Monday, November 30, 2015

- Why "Social Justice" Has Made Me Optimistic

Past readers of this blog will recall that I’m fascinated with the concept of decision making. Developing an understanding of that question – how people decide things – drives most of my intellectual curiosity these days, as it has for nearly 2 decades now. Much of that time was spent on honest self-reflection and trying to develop as clear an understanding of my own decision making as I could. Which is why I was a bit surprised to wake this morning with a feeling of optimism in my heart from my reading of the social justice purges currently ongoing in America’s universities. In short, I was encouraged by their incredible weakness.

As night follows the day, the purge follows any leftist revolutionary movement. I believe this is because the appeal of the solutions offered by the left are strictly emotional rather than one based upon facts, evidence, and other objectively verifiable metrics. When subjective emotion is the only means of measuring success or failure, it’s quite easy to find someone who doesn’t seem to feel as strongly about things as you do. And from this position spring the inevitable purges of the left. Objective evidence quite literally has no place in these events.

In that regard we can thank the social justice movement for stripping away all of the nonsense that has in the past served as a smokescreen for other leftist social revolutions. The ‘Social Justice Warriors’ and their comrades of the heart, the ‘black lives matter’ and ‘third wave feminist’ movements, explicitly declare that the feelings of the revolutionaries are the only measures of truth that they recognize. In that way they kind of get right to the point.

There isn’t any real discussion of ‘fairness’ or ‘equality’ in these movements, quite the contrary. All they are demanding is the necessity of not having their vision challenged in the first place because it would damage their feelings and somehow make them feel unsafe. They demand that the shades be pulled and no light be shone on their ideas, because it’s the only way their laughably frail vision of the perfect society can endure. Their movement is literally defined by their abject terror at the thought of anyone disagreeing with them.

As a bystander to this, and with my curiosity about decision making at the ready, the very first question I ask in the face of that behavior is: ‘Why are they so afraid?’ What is it that so terrifies them that they are willing to allow themselves to be held up to ridicule by the vast majority of Americans who use objective metrics to determine what needs to change?

Some reading his may argue that their most recent actions are all just a will to power, and they’re attacking America’s universities because they know that our cloistered and deeply leftist academics lack the will to stand up to them. That may be true, but that actually describes what happens after they decide a change is required. First they say to themselves that the world must change to suit them, and then they act on that decision. On our college campuses we’re seeing the actions, not the decision. So what is it that so scares them all so much and drives them to think that the world requires change in the first place?

The answer of course, is the truth. The intellectually objective and statistically observable truth. They are terrified of any facts that contradict their vision. And as those facts seem increasingly inescapable, so too does their determination to be shielded from them. At this point they not only discard any opposing position, but the very methods used to derive the position in the first place.

Through the magic of psychological projection, they see racism, misogyny and hate everywhere, but objective evidence of that widespread ‘hatred’ has been remarkably difficult to come by. The dwindling objective studies that continue to imply support of their view are laughably cherry picked and easy to counter, and the facts which point to a contrary view continue to stack up. So rather than abandon their vision in the face of facts, they instead demand that the idea of ‘facts’ being used to counter their vision be tossed into the memory well along with all the contrary evidence that comes with it.

So what is the truth? What is the thing that so terrifies the Social Justice movement, that they now need to interpret civil disagreement as systematic violence and invent acts of racism and rape wholesale to try to continue to fool some of the people some of the time? It’s obvious. In a sentence it’s this:

Blacks and Latinos perform worse than whites and Asians across a wide spectrum of fields not because of racism, but because of differing abilities, and men will always be the ones who define the value attributed to "physical attractiveness" in women when choosing a mate.

That’s it. That’s the whole enchilada. The simple fact stated above generates such terror in those who would fail when measured against it, that they have invented an entire political movement designed to specifically invalidate not just everything about it, but the very intellectual method through which it was derived. They have taken political correctness to an absurd level, and shown it for all its absurdity to the wider world, because they can’t face up to the idea that they might be stupid, or ugly, or both.

