Monday, July 9, 2018

- The Left Has a New Succubus!


And Heeeeeeeeere's Gavin!

Lefties will rejoice and extol the virtues of their new Succubus. Hillary Failed. Fauxcahontas has taken over the role of Shrill school marm from Hildebeest. And now crazy broad thinks that Socialism is the new antidote for hemorrhoids.

in truth:
Socialism is about taking your stuff and your freedom and killing you if you complain. They try to pass it off as just Liberalism 2.0, but then you usually don’t call something by a name unless you mean it. If they don’t mean “socialism,” why do they call themselves “socialists?” 

I had the displeasure of visiting that socialist paradise called Venezuela back in 2013, and even then it was nowhere near the chaotic smoldering ruin it is now. Venezuela's swift decline from the "benefits of socialism". The only people that benefit from Socialism are the people at the top of the pyramid.
Hit this video if you want to see leftist millennial nitwits experience what the fruits of Socialism (DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM) has yielded average Venezuelans. The nitwits that produced the video somehow blame their ignorance of NEWS... on NEWS! Gee - if you only tuned into FOX or One America or picked up an Occasional Wall St Journal, you might have a friggin clue as to why Venezuela is a crapshow! The Term Maduro Diet was coined by Nicolas The Fat during a Venezuelan televised town hall. The video is hard to find but a woman complains that she lost almost 30 pounds of weight that she didn't have to spare because of food rationing and scarcity of nutrients. Maduro responded that it was good that she lost weight and that she looked better thanks to the Maduro Diet!.

But but but but.... BUT THIS IS DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM!!!!
Liberals will embrace socialism especially if it is whispered into their ears by the New Succubus. They will most likely Voxsplain that us normal folks are overreacting and a third-world Latin American style dictatorship will never happen here... as we maintain open borders and dumb-down immigration status to allow the absolute lowest of the low to enter our country, overpopulate and Vote Vote Vote for the exact same and only style of government they ever knew.

When it does happen, and it will (God willing I will be fertilizer when it happens) the liberals will say everything is great and the normal people will have to fight a losing battle against the human wave of Marxism Amerikan Style.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

- The Madness of George Will and The Coming Red Wave


Last week, George Will suggested, no urged, for the Democrats to take over Congress. Will believes that the Trump Train has completely dismantled the kind of Republican Party that he desperately wants to see restored. 
The video above is flashback to where it all began. George Will wasn't Anti-Trump, but he was anti-Trump supporter. Even though the argument above is about Bill O'Reilly selling his version of Reagan history, Will's argument is a mealy-mouthed rationale for withholding facts to the detriment of truth. I used to think George Will was at the conservative forefront, and then I read his belief's about baseball... he's a clown that probably never played an inning of hard-ball on major league dimensions. He was the guy that sat in the dugout and kept stats, useful but not the first person you allow to lead you to a victory.
George and the rest of the "Never-Trumpers" on the right want to believe in a fraudulent "compassionate conservatism". In other words, they will cower to the Left when confronted.
George must be apoplectic now that the Mid-terms will be about Trump getting a second SCOTUS appointment on the heels of Kennedy's retirement.
Dan McGlaughlin, another "Never Trumper" takes the contra-argument:
[Endorsing Democrats to cleanse the GOP] is a profoundly bad idea, and Will makes nearly no effort to consider its actual consequences. There are four main reasons why running Republicans out of Congress will not produce the results that Will is seeking. One, Democrats do not respect the values Will champions and cannot be counted on to advance them. Two, the recent history of divided government shows that it moves policy toward the out-party’s ideology and away from the in-party’s, but it does not actually restrain corruption or abuse of executive power; if anything, it tends to expand them. Threeif voters follow Will’s advice, it will make the Trumpist faction more, rather than less, powerful within the Republican party. Four, Will underestimates the importance of the judiciary and the administrative state and the extent to which Democratic control of Congress would empower them to further erode the constitutional powers of Congress as well as those of the presidency.
The Kennedy retirement sparks the Trump base and it sways more "never-trumpers" over to sided of "winning". The recent behavior of Democrats Waters and Booker will also serve to alienate middle-of-the-road Dems into embracing Trumpism. The recent New York primary upset where a socialist defeated a Tammany Hall Democrat is a fractal of where the party is heading. It is also a stage setter for the mid-terms. The Primary voter turnout was anemically low.
They will make the mid-terms about controlling the Courts, bu they will lose.
Daniel Greenfield writes a brilliant piece:
The times they are a changin'

