., the higher must be fully satisfied before the lower may be addressed at all – or flexible?
  • What effect on the answers to the above questions might arise from the passage of time?

     He who must answer those questions swiftly realizes – or reveals – what the proposed shift from stockholders to “stakeholders” is really about: power.

     Think about that for a moment while I fetch more coffee.


     Allow me, yet again, to quote the great Herbert Spencer:

     A blade which is designed both to shave and to carve, will certainly not shave so well as a razor or carve so well as a carving-knife. An academy of painting, which should also be a bank, would in all probability exhibit very bad pictures and discount very bad bills. A gas company, which should also be an infant-school society, would, we apprehend, light the streets ill and teach the children ill. [From Spencer’s essay “Over-Legislation”]

     Brilliant and perfectly apposite. The more “purposes” one attempts to assign to a “living machine” such as a corporation, the less well it will serve any of them. It will be riven by internal conflicts over resources, the roles of critical personnel, trade-offs that arise among the contending priorities, and other factors that will arise as time passes. You can’t find one single analyst who would dispute the inevitability of that dynamic, even among those such as Dimon who argue for the dilution of corporate priorities. So what’s the real point?

     Well, in a hierarchical organization, which is the inevitable structure of a for-profit corporation, someone, or some entity, must have the authority to resolve those conflicts. And of course, that same entity would necessarily decree the answers to the five questions posed in the previous segment. Any attempt to separate those authorities would result in the emergence of a still higher authority empowered to settle the conflicts among them. Yes, really.

     Power, both inside and outside the corporation, is the whole point. The corporate form was devised to make it possible to pursue a single objective: material gain for the stockholders. As long as that remains the case, the performance of the corporation’s hierarchy can be accurately judged by the Board of Directors, which has that as its sole responsibility. But with the defocusing suggested in the WSJ article comes a diminution of the Board’s authority, and therefore a transfer of the ultimate authority from the stockholders to other persons...persons unlikely to have the stockholders’ interests at heart.

     So how does that noble-sounding shift from stockholders to “stakeholders” sound now?


     At this point a range of objections intended to confuse the issue erupts from the “social-justice warriors.” The more rhetorically skilled among them ask seductive questions that begin with “But aren’t there” or “But don’t you think.” The objective is to lure the businessman into making statements about “other priorities,” at which point the SJW will declaim that “important institutions” (i.e., corporations) have a “responsibility” to attend to them. The more aggressive ones await the replies, then immediately and viciously denounce anyone who dares to deviate from the SJW gospel. And of course, now and then there’ll be disruptions and violence.

     The questions have a single, all-embracing answer:

“No.”

     A for-profit corporation has no responsibility other than to its owners. It must remain within the law, but apart from that it need only satisfy those who own it: its stockholders. Their representatives on the Board of Directors periodically judge the corporation’s performance and adjust its management accordingly. The stockholders’ decisions to buy or sell their stock constitute their verdict on the corporation’s future.

     That valuable movie Other People’s Money provides a glimpse at a more extended rejoinder:

     Other organizations exist to pursue priorities other than material gain. There are plenty of them. Persons more concerned with those other priorities should put their attention, their efforts, and their money elsewhere. That, of course, runs counter to the Left’s overriding objective, which is the politicization of everything.

     Dismiss the seductive questions. Insist upon the corporation's one original, wholly moral, easily understood purpose. Don’t let the Left pervert corporate America. You wouldn’t care for the consequences, especially if you’re a stockholder!

Yikes! Will the Media Ask Him About That?



Discussion of Gayness...

...by a gay drag queen. It's not prurient, but informative of HIS thinking. You might agree, or not, but, sometimes, we need to hear from those of a different frame of mind.

BTW, I tend to agree with a few of the commenters. "Drag kids" are being exploited by adults for the entertainment of those who like to see pre-teen boys in effeminate clothing, acting in a sexualized manner. Ask yourself: would a 9 or 10 year-old girl acting in such a manner in public, before an audience of adults, not immediately trigger a call to the police?

Monday, August 19, 2019

NC Runoff Election - It's Getting Dirty

The mud is a-slingin' and the half-truths are everywhere.

Naturally, the GOP candidate - Dan Bishop - is being smeared as being "in the pocket" of drug companies, for his vote on a bill to reduce drug prices.

"He voted against it!' McCready's ads are screaming!

Well, not exactly - he voted for an earlier version of it. He refused to vote for one version, as he hadn't had time to read it thoroughly.

Now, I'm not a professional politician, but I think that's just sensible - particularly as the Dems are notorious for making tiny changes that are both costly and NOT what bill sponsors had intended.

The other major thing that is said against him is that he invested in Gab in the early days. It's being described as a Nazi-infested site that was used by a recent domestic terrorist. As far as I know, the last part of that is correct.

You know what OTHER sites that terrorist probably used?

  • Google!
  • Facebook!
  • Amazon!
Horrifying, isn't it?

Gab may be a lot of things - they ran into some issues controlling the Leftist trolls, who used accounts to pose as Alt-Right advocates, and fill the site with a lot of crap.

Gab took appropriate action, took down the site temporarily, and cleaned it up, starting with shutting down the trolls. Do some express anti Semitic views, still?

Sure, a few, none of whom I follow. For that matter, anti Semitic messages are a hallmark of Leftists. I don't see them condemned. Gab, unlike Facebook, makes it relatively easy to ignore such posts, and block them from your feed.

Not eliminate them, just block them. That's the point of a place like Gab - you're free to be an a$$hole, and I'm free to ignore you.

If you live in that district, vote for whoever you like. Just don't do so on specious grounds.