Friday, June 5, 2020

For The Doubters

     It can be hard, very hard indeed, to persuade the willfully disbelieving – the sort of person who demands that the evidence not be there, or that the implications not be plain and unavoidable – that something unpleasant is happening to which he must pay attention. If the subject has a relatively mild degree of significance to anyone, you can dismiss a difference of conviction as something tolerable. But if it’s a matter of real importance, perhaps even life and death, to you or someone you love, you can build up a great deal of frustration trying to crack that wall of disbelief.

     Unfortunately, the greater the importance of an unpleasant subject, the higher and thicker will be the disbeliever’s wall.

     Maybe it wasn’t always this way. Maybe when we were less comfortable, less accustomed to safety and prosperity and more aware of “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to,” we resisted bad tidings and their implications less determinedly. After all, they happened repeatedly, and to people we know. We couldn’t hide our eyes from them all the time; we had to accept their place in our world and their mechanisms of origin.

     But as people’s lives have lengthened, as we’ve become accustomed to convenience, as our pleasures have grown more affordable, as medical science has refined its ability to repair our ailments and relieve our sufferings, we’ve lost a great part of that awareness. We’ve distanced ourselves from the more unpleasant aspects of temporal existence, such that when they impinge upon us we react with bafflement if not anger: Can such outrages still happen to decent people in this Year of Our Lord 2020?

     Yes. Yes, they most certainly can and do – and they always will. For as long as men must linger under the veil of time, there will be pain. There will be sorrow and loss. There will be death. And there will be outrages that demand our attention and our correction, if we’re serious about considering ourselves better than the savages.

     Of course, that last conditional clause embeds a question of itself.


     The United States at this time is approximately 70% Euro-Caucasian, 13% Hispano-Caucasian, 13% Negro, and 4% Mongolian or “Pacific.” Those are hard numbers. They give the lie to those who claim that for America to become a “minority white” nation is “inevitable.” 83% of Americans are of the Caucasian race – i.e., white. Even if we omit the Hispanics, which some prefer to do for reasons divorced from race, and consider only Caucasians of European descent to be “white,” the figure remains at 70%: a strong majority.

     Our racial troubles arise from the 13% Negro fraction of our populace. Those troubles swell to a head and burst whenever a non-Negro law enforcer kills a Negro criminal or suspect. Nothing comparable occurs when a Negro law enforcer kills a non-Negro criminal or suspect. Indeed, those killings are hardly even mentioned in the regional papers.

     But hark! What have we here?

     Some of the most comprehensive information we have comes from a 2001 Bureau of Justice Statistics report examining incidents where police in the United States used deadly force to kill criminal suspects between 1976 and 1998. During that 23-year span, 42% of all suspects killed by police were black – a figure that comported precisely with the percentage of violent crimes committed by African Americans during that same period. This is enormously significant because we would expect that in police forces not plagued by systemic racism, officers would shoot suspects of various racial or ethnic backgrounds at rates closely resembling their respective involvement in the types of serious crimes most likely to elicit the use of force by police. And indeed, that is exactly what the evidence shows.

     Moreover, in nearly two-thirds of all justifiable homicides by police during 1976-98, the officer’s race and the suspect’s race were the same. When a white or Hispanic officer killed a suspect, that suspect was usually (63% of the time) white or Hispanic as well. And when a black officer killed a suspect, that suspect was usually black (81% of the time).

     How about the rate at which officers killed suspects of other racial or ethnic backgrounds? In 1998, the “black-officer-kills-black-felon” rate was 32 per 100,000 black officers, more than double the rate at which white and Hispanic officers killed black felons (14 per 100,000). That same year, the rate at which white and Hispanic officers killed white or Hispanic felons (28 per 100,000) was much higher than the “black-officer-kills-white-or-Hispanic-felon” rate of 11 per 100,000.

     ATTENTION: I went to considerable difficulty to preserve those links. Follow them. Always check a commentator’s assertion of fact, especially one that has unpleasant implications. Insist on confirmations from independent sources. If you can dispute his facts, you can dismiss his implications – but the inverse is also true: If you cannot dispute his facts, you cannot dismiss his implications; you must attack his reasoning, which is usually a much more difficult proposition.

     So: I contend, with John Perazzo, that if law enforcement is the subject, then there is no problem of “systemic racism” as the racialist hucksters have alleged. Descriptions of the suspect overwhelmingly match those convicted of the crimes attributed to them. From the statistics above, police uses of force, including lethal force, match their needs to use force when subduing members of the recognized races.

     That doesn’t mean there won’t be any outrages. Owing to the conflicts between the two autopsies performed, we still don’t know whether George Floyd’s death should be attributed to the police action in subduing him. However, let’s stipulate – i.e., accept for the sake of argument – that the knee-on-the-neck treatment really did kill Floyd. Does that incident, isolated from the statistics above, justify the hucksters’ claims of systematic white-on-black police brutality?

     I say that it does not.


     Despite the figures above, America is in the middle of a race war: i.e., a violent conflict founded on racial grievances, whether justified or not. While some of the rioters are white, the conflict is over race and racial animosities: if there were no racial grievances, there would be no race-related agitation and no race-based conflict. So far the violence has been semi-localized to cities with significant black populations, though it is not guaranteed to remain so.

     How does a nation end a race war – an internal race war?
     Does it matter whether or not the allegations of “institutional racism” are accurate?
     Indeed, do the American conceptions of rights and justice bear any relevance whatsoever to the conflicts and violence of the day?

     The fomenters of the conflict are uninterested in ending the war. They’re indifferent to the facts on the ground that refute the allegations of systemic white-on-black racism. Nor are they concerned with rights or justice as Americans understand them. The race war in progress is one they’ve labored mightily to evoke. It’s their tool for the overthrow of the American economic, social, and political order.

     This renders any conceptually American response – i.e., rights and justice-based – to the race war ineffective ab initio. What other approaches exist that the great majority of Americans would accept? Is it possible to halt the war and restore peace without actually fighting and winning it? Were American whites to rise to the occasion, meet violence with violence, and ultimately prevail, what would necessarily follow?

     Are these possibilities and considerations too ugly to address open-eyed? Is the willful disbelief evinced by the white majority insuperable? Are we irreversibly resolved to insist that if we just bar our doors, close our eyes, and wait long enough, it will all “go away?”


     Only one avenue that does not involve purging or expelling the entire Negro fraction of the American population from these shores is even imaginable: seeking out the fomenters, of whatever race, and putting them to the sword swiftly and publicly. What chance does it have?

     It’s been said by others that starting a riot is easy but scheduling, controlling, or ending one is not. This has the ring of truth. The riots are in progress. They have their own dynamic. The fomenters had the riots as their object. Having achieved it, they’re either working to sustain and enlarge the riots or (figuratively) watching from the sidelines. Yet even if they had an interest in shutting the violence down, how does one “foment” the end of a riot? By what technique – and this presumes that the forces of order could somehow enlist the fomenters in this cause – could an enraged mob be systematically, effectively “de-enraged?”

     If you’re inclined to believe, as I do, that no such approach exists, then what remains? Only punishment. Let’s imagine that some “core group” of fomenters and organizers of the riots could be identified and captured. Would anything the American justice system could do to them have the desired effect?