Monday, June 25, 2018

- They Want Us Dead: Mad Maxine and Stark Raving Left


They Never Learn. The video is Antifa getting their asses stomped in Berkeley. While some argued that the people doing the stomping were "white supremacists" it is true that several people doing the stomping were regular pissed off Normal Americans. 

So on the anniversary of a Bernie Bro deciding it was time to assassinate as many Republican Congressmen as possible, Mad Maxine thinks this is a good strategy.
----

Kurt Schlichter is correct: The Left Hates US and they want us dead.

Its gonna get weird.

Monday, June 11, 2018

Jordan Peterson: Post Modern Education and the destruction of the West.


J.P. on Post Modernism / Culture Marxism in the education system.  This Segways into my previous post about forced "diversity" in education.




Thursday, May 31, 2018

The 'Diversity' Icon of the Left and the end of education


A little less than a year ago, I became (rather late in life) a dad.  With 'dad-dom' came a whole mess of issues I had to address.  Chief among them, "where the hell am I going to send me kid to school"?  For dear readers who have not experienced the American public school system:  The quality of the schools determine where you live.  Where I live.. I really don't want to put my kid into the public school system.  My family has very deep personal experience with this issue:

Back in late '60s, before I was born, my Dad finally left the low pay of research, and landed a decent paying job in management.  My family moved from the Midwest to suburban NJ into a house and neighborhood my that my Mother particularly loved.  One problem.. the schools.  The town shared the school system with a town that had what the Left refers to as a high degree of "diversity".  This "diversity" was beating up and robbing my grade school aged sister repeatedly.  The school principal was useless in stopping the attacks (detention and calls to parents don't work with thugs) and the monsters were certainly not going to be expelled. The attacks stopped for a period after my Mother assaulted two of the perpetrators by lifting up them by their throats and slamming them against a wall, threatening them with death, during a moment when the Ms. Useless (the principal) briefly walked out of her office.

The more permanent solution was to move.  Where my Dad chose specifically to move to was an area where the school system was 96%+ "non-diverse", with every other consideration being a distant second at best.  So my Dad sold the house my Mom loved and bought a property from a bankrupted developer, complete with a crushing property tax bill, devoid of landscaping, and built with aluminum wiring.  In addition, Dad now had a terrible four hour round trip commute to his job, five days a week. We spent the next 20 years in that house.. a house my Mother hated.

When I was in my later 20s and single, I went the 'Urban Pioneer' route.  I bought distressed properties in shitty neighborhoods that were unbelievably cheap.  Being single and having no inclination to settle down (I was in MGTOW mode at the time), schools were not an issue except the property tax bill to pay for them.  Being in an Abbott district, most of that bill was paid for by the suburbanites via income and sales taxes.

Twenty years later:  Thanks to gentrification, where I live is now a lot less shitty.  In fact, it has gotten rather nice.  My tenants cover my mortgage. My commute on the PATH train is easy and cheap.  Plus everything I need is within walking distance, including new shops, and restaurants (courtesy of gentrification replacing the $0.99 stores).  As a result, my wife and I have a degree of financial security (we max out our 401ks, HSAs, and do a backdoor ROTH), and my ten year old car has less than 60k miles on it.  Bottom line.. I like where and how I live.

But the schools.... Do I?
  • Move to a non-diverse suburb (most of my tenants do this when their kids reach school age).
  • Private School (VERY expensive.. especially if you are planning on having more than one kid)
  • Charters (more on that next).

When urban public schools really went to hell, the idea of 'Charter Schools' was put into practice.  Here in NJ, a charter would take in kids via lottery, but would have much more freedom to impose a custom curriculum, academic standards, and discipline.  Kids who couldn't cut it or became a disruption could be removed from the school.