I once wrote a piece where I wondered in print how I my own ego would deal with belonging to a group where the average IQ was demonstrably lower than average. I still don’t have the answer to that specific question, but I now know how others deal with it. They will foster the ‘black lives matter’ movement. With regard to misogyny and ‘rape culture’, as a man my appreciation of women these days is that their mental processes are simply too foreign to me to every truly understand them. But I now believe I know what goes through Lena Dunham’s head when she looks in the mirror, considers the kind of man she’ll attract, and unilaterally decides that today is the day to redefine 'beauty'.

I’ve recently taken to writing “Feminism Delenda Est”, ripping of Cato the elder and his “Carthago Delenda Est” (Carthage must be destroyed) phrase which was said to be the last words of his every public speech. Thanks to the Social Justice movement, I now believe I know how to do that very thing. All we need do, is speak the truth.

The next time someone points a finger and calls you a racist or demands that you recognize you ‘white privilege’, don’t argue facts. Simply ignore their specific complaint and speak directly to their true fear and the thing that causes their ‘real pain’. Simply tell them that the low average IQ of blacks or Latinos doesn’t necessarily apply to them specifically, and it’s completely possible for them as an individual to be very successful in spite of it. Be polite, but tell them that there is no boogie man with a Klan hood under their bed, and there is nothing ‘real’ to be afraid of. Say it with the confidence of someone who knows they speak the truth, because it is that very thing. If enough of us treat their ridiculous complaints this way, over time, I believe that all but the least capable of black men will begin to see the light.

Feminism and accusations of misogyny are trickier because women are more naturally fearful creatures than men and have developed remarkable facilities for rationalization in the face of that fear. But few women who are in any way attractive have really embraced third wave feminism anyway, so they operate with some degree of biological imperative generating a partial willingness to embrace the truth. Still, women of any race are, in my opinion much more capable of self-delusion than any black man, so a harsher line must be drawn for them. For my part, I plan to explain only the most undeniable portions of feminism’s natural counter position.

She screams ‘misogynist’ at me, or some nonsense about ‘rape culture’, and in return I’d say that no matter how angry she gets, men will still retain the right to decide what is attractive to them and what isn’t. If there is a standard of beauty that she doesn’t want to adhere to then it’s her choice, but since women’s inescapable biology dictates that her childbearing years are significantly shorter than she’s been led to believe in the feminist mythology, she can argue all she wants but probably shouldn’t waste too much time on it if she wants to ‘have it all’ like she says she does.

This will no doubt send her into paroxysms of rage, but the message will be delivered. So long as the man who says such things fails to rise to the emotional level of the woman, if she has any value at all she’ll cart that message home and replay it in her head while looking in the mirror. Eventually the content of the message will slip past her emotional filters and she’ll absorb as much truth as her ego is capable of coping with.

But all of that is tactics, and not the source of my real optimism.

My real optimism is on the durability of the truth and the Franciscan means of deriving the truth through reason. The social justice movement hasn’t attacked objective metrics where they hold the most sway but where they’re so weak that they were already all but suspended. Their thought process is an intellectually destructive force in western civilization. And even though they’ve done all they can to fulfill their vision of a perfect world made new, the only people they’ve managed to persuade were the cloistered and cowardly ex-hippies who run our universities. And since I view my own mental process with its basis in fact, and reliance on reason, as being supportive of the western world, it’s this weakness of my enemy that’s caused me to be optimistic.

Monday, November 23, 2015

- Why Should Anyone Face Reality

It’s my birthday this week. And I have to confess, for the first time in decades I’m afraid. Not for myself. My life means very little to me in the grand scheme, and if a lightning bolt were to finally exact divine justice for a life filled from end to end with lamentable acts, my only concern would be for the people who may feel some tiny loss at my passing. I consider myself quite lucky that at this point in my life, there are probably a few more people who will cry at my funeral than will dance at it… probably.

In fact it’s one of them I’m actually afraid for. It’s my daughter, who has made a casual appearance in this blog over the years. She’s 15 now. A tough age for a girl. And she’s being raised at a time when America is a dangerous place to be 15. Like all girls her age, she’s at the point where she’s almost an adult. She’s trying to understand the broader world and her smaller place in it. She’s looking for that image of herself – of who she’ll finally be, and trying to get an idea of what’s possible for her to accomplish in a big and often confusing world. Tragically, in the name of equality, we’re denying her the very tools she needs to understand the real answers to those questions.