     That seems a longshot. I’d love to be wrong about that, as it strikes me as the last strategic possibility remaining to us that doesn’t involve eliminating the Negro fraction of the American populace. The federal government, which has blanket authority over the subjects of terrorism and insurrection, must try it, swiftly and resolutely.

     Should that fail, what will remain is the hoof-and-mouth disease cure. That remedy is a terrible one. However, it has this virtue: it is effective. There is a threshold level of disruption and destruction which, should we pass it, will put it into practice.


     I dislike writing about this subject. I wanted to believe in the possibility of interracial amity for many years. I’m as appalled as anyone over what has come to pass. But I’m not a dewy-eyed idealist who sticks flowers into gun barrels or believes that chanting Kumbaya can bring about world peace and human harmony. Most important of all, I respect the evidence...and the evidence tells a bleak tale.

     It does not matter whether the differences between the white and black races brought us to this pass, or whether it’s a consequence of history and the exploitation of carefully nurtured resentments by evil forces. We are where we are, not somewhere else. The problem must be solved – and whereas most things commentators characterize as “problems” that require “solutions” are really only immutable conditions that express natural laws, this one is soluble. Whether we have the clarity, fortitude, and perseverance to solve it remains to be seen.

     Pray.

Insurrection.

Is “a small number of lawbreakers” an apt description of wilding mobs who have showered cops with bottles, bricks and rocks in 40 cities, looted stores in the hundreds, torched police cars, and injured dozens of Secret Service personnel defending the White House?

Is “a small number of lawbreakers” the way a patriot would describe anti-American anarchists who desecrated the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II Memorial on the Mall and the Korean War Memorial and tried to burn down the Church of the Presidents in Lafayette Square?

Was the sacking of Georgetown, Rodeo Drive in LA, 5th Avenue in New York and 40 city centers, the work of a few “lawbreakers”?

Is that a good description of the people who gravely wounded that cop in Las Vegas and shot four cops and murdered that retired black police chief in St. Louis?

"Buchanan Blasts 'Liberal Mush' From The 'Mad Dog.'" By Patrick Buchanan, ZeroHedge, 6/5/20 (emphasis removed).

Thursday, June 4, 2020

Of Identity And Society

     I was leafing through my archives recently, mostly just to pass the time, when I stumbled upon an old science fiction story. I first encountered it in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in 1967. The author is known for his scientific / technological orientation. It’s often been asserted that those elements were the ones that really excited him, and that he found the more personal aspects of storytelling less interesting. Much of his oeuvre would appear to support that contention, but not the story I have in mind at the moment.

     Rather than reproduce the whole thing here, which might expose me to a claim of copyright infringement, I’m going to give you the backstory and present only the conclusion. The backstory is about a heart-transplant candidate in an era when alloplasty — the use of artificially crafted replacements for failing organs – has eliminated the need for organ donors. The candidate has been posed a choice: between a metal replacement-heart and a fibrous, polymeric heart closer in form and nature to the human heart. The candidate and his surgeon-to-be have just clashed over the merits of the two...


     “Well, I can’t tell what happened just by looking at you. What was his decision?”
     The surgeon bent over his desk, punching out the final items for his records. “What you predicted. He insists on the metallic cyber-heart.”
     “After all, they are better.”
     “Not significantly. They’ve been around longer; no more than that. It’s this mania that’s been plaguing humanity ever since Metallos have become citizens. Men have this odd desire to make Metallos out of themselves. They yearn for the physical strength and endurance one associates with them.”
     “It isn’t one-sided, doc. You don’t work with Metallos but I do; so I know. The last two who came in for repairs have asked for fibrous elements.”
     “Did they get them?”
     “In one case, it was just a matter of supplying tendons; it didn’t make much difference there, metal or fibre. The other wanted a blood system or its equivalent. I told him I couldn’t; not without a complete rebuilding of the structure of his body in fibrous material....I suppose it will come to that some day. Metallos that aren’t really Metallos at all, but a kind of flesh and blood.”
     “You don’t mind that thought?”
     “Why not? And metallized human beings, too. We have two varieties of intelligence on Earth now and why bother with two. Let them approach each other and eventually we won’t be able to tell the difference. Why should we want to? We’d have the best of both worlds; the advantages of man combined with those of robot.”
     “You’d get a hybrid,” said the surgeon, with something that approached fierceness. “You’d get something that is not both, but neither. Isn’t it logical to suppose an individual would be too proud of his structure and identity to want to dilute it with something alien? Would he want mongrelization?”
     “That’s segregationist talk.”
     “Then let it be that.” The surgeon said with calm emphasis, “I believe in being what one is. I wouldn’t change a bit of my own structure for any reason. If some of it absolutely required replacement, I would have that replacement as close to the original in nature as could possibly be managed. I am myself; well pleased to be myself; and would not be anything else.”
     He had finished now and had to prepare for the operation. He placed his strong hands into the heating oven and let them reach the dull red-hot glow that would sterilize them completely. For all his impassioned words, his voice had never risen, and on his burnished metal face there was (as always) no sign of expression.


     My question is: Does the surgeon’s advocacy for maintaining one’s own original structure have application to the structure of a society?

     (And just in case you couldn’t guess, the title of the story is “Segregationist,” and the author is the late, great Dr. Isaac Asimov.)

It’s All Gotten To Be Too Much...

     ...and a responsible commentator should know when to practice a little “op-ed distancing” from it all. So have a few links I found particularly interesting, but allow me, please, to spend some time working on my next novel, playing with my pets, and preparing for the Newf puppy we expect will arrive here tomorrow:

     Have a nice day.

Wednesday, June 3, 2020

This Is What It Will Take

     Precisely this and nothing less:

     When word started spreading that the same protesters that had just broken windows and looted stores in Spokane were going to come to Coeur d’Alene, hundreds of citizens mobilized to protect their community. So when the protesters did show up on Monday night, they quickly discovered that a very heavily armed “welcoming committee” was waiting for them....

     If you are not familiar with the geography of the area, Coeur d’Alene is not very far from the city of Spokane, Washington, and there had been quite a bit of rioting in Spokane on Sunday night.

     In fact, one local news source described it as “a frenzied night of tear gas, rubber bullets and flash-bangs” as police worked tirelessly to end the vandalism and looting. At one point, the Spokane Police Department actually sent out a cellphone alert warning everyone in the region to “avoid the downtown core area”…

     Police used tear gas and rubber bullets to get control of protesters who were rioting and in the downtown area of Spokane, destroying property. Rioters sprayed graffiti, broke windows, and looted select businesses.

     In the aftermath of that horrible night, word began to spread that protesters were planning to show up in Coeur d’Alene on Monday night, and that is precisely what happened…

     But north Idahoans are not without their own resources:

     But there were no riots because the protesters discovered that they were vastly outnumbered by the locals that were waiting to “welcome” them.

     A reporter for the Coeur d’Alene Press was in the downtown area on Monday evening, and he reported that “hundreds of citizens” had mobilized to protect the city…

     Soon, more armed men, self-described as a loosely formed group of patriots, arrived. They took up posts at corners on both sides of Sherman Avenue.
     Later, they were joined by hundreds of citizens packing rifles, semi-automatic weapons, handguns, and bows and arrows.
     The sidewalks were packed with people walking up and down Sherman Avenue, firearms proudly displayed for all to see.

     Apparently the would-be “protestors” weren’t mortally foolish. But sooner or later, some AntiFa or BLM type will think “Naah, they wouldn’t dare.” Remember that you read it here first.