In my city, there was one good charter in particular.  The kids there scored above average on the state tests and many went on to STEM focused high schools (eventually colleges).  Every year there would be over a 1,000 applicants for less than forty openings.  The school was a success, but hated by the teacher's union and subject to criticism by the Progressive elements.  The crime?  Lack of diversity.  The school at the time was mix with Asian (Indians, Chinese, Koreans) being a slight majority.  Asians however... don't count with the Left's definition of "diversity".

The noise made against charters and for this special type of diversity has increased and not just from the political / activist establishment.  Greatschools.org, formally a great site for researching school options also got into the act:

"The lack of diversity reflects a disturbing development in the U.S. today: the growing resegregation of American schools. This trend began in the 1980s and accelerated in the wake of several Supreme Court decisions during the Bush administration."

An example of a "non-diverse" school
When the above article was published, I noticed previously highly rated charters were suddenly downgraded and previously lower rated schools got an upgrade.  Turns out "diversity" now counts in the school rating.  Basing rating on test scores, graduation rates, and crime rates is just unfair in the eyes of the Left.  The Left doesn't want equality of opportunity.  They want equality of outcome, even if the outcome for everyone is bad.  There is no way to guarantee an equal outcome without abandoning academic and disciplinary standards.

"Diversity" is a religious icon of the Cultural-Marxist Left.  Millions of parents move to neighborhoods they can barely afford, far from their place of employment, and endure killer commutes.  Why?  In order to prevent their kids from being "enriched" by "diversity" in their schools.  The Left needs this escape route to be closed.  If guilt doesn't work, private schools can't be banned, and forced busing no longer an option, what is to be done?  Mr. Scott-Railton of Yale thinks he has the answer:

From The Atlantic:



And thus Scott-Railton’s idea was born: to take demographics of schools into account in college admissions—giving priority to applicants who attended schools with a certain threshold of low-income students (say, above 40 percent). In other words, admissions officers would look favorably on students who attended an economically integrated school, much as they do those who have had unusual travel experiences or outstanding extracurricular achievements.
In a nutshell, he argues, this idea would drive integration in three ways: It would create an incentive for middle class and wealthy parents to enroll their students in socioeconomically integrated schools, it would create countervailing considerations for white parents considering leaving currently integrated school districts, and it would provide an incentive for private schools to enroll more low-income students. Middle-class students would likely benefit more from Scott-Railton’s idea than low-income students, since his proposal doesn’t inherently change the financial barriers to attending college. But millions more would benefit from the increased K–12 integration, which decades of research show improves public schooling.

So unless your kid experiences diversity... NO COLLEGE FOR YOU!

The man is on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ScottRailton

If this was a simple editorial from Scott-Railton, I would have simply ignored it.  However, I am noticing this diversity push more and more.. to the point it almost seems coordinated.  

The one question I would like answered.  Does Mr. Scott-Railton and others of his ilk practice what they preach?  Do they send their own children to what they consider a diverse school?  Do they even have children?  Their idea of a diverse progressive utopia has been tried before.

- Don't restrict Guns, Restrict Liberals


In a recent conversation.. no, strike that, shouting match with a liberal I experienced a brief moment of clarity that may not only save lives, but may lead to Utopian Peace throughout the world!
This insane person ranted and raved that my firearms and more over my ownership of more than one firearm puts people like her in jeopardy. As with all arguments with liberals, it doesn't matter if you attempt to persuade with facts and logic because they won't listen and they won't change.
Tom, our host and also known as St Thomas of the Armaments, has been the apostate and has tried to convert liberals on guns buy putting them behind guns. This kind of shock therapy works for those that only thought they were liberal because they had been raised by stats rather than experience.
The hardcore liberals do appreciate the sheer power of weapons but they don't want US to have them. Then end goal of liberalism is control. They are quite clear that they have no desire to strive for equality, only elevating victim-hood and using human-shield theory of seizing power.
The banning of Bump-Stocks has been heralded as a point of compromise by centrist Republicans and Conservative Inc. When the compromise was issued, the liberals in a foam-flecked rage shrieked it wasn't good enough and wanted to ban anything that could have a military use.
At the same time they claimed "we don't want to ban all guns.... (just the ones you have!)"
I'm happy to say that my fellow Patriots in the People's Republic of New Jersey refuse to comply:
"COME AND TAKE THEM!" 
The Las Vegas mass shooting inspired many states to consider a ban on bump stocks, which enable rifles to fire more bullets quickly. Under a New Jersey law, residents were supposed to destroy or surrender their bump stocks by mid-April. Police haven't received a single one 