The right has long described leftism as a sort of mass psychosis. A view of the world as a child’s fairy tale where the unicorns and rainbows of eternal bliss for all can be easily delivered on earth. Gone are the hard choices that life imposes or any compromises between cost and benefit. In the ideology of the left there are only victims, villains, and the heroes who would save them. And all you have to do to live in the fantasy world forever, is to surrender your grip on objective reality.

This is the world that my brilliant, impressionable, sensitive daughter is being raised in. A world where the only culture she knows, honestly believes that what is both demonstrably and visibly untrue, ‘can be true’ if you want it bad enough. All you have to do is place your feelings and your purely subjective experience above every other objective metric of measurement.

That’s what the left has done. They’ve finally stolen the idea of objective measurement. Gone also are the ideas of good and bad, right and wrong, and even better or worse. They got tired of their perspectives and 'solutions' always coming up short. So instead of changing their minds, they stole the measuring stick. Now everyone gets their own metric against which to view themselves. And no matter how foolish, or insipid, or demonstrably false their view is, they all get to declare themselves heroes on the "villain, victim, savior" scale of the global left. So long as they feel strongly enough about their view, they get to impose it upon others as well.

Bruce Jenner gets a measuring stick where s/he’s a beautiful woman instead of an aging man with a mental disorder. Lena Dunham gets one just like it, where she’s also an insightful thinker instead of a spoiled angry shrew. Michael Moore gets one where he’s a fit and handsome champion of the downtrodden instead of a bloated illiterate with a camera. And Barak Obama and John Kerry get one where they are the moral compass of the western world and brave leaders of men, instead of feckless and insecure cowards. But even worse, there is only one villain anymore. And that’s anyone who dares hold up the old objective measure.

I think about what Milton Friedman used to say about how the direction academics take can throw off an entire culture. Japan was exposed to idea of economic liberty when it came in contact with the west and it embraced that idea prospered, while India did the same with socialism, and choked under a generation of hyperbolic top down control instead.

Well in the immortal words of Peter O’Toole in the classic film Lawrence of Arabia, “What are we teaching our kids today?” We’re teaching them that facing reality is a bad idea. That’s its optional. That it’s the kind of thing that only bad people do and that only the worst monsters make other do. We’re teaching them that they can have it all and there will never, ever, be any price to pay so long as the right people get to make their decisions for them. We’re teaching them that only the power of hope, and the belief in feelings can ever make the world a better place. Anyone who says otherwise is nothing more than an exploiter, a racist, a misogynist hater.

They don’t realize that the people who market this view are much more likely to be mentally ill themselves. Our children have stumbled into the insane asylum of the west, and are being convinced that the patients are the doctors and the doctors are really the ones who are being driven mad with hate. The inmates never had to take over the asylum entirely, they’ve just convinced a generation or two of American kids to discard the ideas of sane and insane.

We can tell them the truth all we want. We can say that institutional racism hasn’t been a problem for decades. That sane heterosexual men don’t feel anything like misogyny as a motivating force. That “white privilege” is just a resentment driven fantasy, and that their college campuses are nothing like the hotbed of racism and hate that they imagine them to be. But they don’t care. They can’t. They’ve all already drunk the Kool aid. And to them it tastes wonderful.

I hope I’m wrong. I hope my own battle with my ex-wife’s rather severe (and clinically diagnosed) mental illness has made me jaded and with the cost it’s already exacted from my life. But things like this make me think that isn’t the case. I think leftism really is contagious. And it’s already gotten to all the weak minded adults and all of our our children. I hope there’s a cure, and that over time our kids will come to see that accepting reality gives as much benefit to them as it exacts as costs. And while I think that will be true eventually for someone who has as much going for her as my daughter, (who is not only quick witted and brilliant, but is also talented, beautiful and clever as hell). But for someone like Lena Dunham who is none of those things, what reason will she ever have to embrace reality when all it will ever promise her is the truth about herself?

Even worse, there are an awful lot more people like Lena Dunham in America today than there are like my daughter. Against an objective measure, not everyone can be a winner. So where does our culture go when people like her have the reigns? In a world where losing is idealized as a moral good in the form of victimhood, and achievement is vilified as being a product of exploitation and hate, who will want to choose that world over the morally approved mass delusion? Or maybe we know the answer to that question because they already control our culture utterly. And the real challenge for us now, is to find a way to take it back from them using something short of violence.