Ugly Truths Dept.

     Apropos of nothing, if you have any taste whatsoever for romantic comedy, and can endure a certain degree of raunch (rauncherie? raunchitude?), by all means delight in Katherine Heigl’s and Gerard Butler’s laugh-fest The Ugly Truth. Butler’s in-your-face misogyny comes off perfectly, and Heigl might have been designed and built in a lab for exactly this kind of role. Highly recommended.

     But that’s about 180° from the real subject of today’s tirade.


     To suppress a truth is to give it force beyond endurance. -- Originator unknown

     I know a fair number of intelligent, well-spoken people. Responsible to a fault. Serious about their opinions and the way they express them. Almost to a man, they’re seriously, deeply, committedly anti-racist. And of course, it troubles them no end that the one and only Certified Galactic Intellect of their acquaintance is an out-and-out racist.

     It compounds the felony that I refuse to hide it, or to be at all apologetic about it. Indeed, I argue for it, and for its implications for the future of the American civil order.

     The riots currently besieging America’s Democrat-controlled cities are an example of why I’ve reached the convictions I hold. American blacks have rioted several times even in recent years. City governments have done little or nothing to quell the disorder, vandalism, or violence. Rather, they’ve waited for it to “burn itself out” – which, mirabile dictu, has coincided with an armed counter-reaction from the police (occasionally), the citizenry (usually), or both. What an incredible coincidence, eh, Gentle Reader?

     As I’ve said before, a class is defined by its legal and social privileges. Those privileges do not need to be codified in the black-letter law to be real and effective:

     When a society makes special provisions for a particular class of persons, such that those persons have a good expectation of not suffering for illegal or antisocial behavior, it has committed the worst imaginable injustice against the persons in that class who honor their society's laws and norms: it has equalized the legal, social, and moral positions of good citizens and thugs. Thus, if ninety percent of such a class is law-abiding and decorous while ten percent is violent, dishonest, or disruptive, the latter category will come to overshadow the former in the perceptions of persons outside the class -- not because ten percent is a majority, but because that anti-social subgroup is identified with the class's special set of privileges.

     The reinforcement, over more than five decades, of the de facto existence of those privileges is the very foundation of the troubles besetting us today. It’s almost irrelevant that the Left has found the readiness of blacks to riot and loot politically useful. As has been said many times before, setting groups against one another in the name of “the revolution” is simply what they do.


     Several commentators, including persons as august as Victor Davis Hanson and as forceful as Tucker Carlson, have decried “tribalism” and “identity politics” as the genesis of today’s disorders. They’ve called for an end to all such perversities and a return to the e pluribus unum ideal engraved on the money:

     These are knowledgeable, intelligent men; if their prescriptions are pointless or misguided, it’s unlikely to be a deficiency in evidentiary awareness or an error in logic. Nevertheless, they are mistaken, and I shall tell you why.

The ugly truth about “tribalism” and “identity politics” is that it cannot be quenched so long as even one “tribe” or “identity” refuses to abandon it.

     For at least fifty years, black racialist hucksters have promoted and reinforced the notion that “blackness” is an identity that commands an allegiance prior and superior to all others. Add the victim mentality fostered by the political Left, which has always found it useful to set groups against one another as a path toward revolution, and you have nothing less than a state of war: an insurgency largely defined by race that has rebelled against the existing order.

     Once one group takes up identity politics – what the Spanish once called particularism — there are only two futures available. In the better one, those promoting the identity group are roundly and widely scorned, ridiculed, and marginalized. This reduces the promoters to pitiable fringists who, whatever the magnitude of their “voice,” are thereafter regarded as examples of a peculiar mental illness. Their influence on events is effectively zero.

     The poorer future arises when the promoters and those who flock to their banner are listened to respectfully, as if they “had a case,” and are accepted and accorded social stature for their claims. While it might not be “inevitable” in the strict sense, identity-based privileges seem always to follow. The past fifty-six years have seen an accretion of privileges and differential treatment for black identitarians. Preferential treatment in education, employment, access to government contracts, and more lenient treatment for black lawbreakers – sometimes expressed in the refusal to arrest, indict, and prosecute them at all – have been the result.

     This is the course we suffer. It’s also the influence that made me, a “child of the Sixties” who was once passionate about racial equality, an out-and-out racist.


     Maura Dowling, whose intellect, erudition, and energy are notable, laments thus:

     This will destroy our country if we let it. No more pandering, no more tribalism and identity politics, no more guilt trips. We are all one people and the enemy is at our gate and within. Speak up and stand up.

     Whether or not it might have been so in the past, and whether or not it could have been maintained thus, we are not “one people.” We will not be “one people” until black identity politics is destroyed. That will require a massive counter-insurgency: big enough, resolute enough, and forceful enough to suppress the race-based black insurgency and put an end to their hopes of becoming an explicitly privileged, supra-legal class: treated as above the law on account of “racism” and “victimhood.” Unfortunately, as our political class has revealed through its pusillanimity and flaccidity, by far the most probable form for such a counter-insurgency is through white identity politics. As civilized, law-respecting blacks have proved almost entirely unwilling to discipline their unruly brethren. American whites must band together in defense not only of their own lives, loved ones, and properties, but of American civil order itself.

     An interval of great violence, with many casualties, is likely to follow. The ultimate result could look a lot like this — and once again, this is not an end I look forward to with approval, much less with relish. It’s merely the one I find most likely.


     I’m not the only commentator thinking along these lines. This morning, Karl Spence echoes my thoughts about what will be required of us:

     Leaving aside any question of race, or of due process, what are we to make of the notion that certain “rapscals” constitute a burden whose continued existence the world is better off not bearing? That point seems to be what President Trump was getting at when he warned, regarding the current disorders: “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”...

     While Trump’s “looting, shooting” tweet provoked the usual pearl-clutching from all the usual suspects, it likely played much better with the public at large. Even those who hate Trump, even those who abhor racism and wouldn’t dream of hanging criminals, can hardly help desiring to see a more “orderly disposition” among their fellow citizens.

     A great many lampposts must acquire human ornaments before that “orderly disposition” can be achieved. If justice is to be served, a disproportionate number of those ornaments must be black. Justice to one side, there’s also the little matter of conveying to other blacks determined to maintain their privileged status that the party is over. But what force, what body of resolute men determined to see the American civil order restored, will see to the decorations if “our leaders” continue to decline the responsibility?

     Have a nice day.

An Open Letter to the Young, Who Are Being Sucked into this Chaos

Contrary to what you post on social media, I DO understand how you feel.

I was you, once. Young, compassionate, eager to see justice done to oppressed people.

Seeing today's protests/riots, I'm reminded of that young person. Who saw the protests, and sided with them against the police. Who once emerged from radio silence after a day's work, and was momentarily freaked out by the sight of armed soldiers - in real life, not bronze - surrounding the Cleveland Soldiers and Sailors monument in Public Square.

Who gradually moved from supporting peaceful protests (marching, chants, signs) to excusing those that threw bottles, rocks, and smashed windows.

Whose first thought, on hearing of the Kent State Shootings (May 4, 1970) was to side with the students and their Leftist allies.

It's hard to remember just when I started to evolve my thinking.
The riots will have a lasting effect on your life - IF you live through them. Not everyone did.