But how did we get here? By apologizing for being normal. I was in NYC recently (sorry Tom, just two days all business) and I was pelted by liberal propaganda at every instance. On the Ferry: The ferry wants you to know that it doesn't employ women, but gives them opportunity and empowers them to be ferry captains. The Bus: every bus in NYC has an SJW slogan plastered on the side of it, mostly nonsense about lgbtq abcdefg and other acronyms. All images of "normal people" are faceless. If you have wrap on your head and incredibly bad complexion, NYC will plaster your image at eye level throughout. It's mind numbing, but normal people don't comply: they rebel.
As an experiment I proudly displayed mu NRA hat while traversing Manhattan. I was not met with shrieks or outrage. I did notice some looks. I made it through unscathed. At a brief stop in New Jersey, I pulled the same stunt where I did get the look like I was the gun fighter that just walked into the saloon. It was surreal.
Col Schlicher's recent column should be read: Don't argue with liberals.
The “Compare America to wonderful foreigners” ploy often comes up in their gun screeds, where they claim that no other “developed” country has as many murders as America and then put the blame on the 100 million gun owners who didn’t kill anyone. It’s true that no other “developed” country has Democrat-run blue cities full of Democrat constituents who shoot each other down in the streets. Nor do they have a citizenry that retains the right to oust a tyrannical government, but where we see that as a feature, liberals – who think Castro was a great guy – see this as a terrible bug. 
And what’s this about being “developed” anyway? Mexico and Brazil, which have gun control laws that the Democrat Disarm the Normals Caucus only dreams of, also have murder rates exponentially higher than ours. Why don’t liberals compare ours with theirs? Do they think non-whites are somehow undeveloped? Do they have lower expectations for non-white people? This is, frankly, super-racist. Stop being racist, liberals.
How to Beat It: You could explain that this is America and not some dwindling nation made up of emasculated Euroweenies with a flatlining birthrate, but it’s easier to just tell the liberals to go pound sand.

I take Kurt's advice a step further. If you want to end the savagery in our inner-cities, just demand that all people that vote Democrat must disarm (and that means no armed security) before they pull the "D" lever.
Liberalism, Lets Find a Cure!

Friday, May 11, 2018

- The True Handmaid's Tale

If you aren't watching "A Handmaid's Tale" because you think it's just propaganda or a collection of idiotic liberal tropes about the brutality of the Patriarchy taken to extremes, then you're missing some really great story telling. Just because liberals take all the wrong lessons from it doesn't mean we have to. Here are some basic guidelines to remember if you're capable of having an open mind about it.

1. Only women could ever treat other women so horribly. I believe that if only 1% of women were capable of having children, a society led exclusively by men would hold parades in their honor. Statues would be erected. Men already think the creation of life is a kind of magic anyway. Only the envy and resentment of infertile women could so devalue them.

2. The real lesson here is about faith in an ideology that categorizes by groups. In the story it's presented with a semi-christian theme, but more than anything else in 21st century America it represents the ideological dedication to anti-racism. You can't really make christianity work the way the story depicts it without leaving out big parts of it, but anti-racism suffers from no such need for selective memory.

3. Totalitarianism is brutal. History confirms this. All the true totalitarians I see every day are on the left not the right. Christians are the least totalitarian people I know.

4. Severing the natural relationships between husband and wife, parents and children, so that the state can assume a role in the relationship has long been a central theme of the Progressive movement. I see no reason why in the circumstances depicted in A Handmaid's Tale' that they wouldn't choose to sever the relationship between the brith mother and the child, before the child is born. It seems a natural fit for them.