Feminism Delenda Est

Monday, November 16, 2015

- How Will Obama Handle The Paris Attack?

He's the most powerful man in the free world. so how will he respond to the Paris attacks by ISIS? Here's my prediction, from August of 2010.


Mother Jones quoting our first female president:

President Obama said on Monday morning that the terrorist attacks in Paris that killed more than 100 people on Friday should not affect the small intake of Syrian refugees into the United States. "Slamming the door in their faces would be a betrayal of our values," he said during remarks at the G20 economic summit in Antalya, Turkey.

As opposed to embracing our values by allowing ISIS to murder a hundred or so people in New York, or Washington, or Chicago or LA, like they just did in Paris. This is a quote from AFTER the Paris attacks. This (wo)man who is perfectly willing to put your life at risk to achieve his/her delusional goals. The reason the Arab world thinks of us as frivolous and weak is because of insulting nonsense like this.

Feminism Delenda Est.

(My history is fine, it's my Latin that's shaky.)

Sunday, November 15, 2015

- Coming Soon To A Theater Near You

We have 11 million people in the US who have entered the country illegally with no official documentation, let alone a legal right to the free government services they consume. The image above from the Bataclan theatre in Paris was created by just 3 people of a total group of 8 - at least one of whom entered France exactly the same way.

I wonder how the men who did this feel about racism, and misogyny, and safe spaces? I wonder how they feel about the the difference between rich and poor or "free" medical care for everyone? I wonder how they feel about global warming or punishing derivatives traders and corporate fat cats? I wonder what their position is on the heroic bravery of Caitlyn Jenner and the right of Transexuals to use whatever public bathroom they like, or the necessity of compelling religious private citizens to endorse same sex weddings?

Actually I know what they think. They think we're a weak, immoral, decadent people incapable of putting up a fight against them. And if you're a subscriber to the vision of the left, they're right... at least they are about you.

Take a good long careful look at the picture above snowflake. The world is and always has been, a violent place filled to the brim with barbarous people. And unless you are personally prepared to do something about it, you had better get the hell out of the way, and let those of us who are get in their and do something about it in your place.

The simple fact of the world is, some people can do things and some people can't. And you people aren't even remotely qualified to lead a parade let a lone a nation. When you're given the reigns you turn the west into exactly what these people despise most. We have become a silly, insubstantial, ego driven self indulgent mess of depravity. And that's all your fault. It's more than your fault. It's the goal you were striving for. The picture above is the endpoint of western liberal thinking. A room full of innocents slaughtered at the hands of barbarians they were unable to defend themselves against.

You haven't failed because of 'white privilege' or the patriarchy, or whatever other psycho-babble you've invented this week to explain away your continual failure. You failed because you deserved to. And now it's time for you to shut up, get out of the way, and let some of the people who can actually achieve a few things come in and sweep up your bloody mess.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

- A Soldier Speaks

This is the perfect offset to my last post.

In the aftermath of the Derb's defenestration from National Review, I ran into Jay Nordlinger at a book release party. I had known for a while that he and the Derb were also friends.

Jay still works at National Review and I don't want to throw him under the bus, so I won't offer specifics of our discussion. But I will say that we spent the better part of an hour talking about how we felt our common friend had been treated. We had met before, but it was the first time we had talked about anything so personal to us both. And I came away with the impression that Jay Nordlinger is by a long long way, one of the nicest, kindest, most generous hearted men in journalism, on either side of the political fence.

Since that evening, I have always made it a point to read every word he writes. and I have never been so pleased to do so as I was today. Here's Jay:

This morning, I wrote a post headed “On ‘Liking’ War.” It was about the charge against people like me — who favor an unblinking and unstinting response to the Jihad — that we get a kick out of war. An American soldier sent me a note, which I’d like to share:

Mr. Nordlinger,

Your post made me uncomfortable — in a good way, I think … I’m a soldier.

My family and friends, at gatherings, often tell me that they hope I don’t have to deploy, hope I get to stay home, etc. I never know what to reply.