Property damage changes a community - and, not for the better. Homeowners will find that their insurance costs go up - a LOT. Businesses will have to add the increased cost of that insurance to their prices - giving them a reputation for price gouging, which leads to more shoplifting (which, then, raises prices). Eventually, the businesses cannot stay open, and the inner parts of the city have empty storefronts (which become a magnet for drug use and gang activity).


Don't react as though this was a random set of events, that just HAPPENED to escalate - that is never the case. The racheting up of events is planned, coordinated, and meant to cause harm. That harm brings in (hopefully) more naive protesters, who will then be lead to further damage - to themselves and others - ad infinitum.

There’s a distinct pattern when society breaks down, and as our society becomes more desperate, poverty-stricken, and lacking of moral compass, this trend will become more obvious. Note that the “lacking of moral compass” part doesn’t just refer to the thugs rioting and looting, but also to the cops who think that their badges give them permission to behave like street thugs, too.

Here’s the pattern:

  • An outrage occurs.
  • Good people react and protest the outrage.
  • Those perpetrating the outrage try to quell the protest because they don’t think that the outrage was actually outrageous.  (And whether it was or not can fluctuate – in some cases, force is necessitated, but in more and more cases, it is flagrantly gratuitous.)
  • Others react to the quelling and join the protest.
  • A mob mentality erupts. Thugs say, “Hey, it’s a free for all. I’m gonna get some Doritos and while I’m at it, beat the crap out of some folks for fun.”
  • All hell breaks loose.
  • The military gets called in.
  • The city burns, and neighborhoods get destroyed, and no one in the area is safe.
  • Cops act preemptively, out of fear, and for a time, there is no rule of law.
  • If you happen to be stuck there, know this: you’re completely on your own.
That process seems to be organic - spontaneously occurring - but, in fact, can be manipulated by just a few individuals who can change the outcome to meet their ends. They know this. They've trained to do this.

Here's how it work:
  • A peaceful protest is organized in response to a crisis. Those that attend are largely sincere, motivated by their conscience, and intend to memorialize the injured or dead.
  • A few more hysterical/emotional people act in an agitated way - screaming, moving towards any police or other officials that might be present. They may use words that indicate they would be happy with a less peaceful response.
  • A few people, usually not the leaders, but someone who has a connection with those in charge, will embrace the heartbroken people, they will let them vent, but also calm them down. They may remove them from the rest of the group, and spend extended time together.
    • This action is vital - it allows the Left to identify those that can be counted on to over-react, without concern for their own safety. They are the ones that can easily be provoked to ever-greater response, until they initiate the violence.
  • The next protest will have a greater number who urge more action, and less peace. "It's time to change what we're doing" and "The only thing that will stop this violence is fighting back". There may still be no physical aggression at this time - but the group is gradually being desensitized to expression of anger, and violent words. It's going to be only a short step to action, which will inevitably involve physical violence.
  • Inevitably, something will be thrown. It likely will not be AT the police (not yet) but it will cause some damage or trash in the street. Again, the desensitization is the point. People will become used to the idea of acting out in the protests.
  • Each time, the pull is away from peace, and towards violence. After each protest, the Leftists will spend time talking with the protesters, and getting the idea across that the only way to progress is to "get down and dirty". In this, the Leftists will be echoed by favored acolytes. People are validated the more that they fall in line with the group; many of those who provide the bulk of the protesters are outsiders, those that have not generally had many friends.
The end result is violence, followed by more enmeshing of the ground troops into the group dynamics.

Sheer chance plays a role in the outcomes - if something happens to interfere with the free flow of people, as has happened before, there will be an increased likelihood of a violent incident. That's a large part of what made the Kent State's shootings almost inevitable. The action that preceded the corralling of students into the parking lot was intentional; whether or not the Left planned to time it so as to coincide with a built-in changing of the classes. The numbers of students exiting the buildings at that critical time contributed to the "fog of war" that triggered the shootings.

Tuesday, June 2, 2020

Summary of the Cliff Notes version.

If any of America's "leadership" over the past 30 years had an ounce of concern for the common good, why did they enable financialization and globalization to hollow out the nation's economy and social order? Why did they enable the frauds, skims, scams, cartels and monopolies that are the foundation of virtually every American billionaire's "we pay no taxes" empires of greed?

The tyranny of corruption thrives in an amoral cesspool of anything goes and winners take all.

In today's America, the tyranny of corruption has been so normalized that America's polarized populaces are blind to the profound corruption of their parties and institutions. As in the last days of the Western Roman Empire, the masses are made complicit with bread and circuses, mimicking their "leaders" debasement of the public good to [by?] feeding at the public trough.

Search though you may, you'll find few politicians who operate with a focus on the common good. Anything more said about this is just surplussage.

"We're Living The Founding Fathers' Nightmare: America Is Corrupt To The Core." By Charles Hugh Smith, ZeroHedge, 6/1/20 (emphasis removed).

Monday, June 1, 2020

Racialist Extortionists Gonna Racially Extort

     Wasn’t it only recently that I wrote something about this sort of demand?

     The founder of Black Entertainment Television (BET), Robert Johnson says the recent riots prove that the U.S. needs to “go big” with a “$14 trillion” expenditure for slavery reparations as a way to address racial inequality in America.

     Appearing on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Monday, Robert Johnson insisted, “Now is the time to go big” with a really big plan.

     “Wealth transfer is what’s needed,” he exclaimed. “Think about this. Since 200-plus-years or so of slavery, labor taken with no compensation, is a wealth transfer. Denial of access to education, which is a primary driver of accumulation of income and wealth, is a wealth transfer....Damages is a normal factor in a capitalist society for when you have been deprived for certain rights,” Johnson insisted. “If this money goes into pockets like the [coronavirus] stimulus checks … that money is going to return back to the economy.”...

     The billionaire media mogul also thinks more black-owned businesses would start with such a massive reparations plan. But he pointed out that he does not want programs and policies. He wants outright cash to be handed to black people.

     “I’m talking about cash. We are a society based on wealth. That’s the foundation of capitalism,” Johnson said, not explaining where all that “cash” would come from.

     This man is a villain. Worse: a monster. Yet I have no doubt that he thinks he holds the moral high ground. Monsters often think themselves saints. Ask the ghosts of Hitler, Saddam Hussein, and Pol Pot. Disabusing them of their notions about their sanctity can take quite a lot of doing. Ask the men who fought to depose them.

     War is upon us, whether we wish it or not.

Strange Associations

     Well, perhaps this one isn’t so strange, after all.

     For some time I’ve been straining to get the Rosary back into my prayer life. Given the obvious need to pray for the nation in this time, I’ve managed to do so, at least tentatively. But just this morning, the evil little dwarf that manages the “Goose Fran when he least expects it” function of my hindbrain decided that right in the middle of Joyful Mysteries was the perfect time to start me laughing hysterically. In service to that mission, he tossed this recollection up at me:

     She'd been strangled with a rosary--not a run-of-the-mill rosary like you might get at a Catholic bookstore where Hail Marys are two for a quarter and indulgences are included on the back flap of the May issue of "Nuns and Roses" magazine, but a fancy heirloom rosary with pearls, rubies, and a solid gold cross, a rosary with attitude, the kind of rosary that said, "Get your Jehovah's Witness butt off my front porch."

     From the 2007 Bulwer-Lytton Contest, of course. Where else?