Just keep these four things in mind while you watch the show, and it you'll be treated to an compelling example of what's coming down the pipe if the Social Justice Warriors are ever given 'real' power. Imagine slightly different victims and slightly different villains, with a different theological faith in the necessity and purity of their own actions, and you'll be treated to some excellent film making.

Thursday, May 10, 2018

- She's So Ronery

This DailyMail piece reminds me of that Classic Kim Jong Il performance in "Team America World Police". It's a story about how women of all ages feel "So Ronery" now:

The strongest bonds they create with other people their own age tend to be forged via the internet — they shop, talk and compare themselves to one another online, meaning someone with confidence issues can easily end up spending every moment outside of work shut away in their room without anyone noticing.

As for dating, Becky has become so used to spending time on her own that she admits she now fears intimacy.

Her last relationship was at university and broke down when they both graduated and got jobs in different parts of the country.

Her only prospect now of meeting someone is through ‘soulless’ dating apps, which only serve to make her feel yet more insecure and isolated.

By her own admission, she now gets the majority of her social interaction via Facebook and has internalized an unhealthy sense of inferiority because of the way she constantly compares her own lifestyle to that of other women her age.

Of course, it’s easy for me to see that she’s measuring her own happiness against the oh-so-perfect, carefully edited highlights of her peers’ day-to-day experiences.

Color me unsympathetic. As a cultural phenomenon, Social Media has increased the perceived gap between those with the most and those with the least across every spectrum. And it's added to all the negative sentiments that spring from that perceived inequality. So if you elect to live your life that way, you're getting what you deserve.

As an example, (and I recognize that I may not be talking to a representative random sample here) but how many of you have actually spoken to someone you know is a Billionaire? How many of those Billionaires knew your name, knew what you do, and what your 'value' to them is - which is to say, you had a deeper exchange than the weather, or here's your dry cleaning sir? Or put a slightly different way, how many of you have had your opinion solicited by a Billionaire?

The answer, I would expect, is VERY VERY few of us. Billionaires are rare, and to know one personally to that degree is a rare thing. But we all see Billionaires on Facebook all the time. On Facebook we can all envy their private jets, their supermodel girlfriends, and their expensive and fashionable homes and cars. So if that's how you connect to the world, then you deserve to experience that envy.

In "Team America World Police" we see Kim strolling past the skeletons and chained prisoners complaining about how no one can identify with his plight. The article above reads the same way to me. Women in particular are drawn into the social media world because they have a strong biological urge to expand their social circle to include as many men as possible in order to get 'the best' guy they can.

The girl who spends her whole life in a Ukrainian Village may look like a supermodel (many seem to) and she'll end up married to the most successful goat herder in the village. But what's a goat herder compared to a successful Moscow businessman? She may be happy with the goat herder They may have tons of kids and full and happy life.

But American girls have rejected that. And Social Media means that whatever social circle they move in, even the 'best guys' in that circle probably pale in comparison to the Billionaires she can read about every day. So she rejects the people close to her, and chooses to live a 'virtual life' instead.

It may not really be about getting a billionaire per se. But I know few women who date on social who aren't shooting for slightly better version of a man than they would ordinarily be able to be dating otherwise. For them, it's the whole point of dating on social apps.

So they're just like Kim. They've behaved badly with a total lack of self awareness, and are getting what they deserve. They're Ronery in the same way he is.

Thursday, May 3, 2018

- One More Post (and then it might be a while)

Yesterday I was sitting in Washington Square Park with the GF, and a guy came by talking on his phone, and wearing a shirt that said "Homo Not Cuomo".

The shirt made me laugh and I pointed to him and said "Awesome shirt" and that's when the really funny thing happened.

He smiled, gave me a thumbs up and said loudly "Yeah! Go Nixon!"

I went into hysterics and the the hippies across from us who heard his statement recoiled in horror. Then I went positively apoplectic with laughter.

It's the little things that sustain you. I simply cannot wait for the Washington Square Park Pro-Nixon rallies. That it's a different Nixon won't matter at all to me.