I love doing my job. There are evil, terrible, awful people out there. People who want you and everybody you love dead, people who wouldn’t just kill you but would do unspeakable things to you before you died. Many of these bad guys don’t want you dead for any particular political or economic reason. It’s simply because they’re terrible people. Somebody has to go outside the walls and take the fight to these people. That’s a necessary job and I don’t want others to have to do it. I don’t want it to be my friends. I don’t want it to be my family. Now that I have sons — Jesus, I don’t want it to have to be them to go outside the walls. I want to do that.

I won't do Jay the disservice of quoting the whole thing, go read his post at the link for that. But there was one passage that made me tear up with pride, so naturally, I have to rip it off:

I like protecting my sons. So by extension, I guess I do, indeed, like war. I might burn in hell for saying it, but if it keeps my boys safe, I’ll gladly pay that price. Better I burn and they get to live in safety and peace than I get to live smug and satisfied while they live under the sword.

That's a man speaking there. A brave man. A man I can admire. Apparently we have at least a few of them left in America. Compare him to the Social Justice Warriors complaining about their hurt feelings, their lack of safe spaces, and calling everyone who puts cream in their coffee a racist. Whose country do you want to live in?

Feminism Delenda Est.

- A Word On The Paris Attacks

At the time of this writing, 158 Frenchmen and women are confirmed dead. The borders of the Republic of France are closed, and when the French police and intelligence services have to try to weed through the potential architects of this tragedy to bring these murderers to justice, they will have 60,000 brand new, totally undocumented candidates to choose from.

There will be much talk of blame. The killers themselves of course are the ones responsible. They are accountable individually and it’s my sincere hope that France revives the tradition of public execution by head severing when they finally are. But here in the west, there is a ton of complicity.

The leaders of Europe are complicit, but they deserve no blame. Because like most of the west, they are more or less democratically elected, and are in positions of power because this is what the people of France and the west wanted. For a generation they have been telling us that ‘diversity is strength’ not because they are great trans-formative thinkers, but because it’s what the idiot west wanted to hear.

This is what it looks like when a culture collapses. This is what it looks like when you’re public policy debates center around safe spaces and trans-phobic misogynist racist nonsense. This is what it looks like when you punish the strong and successful and give benefit to the weak, the strange, and the incapable. This is what it looks like when your public policy is designed to make winners suffer, and losers benefit. This is what it looks like when your world is dominated by the views of women.

Conservatives think the campus meltdown in America is funny. It isn’t. It’s the direction of our culture. And when our culture takes this direction, the events last night in Paris are how other cultures react to it. It will happen again of course. There are now probably over a million “refugees” in Europe (and 11 million here in the US) and though it’s a mistake to assume they are all terrorists and willing to murder for their beliefs, it’s spectacularly stupid not to treat them that way. And it’s all but certain that a great many of them feel exactly like the people who launched these murderous attacks.

But we won’t expel them. Women don’t have the courage for that kind of thing. And in terms of our culture and public policy, we are all women these days. Thinking and acting like a man is as vilified in France as it is on the campus of Yale or a Hollywood movie set. Acting like a man is considered a great sin in popular western culture. It’s the kind of thing that President “Bike helmet” Obama would be deeply embarrassed about. But it isn’t our leaders fault, or the fault of American academia, or Hollywood. The fault is ours. We have in essence, become too liberal to survive as a culture.

For this, women have the perfect excuse. They’re women. But the smartest among them should read the writing on the wall and start looking for the few remaining men in the west and beg for protection when the savages arrive. But if you have the genitals of a man and you consider yourself a feminist, then you should look carefully in the mirror.

Do you imagine that ISIS has some great problem with that evangelical former marine who is married to his high school sweetheart and working in a refinery in Lafayette Louisiana? That guy that you’ve been vilifying at the student center for what you call his homophobic racist, misogynist opinions? The guy you’ve been calling ‘the problem with America’ for the last 50 years?

Do you imagine he has a big problem with me? Or my brother? Conservative, Catholic, Republican voting NRA members trained since childhood not to be afraid of violence, and to use it with discretion to protect the people we care about? He doesn’t. He doesn’t dare. Because he knows that if he hits us, we will hit back. And he knows we have more resources to hit back with than he ever will. the jackals never attack the leaders of the herd, they go for the weak and the lame. No. He won't be coming here to attack us and our vilified misogyny, racism and trans-phobism. The person that the man from ISIS thinks is the problem in the west, and the person he’s coming to subjugate or kill, is you.