A Perfect Description Of Today’s Left

     When you have a large cohort of people who have no stake in society [and] a god-like sense of their own righteousness, you have a society that’s in a great deal of trouble. In 1968, when Democrats hit the streets, voters turned Republican. Now, though, after fifty years of leftist control over education and three years of the media savaging Trump, who knows what the voters are going to do. -- Bookworm

     Remember that the Left regards itself as intellectually and morally superior to you, entirely because of its political stances. Leftists therefore believe themselves free of any and all moral constraint in their dealings with you. Two groups that differ on fundamental moral precepts cannot share a nation. They must be separated: by force if necessary, which it usually is.

     No matter who says it, or where or when, "morally different" is a synonym for evil.

Pol Pot, a morally different individual.

Sunday, May 31, 2020

Anarcho-Tyranny On Parade

     On the very day a team of brilliant engineers catapulted two brave Americans into space, for the first time using launch and life support systems designed and built by a private American corporation, to thunderous nationwide cheers and celebrations, it appears that the collapse of the Republic has truly been set in motion.

     The rioting afflicting Minneapolis is being mirrored in several other cities. All those cities are currently under Democrat administrations. Coincidence? Perhaps...and perhaps not.

     It’s not about the death of George Floyd, no matter who says otherwise. No death, however unjust, could possibly justify the looting and burning of private property. Yet the rioters have done a great deal of that, along with the usual “liberating” of valuable portable goods from the places they’ve attacked.

     There are conflicting reports about the rioters. Some have said they’re almost entirely black, and there’s video to that effect. Others have said they’re largely white, and there’s video to that effect as well. Some say the rioters are mainly locals; others say they’re being bused in. It will be difficult, at least for a while, to sort through the competing claims.

     What’s beyond dispute is that in those cities and districts overrun by the rioters, the social order has vanished. We’re back to Hobbes’s state of nature once more. Only those ready, willing, and able to defend themselves and their property stand against the tide.

     But wait: isn’t this why we have law enforcement institutions? Doesn’t this sort of madness justify using the National Guard – and possibly the regular Army as well – to put down these insurrections? For insurrections, against law and the orderly social processes it’s supposed to safeguard, are plainly what we’re seeing. Moreover, the coordination among the afflicted cities is impossible to dismiss as mere coincidence.

     Yet in the riot-afflicted cities, the “forces of order” are largely passive. They weren’t passive in Detroit in July of 1967. Those riots threatened to destroy what was then called “America’s city of cathedrals,” and honored as one of the most beautiful urban areas on Earth. Michigan’s authorities appealed to the federal government for assistance in putting down the rioters. They got it, complete with an armored column to reassure Detroit’s peaceable residents that no further disorder would be tolerated.

     Tucker Carlson, as impassioned as usual (and justifiably so), asks us why the rest of us continue to “follow the rules.” He has a powerful point, one that has been foreshadowed by writers who’ve warned of “the coming middle-class anarchy.” Yet he has nevertheless failed to use the one word that would clarify our entire situation: anarcho-tyranny. Our “leaders” don't act against the rioters for a positive reason: the threat the rioters represent helps to keep the rest of us cowed -- "in our place," one might say. The irony is profound: we kowtow to the State, unto the minutest minutiae of licensure, inspections, permittage, and endless nuisance fees, out of the belief, carefully inculcated by all manner of propaganda systems from kindergarten onward, that it and only it stands between us and utter chaos...even as the very chaos we fear is unleashed among us, with the passive connivance of the State.

     Few are willing to say this...at least, few who have a mass audience. It goes against The Narrative: i.e., that it’s about “racism.” This is a complete inversion of the truth that no verbal denunciation could punish sufficiently. Yet that Narrative commands the airwaves. Racialist hucksters promote it relentlessly. Leftist politicians endorse it; those in the Right fear to contradict it. And many Americans have swallowed it uncritically.

     But the realities on the ground in Minneapolis, Atlanta, Seattle, Brooklyn, and elsewhere will prove otherwise. Indeed, it’s borne out by the behavior of the rioters themselves. And as I’ve said far too many times already, word gets around. What people need to know, they will know, sooner or later.

     I can’t see where the sense lies in repeating myself endlessly. There will be a terrible reckoning, for which no decent man would wish. If it should come without totally destroying what remains of our Constitutional order, it will be a miracle comparable to the founding of the Republic itself.

     It's been said many times, by many voices, that “there is no voting our way out of this.” I'm beginning to believe it.

Moral Narscissism -The Root of Virtue Signaling

I just started a new book (I've been hitting my library's e-book collection hard lately).  It's Roger Simon's I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn't Already I found it through a link on PJ Media.

The definition of Moral Narcissism is brought in early:
What is moral narcissism anyway? The short form is this: What you believe, or claim to believe or say you believe - not what you do or how you act or what the results of your actions may be - defines you as a person and makes you "good". It is how your life will be judged by others and by yourself.
If that isn't a perfect description of how many - if not most - in our society see themselves, I've not read anything closer.

But, the most dangerous part of that self-image is:
...those ideas and attitudes are "reflected" in the following narcissistic manner - if you intentions are good, if they conform to the general received values of your friends, family, and co-workers, what a person of your class and social milieu is supposed to think, everything is fine. You are that "good" person. You are ratified. You can do anything you wish. It doesn't matter in the slightest what the results of those ideas and beliefs are, or how society, the country, and in some cases, the world suffers from them. It doesn't matter that they misfire completely, cause terror attacks, illness, eath, riots in the inner city, or national bankruptcy. You will be applauded and approved of. 
I think Simon has hit on something. It does seem to explain how people can simultaneously do the most awful things, and yet think of themselves as a moral actor. It allows people to display complete disengagement from the actual consequences of ruinous actions, and continued preening about their moral superiority. It has people replacing the hard work of improving life for their fellow Earth inhabitants, and replacing it with posturized chanting and posing for the cameras.

Sort of a Group Selfie, Duck Lips Optional, but 'revolutionary T-shirt and mask' required.

Saturday, May 30, 2020

Back to Space

I'm pumped! I'm excited! This is a great day - America, with the partnership of the SpaceX company, is back in space.

I'm a true child of the 60s. I was hooked on the whole Race to the Moon thing. My dad had read science fiction as a kid, and was completely captivated by the idea that man could explore outer space. Dad hadn't even riden in an airplane till the mid-60s. But he believed in the possibility.

I used to listen to Dad and his brother talk; Uncle Junior worked for a Columbus-based part of Bell Telephone (not sure just quite what his job was, but he'd visit and tell Dad of all the incredible things they were doing at work). Uncle Junior was the one that first got me excited about ham radio; it was after his funeral that I decided to follow up on a long-held dream of getting a license.

But, I, like so many of my classmates, was fascinated by the astronauts and the many engineers and technicians that worked together to make the missions happen. We would be sitting in class, and the teachers would turn on the radio, and we'd work (or pretend to), while we'd listen for that 5-4-3-2-1 countdown that signaled another launch. I guess I was geekier than I realized; most of the other girls were ho-hum about the whole thing.

One of the high points of my father's life was when we, along with a dozen or so of our neighbors, sat in our living room, and watched Neil Armstrong land on the moon.

I was at work, serving lunch when Apollo 13 returned to Earth. After that, my personal life took precedence, and I barely noticed the space program's slow death. I was teaching science when the Hubble was launched, and during the ISS completion and early days of use. So, my involvement in following it was related to what I taught. NASA was always a great resource - we lived in Cleveland, OH, and could easily access lots of materials and curriculum from them.

I've toured NASA, including the back parts of the facility - it helps to be a science teacher.

With any luck, before I die, man will have reached Mars, and begun to establish colonies. Obviously, the moon would be where the kinks are worked out in procedures, equipment, and protocols. It's where experiments with growing food, providing water and fuel, and other needed supplies would be figured out.

But, yes. Mars, please. And soon.

The Madness In Minnesota

     No one’s going to like what I’m about to say. Hell, I don’t like what I’m about to say. But it must be said, and loudly at that, so here come the big letters:

If Libya Is A Failed State,
Then So Is Minnesota.

     At this point, Minnesota’s “forces of order” cannot or will not restore order in its largest cities. Moreover, the violence is swiftly spreading beyond its origins. The prospects for statewide chaos are grim – and should it be permitted to continue much longer, it will endanger other states as well. A comparable variety of unrest is manifesting in several other cities as we speak.

     The Constitution authorizes Congress to federalize “the militia” – in this case, the National Guard is the closest approach – in case of war or insurrection. (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 15) If Congress fails to do so of its own initiative, President Trump should call a special session and put the question openly before it. Should Congress still fail to act, the president would have the same authority to act that President Washington exercised to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, and President Cleveland used to suppress the Pullman Strike.

     This sort of development was explicitly contemplated by the Founding Fathers, and provisions made for it in the Constitution. Indeed, it’s one of the two inarguable justifications for the maintenance of a federal armed force. If there’s no will to use that force, there is no justification for the federal government whatsoever.

     I told you up front that you wouldn’t like it. I don’t either. But facts are facts.

Friday, May 29, 2020

Untitled 2020-05-29

     As I begin this piece, I have no idea what it will eventually be titled. It will have a title, of course; I just can’t conceive of an appropriate one at this moment. For the most appropriate title, the perfect title, would succinctly express all the following:

     There’s video, and plenty of it. For those who don’t have the time or inclination to watch those videos – available on YouTube — have a summary of the high points:

  • The rioters attacked retail stores, which they looted and burned.
  • Thereafter they attacked and destroyed police vehicles.
  • They invaded a police precinct headquarters and set it on fire.
  • The rioters were almost 100% black.

     Yes, George Floyd was black. Yes, the officer who killed him deserves to face justice for it – twenty years to life’s worth of justice. Yes, given his prior record of misconduct, police oversight authorities ought to have taken Derek Chauvin’s badge and gun away from him long ago. There are many in the Minneapolis city government who should be called to account...though given the political state of affairs in that city and in Minnesota generally, there’s considerable question whether any of them will be.

     But that does not justify a horde of rioters and looters wreaking widespread destruction on the city of Minneapolis. It does not justify calling rioters and looters as “protestors,” as if they had merely assembled to “peaceably petition for a redress of grievances,” and thus equating them to wholly peaceable citizen groups who’ve assembled to protest the lockdowns. And it’s a whole universe distant from justifying encouraging the rioters by attributing their lawlessness to “racial inequality.”

     I will entertain absolutely no dissent on this.


     George Floyd is being made into another Trayvon Martin, another Michael Brown ...another Freddie Gray. All four men were black. All four were lawbreakers. And in their deaths all four have become useful to those who seek power and profit from the incitement of racial violence.

     But don’t you dare, you ofay honky paleass oppressor, you, to doubt the “legitimate grievances” of “African-Americans” over “inequality.” Don’t you dare to voice a word of dissent about The Narrative as it issues forth from Our Pious Cadre Of Mainstream Commentators. Your opinions are invalid, and deserve no hearing. Your very skin color convicts you of the most heinous crimes imaginable, so who would listen to you?

     I keep telling these idiots – the black savages doing the rioting and the white racialist mouthpieces that seek political advantage by striving to exculpate them — exactly what they’re courting. I can see it; why can’t they? Well, yes: some of them are literally of sub-rational intelligence, but surely not all. What makes the ones with three or more functioning brain cells think that, when the pustule finally bursts and white Americans decide they’ve had enough, they will be spared? Those who have excused – or worse, encouraged – the black miscreants doing their level best to persuade us that the white and black races cannot possibly share a nation will share the fates of those miscreants, despite their shortage of melanin.

     There will be a reckoning. No one will like it. But some of us will like it better than others...and some much less.


     Yes, I’m angry. I had a special affection for Minneapolis. I’ve done business there. I still have friends there. I can’t imagine what the decent and law-abiding residents of the city have been thinking. Just as happened in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, their city has been transformed into a war zone.

     To anyone who doubts that there’s a race war in progress: I hope you’ve been paying attention. The battle lines are getting clearer by the instant. Make sure you know which side of them you’d prefer to be on – and then make sure those you regard as your allies know it.

     Damn it all, I still don’t have a title for this piece. Oh well. Have a nice day.

Conversations

     When you live in a household that has more animals than humans in it (four cats and two – soon to be three – dogs), certain problems arise that other households might never consider. One of them is keeping the beasts out of any food that’s been taken out of the refrigerator. For example, it’s proved hazardous simply to leave a frozen hunk of lasagna on the kitchen counter to defrost. Keiko, our Chow Chow / Black Labrador mix, capitalized on that error by jumping onto the counter, peeling back the noodles, eating all the ground beef and sliced sausages, and considerately leaving the rest for us. So we’ve taken to keeping such items in the oven or microwave – turned off, of course – until it’s time to cook them. The C.S.O., in a spate of whimsy, has taken to calling the oven and microwave the greater and lesser food safes, respectively.

     That gave rise to the following exchange when I briefly left a foil-wrapped item on the counter:

CSO: No! Fluffy can open the foil! Put it in a food safe!
FWP: Oops, right. The greater or the lesser?
CSO: Doesn’t matter. You know we can’t just leave it out.

     As I moved to comply, Beth spoke again, in a tone of deep reflection:

CSO: You know, given these safes (gazes thoughtfully at the oven and microwave), I can’t imagine why we need that giant steel thing.
FWP: Yeah, it practically screams “The stuff you want is inside me!”
CSO: It’s like marking a document Top Secret, isn’t it? “This is worth stealing!”
FWP: Think we should keep our gold and silver coins in the oven?
CSO: Well, a burglar would never think to look there.
FWP: I’ll get on it after we’ve showered.

     Yes, Gentle Reader. The conversation above took place in the Fortress’s kitchen, at 5:06 AM Eastern Daylight Savings Time this very morning. Really.

Thursday, May 28, 2020

Some Behind-the-Scenes "Nudging" of the 2020 Election

The usual suspects, plus a few lesser known Democratic supporters, are working hard to take over the 2020 Election planning, organizing, and vote-manufacturing.

The New Billionaires are far more hands-on involved in the process. As most of them are Tech Billionaires, they naturally feel as though their technical expertise is superior to the political experts. They have been working to set up 'Shadow' election machinery - GOTV campaigns, voter registration, databases with their own mining experts, and even media outlets.

...the funding of ideological news sites is another battlefield where Democratic megadonors are mimicking Republicans. Democratic donors outside of tech tend to fund television ads. But the Silicon Valley set is uniquely seeking to build a digital world optimized for 2020, drawing lessons from the right-wing media ecosystem that conservatives built and Trump capitalized upon in 2016.