I went to a movie last night in Union Square. As I stood outside the theater waiting for my date, a man walked by dressed like Norma Desmond on a night out. Garish makeup covered his unshaven face, his fake fur stole wrapped around broad shoulders, and his hair covered legs ran down from under a tight black skirt and ended in a pair of pink stiletto heels. And let me tell you something Mr. Feminist. ISIS isn’t coming here to hurt someone like me, because they rightly fear me. They’re coming here for him… and you.

Friday, November 13, 2015

- The Tryanny Of Social Justice

This is a video of the actual event which set off the resignation of the UM president.

Behold the triumph of Social Justice. Coming soon to a workplace near you.

Meanwhile in the real world, "Social Justice" remains an Oxymoron.

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

- Elizabeth Warren Is Financially Illiterate

Remember when I said that the notional value of a Swap is meaningless and is purely designed to scare people?

Well the financial illiterates of the Democratic Party (led by Elizabeth Warren) are at it again.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid... stupid.

- I Feel Like This Every Single Day

Feelings are more important than any of your ridiculously offensive "Facts".

Monday, November 9, 2015

- The World As Run By Women

David French linked this video in the corner. It's a social Justice Warrior doing what they always do, placing her 'feelings' above the logic, reason, and rights of others.

The world that nasty and offensive little girl is arguing for, is what the world would look like if it was run by women. It's a lovers quarrel between her and the 'man in her life' the all powerful government and bureaucracy. She has abandoned all reason. She has made the decision that her feelings trump other people's rights.

Obviously not all women are like this. Many I'm sure are as disgusted by this petulant little brat as I am. But a world where we leave women to define morality, is a world where feeling will always trump... well... everything. The social justice movement is quite literally, a movement embraced by women, and men who think like women. The rationalizations it's advocates embrace are many and layered one atop the other. But in order for this woman to get the kind of 'community' she wants, we'll have to abandon the very foundations of western society.

Ironically, though this woman is only interested in her feelings, she is interested not at all in the feelings of anyone else. If I were to tell her of my disgust at her position, she would discount those feelings completely. this is what women do when they argue with their lovers. And in this case her lover is the all powerful state. I've been saying lately that "Social Justice is an Oxymoron." You can have justice, or you can have social justice, but you can't have both. This is why.

I'm still struggling to find a good one sentence explanation for the myriad of ways that women typically depart from reason and logic, but I haven't managed it. It's a world where there is no personal accountability, no objective reference points, and no consequences for one's actions. In short, it's the world of academia, taken to it's ultimate extension. A world without winners and losers. A world where any test, challenge, or confrontation is re-argued by an all powerful person at the top acting with capriciousness. It's a world where there are no penalties for being wrong, so long as you're the 'right person'. It's a world where the very idea of 'failure' is suspended if you fit the categories that the person with power believes should be 'helped'. It's the world made anew, in the vision of women...or better said... women at their very worst.

If you want to understand it, the best bet would be to read "The Rational Male" by Rollo Tomassi.

In his book, he talks about how men can use the weaknesses of the female perspective to advance their power in decision making regarding mating. But don't be put off by that. So far it's the best consolidation I've read of why women act the crazy way that they do. And from that perspective, the social justice movement isn't the impenetrable sea of neo-marxist irrationality that it seems to be to most men. It's simply the most radical extension of the entire moral philosophy of women.

Friday, November 6, 2015

An Open Letter To "Racist" Donald Trump

Mr. Trump,

We met at a Manhattan party several years ago, at the apartment of a common acquaintance who then worked for Goldman Sachs. At the time I was a clever but mildly obnoxious mid level Analyst from JPMorgan, who kept talking to you about the bond market, and was in fact quite rude to you in a number of ways.

My recollection of the events is that you by contrast, were a perfect gentleman. Thanks to maturity gathered over the intervening years, I've come to regret my behavior that night. And though I doubt you remember it, I'd like to take this opportunity to formally apologize to you. You were perfectly gracious and polite, and I was an obnoxious, know-it-all, boor. Please accept my apology for treatment you so clearly didn't deserve.

More recently, I've been critical of your Presidential bid. I strongly support the general tone of you campaign and the manner in which you've dealt with the way the media is doing it's usual best to advocate for the left. But with my economic background I remain concerned about the filter through which you'll take economic advice and make economic decisions. This is neither here nor there though really, because though I think there may be better Republican candidates running against you in the primary, if you are the inevitable Republican candidate, you will certainly get my vote.

I see in the attached article, that a bounty has been offered to SNL audience members for anyone willing to subject you to more rudeness. Having personally seen how you handle such behavior, I'm sure you'll come out of it fine. But I wanted to say a word on the substance of their criticism.

In my opinion, these days, you are not a man if you haven't been called a racist at least once. For years the radical left has tossed out that accusation whenever they felt it necessary to shut down debate of an issue. But as more and more people are accused of it, it's weight as an insult means less and less. In recent years it's use has been so lacking in substance and so profligate, that it barely means anything at all. In fact, I think we may be nearing that saturation point where it means so little that going forward, no one even cares about being called a racist.

If respecting our borders and our laws can successfully be characterized as racism by their opponents, then this may very well be that vacuous insult's last gasp. And I think if they are successful in their campaign against you on SNL, a great many Americans hearing it will be saying to themselves "If that's all it takes to be a racist, then sign me up."

I know you aren't afraid of a little rudeness Mr. Trump, because I've seen it first hand. And in a strange way, your ability to tolerate rudeness may be the best thing that your presidential bid can offer America right now. Handling this eternally baseless accusation with grace might be the very thing that finally puts this ridiculous insult to rest. If that turns out to be the case, and the accusation of racism really does finally "jump the shark", then America will owe you a huge debt of thanks, whether you are elected to anything this term or not.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Tom from RFNJ.

- A Word on Atheism

I've touched on this topic over the years, and always with an element of frustration. Self proclaimed Atheists claim to be advocating a worldview based on reason and doubt that is therefore incompatible with a religious worldview. But in fact, most of them that you meet here in the west anyway, aren't anything more than bad Christians who are angry at their parents. And they are no more interested in worldview based on reason than they were at age 13 when the derived the core of their opinions. And in point of fact, they are more or less totally illiterate.

A writer (who I've never actually heard of) at National Review, has written an excellent essay on the topic that among other things, includes this little tidbit:

Take the “religion” versus “reason” dichotomy. Is there a conflict between religion and reason? Well, that’s a meaningless question. Many faith traditions have struggled with this question and have come up with different answers. Within Christianity, the Roman Catholic tradition has spent literally 2,000 years wrestling with this very question and has produced a considerable body of thought harmonizing its, yes, dogmas with what it understood as the best of philosophy. In fact, Roman Catholic doctrine actually condemns as a heresy the proposition that reason and faith are incompatible (and, speaking personally, that is one of the chief reasons why I am a Roman Catholic). Maybe the Catholic synthesis fails, but to demonstrate that one would have to actually address its actual claims based on their merit and not just throw around meaningless platitudes.

Good stuff. Straight on point. If there were ever a phrase that succinctly describes the entire moral philosophy of the left in modern America it would have to be the term "meaningless platitudes".

Much of the authors points in NR will seem to be matters of slippery semantics. But when arguing issues of philosophy, the meaning of words is highly relevant, and I don't think they negate his broader point. Most of the people who say that 'religion is bad', don't actually know anything at all about religion. They have never read Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo. They have never actually questioned any of their own Dogma about what faith and morality defined by faith, actually are.

In my opinion the reason for this is the same as the reason they make so many other illogical claims, because it contradicts what their massive and incredibly frail ego's drive them to. It reveals their actions in their day to day lives as selfish and immoral behavior driven by pride, or envy, or a combination of both. So they yearn for a 'new kind of morality' where what they do is right and just, and what anyone else does is ignorance, or evil.

Thanks in part to the success of that kind of thinking in Academia, the battle for the soul of the west now needs to be fought over the frame of our morality. The left claims exclusive right to the moral high ground. They must be denied it. And I'm glad to see this sort of argument being made in National Review.