“For far too long right-wing media has dominated our discourse and Facebook news feeds,” said Tara McGowan, the founder of Acronym, a political group backed by Powell Jobs and Hoffman. “We can’t sit by another cycle and watch a one-sided battle play out online.”

Behind this, more than anyone else, has been Hoffman, whose team has funded projects that defenders say are a savvy way to take advantage of how information is distributed in the 21st century. Critics say they exacerbate political divides and sometimes push misinformation.

But that hasn’t deterred Hoffman: His aides have indicated that setting up partisan news sites that masquerade as journalism is one of the priorities of its group of allied donors.

 This is one of the most misunderstood facets of the Left/Right Media Divide. The Left truly believes that non-Left bloggers and other media creators are being set up by nefarious Right-Wing Rich Guys, and told what to do.

As if.

And, for that matter, if folks like me are being paid big bucks to promote the non-Left (Normal, as Kurt Schlichter terms us) point of view, all I can say is:


Just Kidding - my opinions aren't for sale.

Or, even for rent.

'Course, some small token of appreciation WOULD be nice.

What can we take from all of this?
  • The Rich Left is scared - petrified that their unfair advantages in business will no longer be supported by government. Their use of the H1-B visas to cut costs and discourage unionization, their sweetheart deals that steer government contracts their way, their flouting of the anti-trust laws and pirahna-like attacks on smaller competitors, and favorable tax treatment for their estates, to name just a few, would be in jeopardy. As we know from history, desperate people do stupid things.
  • The Rich Left is just about out of patience with a corrupt machinery that refuses to take advice from people who believe they understand technology's potential better than the Democratic machine. They have set up competing businesses and organizations, funded them, and will likely expand their use in the 2020 election. All of which is likely to muddle the process more than help. Kind of like trying to take the advice of both your wife and mistress - their interests are opposed to each other's success.
  • This will bleed off money that previously was directed towards Saving the World. A lot of NGOs are going to be laying off people. Some of those dumped may have interesting stories to tell (Particularly women - that old thing about a rejected woman spilling her guts, even if it ultimately hurts her? Completely true - they WILL cut off their nose to spite their face, yelling all the time about how it's YOUR fault they had to do it.).
  • Companies/organizations/media outlets left hanging in the wind by the Left's Tech Wars? Well, let's just say that some job interviews might unearth some Very Interesting Information in the process of talking to them. Those who've been tossed to the street will be angry, and in the mood for payback. If you find someone in that position, listen empathically, and leave the recorder on.
A last concern - widespread mail-in voting. While absentee ballots for shut-ins and others who cannot be physically present at voting time are reasonable, the Left's use of fraudulent ballots, multiple casting of ballots by the same person, and 'stuffing the ballot box' are legendary - AND not just an urban legend.

It's time to shut down that liberalization of the process that facilitates fraud.
  • Start with a "No" on ballot harvesting - the potential for taking advantage of the elderly and mentally disabled is huge. There are no checks on the practice.
  • A person living away from home - such as a college student - should have to PROVE that they are not signed up to vote simultaneously in another state. In fact, anyone living in temporary housing should have to show proof before being registered to vote.
  • Same with changes of address. A standard part of that process should be verification of disenrollment in the previous place. In writing. Signed by an official of the Board of Elections in the disenrollment state/location.
  • At SOME time before voting, a person should have to present proof of identity. If they have no photo ID, they should have their picture/thumbprint taken by the registering authority before allowing them to vote. They can have that data expunged if they return with photo ID (verifiable photo ID - real ID or similar).
  • Those opposed to photos for religious reasons need to have their identity verified by a government official/church official who will swear, in writing, under penalty of criminal felony, that the person is who they claim to be. Their address/residency still needs to be verified.

Because They Can?

     There are a number of observable patterns about power, those who seek it, and those who attain it that the Wuhan Virus “crisis” has thrown into sharp relief. A great many Americans are taking notice of those patterns at long last. No small number or persons are straining to deny them, whether out of the need to wish them away or the recognition that they threaten oneself.

     One of those patterns pertains to the enjoyment of power. As I wrote about five years ago:

     The evil man, once he has some degree of power, will use it to acquire more, for power is a drug that doesn’t sate. However, the enjoyment of power requires that it be used. For, as O’Brien said to Winston in 1984, to enjoy your power, you must be actually coercing your victim at the moment:
     ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
     Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
     ‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.’

     In this regard, it becomes vital that we understand how political power – power over others – differs from ability and / or the rightful possession of resources:

     Political power – i.e., power over others – is relational in nature. Its wielder requires victims upon whom to exercise his power. If he has no victims, his power is illusory. But by extension, the magnitude of his power can be measured by the number of his victims.

     Combine the above with the emotional structure of him who seeks power above all other things:

  • He sees himself principally – perhaps even exclusively – in relation to others.
  • Therefore, he is perpetually in competition with those others.
  • Defeating them is more important to him than any independent aspect of his accomplishments. Without them to measure himself against, he would feel his life to be meaningless.

     Now, that structure is not exclusive to the power-seeker. Persons in other fields exhibit it as well. They’re well represented in those fields where great achievement is celebrated by some highly publicized prize. But unlike one who seeks fortune and glory for a constructive achievement in the arts, sciences, commerce, or what-have-you, the power-seeker needs victims to reify his “victory.”

     This insight is what led me to the study of politics and government.


     Today we have a number of state governors determined to maintain their “orders” to close down all activity in their states to the point of madness. The term most often applied to these sweeping closures is “lockdown,” a word borrowed from the practices of high-security prisons. They have no Constitutional authority to do these things...yet they do them. There is no fact-based rationale by which to justify even a polite request that their residents remain immobile in their homes. Moreover, when confronted by any degree of resistance, they become enraged.

     Attempts to reason with the Gavin Newsoms, the Andrew Cuomos, the Gretchen Whitmers, and so on have all met with failure. Indeed, it could not have happened any other way, for no matter what “reason” a Newsom, Cuomo, or Whitmer might offer for a “lockdown” order, we are guaranteed that it will not be the real one. The real reason is the miscreant’s enjoyment of the exercise of power: “Because I can.”

     The dead giveaway is the governor’s self-exemption, and his exemption of those in his circle of intimates and favorites, from the rules he has decreed. No sincerely meant rationale about “keeping you safe” could be squared with allowing their loved ones to violate the rules intended to safeguard the rest of us. When caught in such a contradiction, they squirm visibly. If they cannot manage a deflection, they’ll counterattack with an ad hominem or a counter-allegation of evil motives.

     “By their fruits shall ye know them,” said the Redeemer, and indeed it is so. The fruits of these insanely protracted stay-at-home orders are entirely poison. Not the least of their bitter yield is the conditioning of millions of Americans to the notion that a government-declared “emergency” justifies executive dictatorship: abuses of power that would have had the Founding Fathers taking their muskets out of storage.

     Far too many of our countrymen have proved as unthinkingly submissive as sheep.

     There may be no way back after this. I’m not hopeful. In my admittedly minority opinion, violent rebellions against state governments that have acted this way would be fully justified. Yet to this point, the totality of the resistance to such tyranny has been simple defiance of the orders to remain closed.

     Where’s that planetoid, damn it? It’s badly needed and way past due.

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Remember When...

     ...the disgracefully gleeful face of Adam Schiff – forever assuring us that he had seen evidence of Trumpian high crimes and misdemeanors – seemed to be everywhere?
     ...virtually every nightly news story that referred to the Trump Administration began with “the beginning of the end” or “the walls are closing in” – on President Trump?
     ...pundit after pundit predicted that President Trump would be impeached, convicted, and removed from office – possibly sparking street violence from Trump’s supporters?

     Of course you do! How could anyone forget such lurid reportage, such apocalyptic predictions of so titanic a downfall? And if you were inattentive to the actual, factual developments you might even have begun to believe all those prognostications. It would be a historic moment were President Trump to be forced from office, to be sure, but a sad one as well.

     But upon occasion, the annelid completes a circuit:

     Heh, heh, heh!


     Throughout 2015 and 2016 media figures scoffed at the Trump for President Campaign as a “joke.” They repeatedly assured their audiences that the real-estate developer and reality-TV star had no chance of prevailing against the “superbly qualified” Hillary Clinton. Trump’s victory sent them into a state of shock that swiftly morphed into denial: Trump must have cheated! And because their faith in their own foresight was impenetrable, they seized upon any suggestion, however dubious, that might support that contention.

     But no evidence of Trumpian misbehavior ever materialized. Indeed, those who were most vocal about having “seen the evidence” said the exact opposite when called to testify under oath. The “Mueller team,” as zealously partisan a group of witch-hunters as has ever been assembled, could produce nothing even of marginal substance. They were caught falsifying FBI interview reports — the famous “302” documents – in the attempt to bring down Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, regarded as the key entering wedge in the campaign against the president.

     The dreams of headhunting glory and of the indulgence of a grateful re-Establishment dissolved like a predawn mist before the rising sun. All their hopes were ashes, ashes everywhere. Nowhere was there a mouthful of compensation to be had.

     The Usurper Trump would have to be unseated electorally. But how? He was proving both effective and popular – and not merely among Americans. And by whom? The Democrat Party had no figure with national recognition who didn’t possess serious negatives. Where to turn?

     They settled upon former Senator and Vice-President Joe Biden as the antidote: the “moderate” Democrat with broad support who could unseat the usurper. They touted him at every opportunity, even before the primaries had delivered a definite nominee. They did not anticipate the gaffe parade, the many well documented deceits, or the endless video clips of their chosen one’s gropings. They did not expect Biden’s various flip-floppings on policy to be so closely analyzed. They certainly did not expect the Ukraine Affair to become national headline news.

     Great is the media’s downfall, and delicious the Schadenfreude among the president’s supporters.


     As the saying goes, “Don’t get cocky.” There’s still a broadly hostile media to contend with. There’s still election fraud to be prevented. There’s still the economic damage from the Wuhan Virus to be recovered from. And there’s still the Republican Establishment, much of which has never cottoned to Trump and would be willing to lose the White House just to see him expunged and control of the party restored to their grip.

     But for a little while at least, we who have been greatly heartened by Trump’s America First stance, by his aggressive attitude toward our problems, by his pugnacious responses to his assailants, and by his demonstrated fidelity to his promises can enjoy our satisfaction. He whom we chose to right the nation, though stormed at with shot and shell, remains unbowed. What remains is to get him four more years to complete the deal. We must also find and prepare his successor, for choosing a successor to the most successful president since Coolidge will be no small task. Reagan botched it; we must not.

     Remember in November.

Always Remember, the Villains Don't Think of Themselves as Villains

I'd not seen this film, about the work of the East German Stasi. That organization, whose mission was to use spying on its own citizens, intimidation, social control, and nearly unlimited power to enforce its edicts, was a large part of what made life in the Communist-controlled part of Germany so grim.

But, I'm convinced that most of the Stasi, if asked, would have said that their work was necessary to assist their government in persuading its citizens to act appropriately and help the nation to become a world leader. That, thanks to the effort of the Stasi agents, East Germany would run efficiently, provide for its citizens, and take its place in the ranks of world leaders.

All GOOD aims. NOT evil.

OK, so they had to act somewhat - forcefully - to make all those wonderful things happen. But, as Arnold Schwarzenegger said in True Lies, when asked if he killed people as part of his spy job, "Only the BAD ones." It was acceptable for him to kill, because his goal was a GOOD one.

So, likewise, are the SJWs and Leftists convinced that their methods are justified by the saintliness of their objectives. This thought occurred to me when I was reading (for the first time) the Tom Clancy book, Rainbow Six. In that book, the environmental Leftists commit horrible crimes. 

Those crimes, however, don't count, because their heart is pure.

The same thinking permeates the ethos of many antisocial political movements. Initially, it's something small that the members are asked to do - scrawl graffiti on a wall, break an 'unjust' law, use their collective actions to intimidate a bureaucrat.

It escalates from there. Larry Grathwohl wrote about his experience as a FBI informer, embedded with the Weather Underground (Weathermen) radicals. His descriptions of how Bill Ayre and Bernadette Dohrn (now married) used psychological techniques to break down their followers' resistance to immoral acts and/or illegal acts provide some understanding of the many ways the Left uses deviations from normal conventions to twist their group into conforming to a New Normal.

In doing so, they create a cohesive identity in their group, who begin thinking of US (the GOOD guys) against THEM (the BAD guys). This process in an essential part of creating a ruthless machinery that will not hesitate at any act, to push their agenda.

Individual thinking is discouraged. The good of the group is what counts. Any act that promotes the good of the many is appropriate.

Pretty soon, unspeakable acts - bombings, kidnapping, torture - can be used against ideological opponents, without mercy.

And, of course, this is all justified. They are the Good Ones, whose aims are so sanctified that their methods cannot be questioned.

Hoo-Boy! This Does NOT Look Like a Good Idea!

In the winter of 2019-2020, China's Wuhan lab apparently got a little lax with its Life-Threatening Microbes. That's assuming that it was an accident, and not a first strike at bioterrorism.


I cannot be the only person who thinks this is a really, really bad idea.

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Yet Another Reason to Distrust China

YAR-DC, in fact.

Xenophobic? Piffle. I like individual Chinese people (and other Asians) just fine.

But, I do distrust those living here, who have left hostages in China, or other countries. They should NOT be in charge of research, nor employed by research facilities without strict controls over their access to proprietary information.

America was the source of many of the technological inventions/discoveries of the late 19th and 20th century. In too many cases, China is now the manufacturer of products that developed out of those advances. In some cases, companies made deals with China under the gun - either share the info with China, or lose it through industrial spying. At least by making that deal, the company got a portion of the profit.

We need to continue with these investigations. It's worth it for the federal government to partner with the companies (although, charging the companies for the government's assistance in rooting out the spies, and prosecuting and deporting them, might be reasonable).

One major conduit for spies - the research universities - may be ending. Require any foreign student used for that purpose have an investigation of their background, and keep them under surveillance for the duration of their stay in the US.

Make it harder for companies to hire foreign nationals of ANY country. That includes the many, many Indian workers that inhabit the tech industry. Require that they be hired at standard industry pay, WITH bennies. Any extension of their visa must be accompanies by proof of recruitment of American workers. Use the "disparate impact" standard - if Americans do not constitute a fair portion of the employees in every job category, the company has engaged in illegal practices in hiring, and will lose their ability to hire those with visas.

The goal is to limit - severely - any use of visas, until the 3% level of unemployment is hit.