Tag Archives: politics

What do you do with two million Gazans?

Posted on by
7

Question: What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Answer: A good start.

Old lawyer joke

Generally speaking, the people of Gaza are barbarians. That’s not true to a person, but it’s true as a people.

Their education level is extremely low, even in comparison to the education levels in Democrat-controlled big cities in America.

They live in abject poverty. Their economy is primitive and much of it is barter-based. Their currency, to the extent they use one, is the Israeli shekel but U.S. dollars and Jordanian dinars are in regular circulation as well.

Their unemployment rate is thought to be around 80%, though figures are hard to come by. There’s scarcely any industry. There are few stores, and their shelves are empty.

Most of this squalor is endemic. The Israeli occupation — which the Gazans brought on themselves — has worsened things, but things were already very bad.

About 98% of Gazans are of a religion that, according to many adherents, advocates the violent conversion or death of “infidels,” which are defined as anyone who does not believe in that religion, or who believes in it but interprets it in a manner deemed apostatic by the powers du jour.

The most hated infidels are the Jews of neighboring Israel. The Gazans are indoctrinated informally by friends, family and culture, and formally by the few schools in operation there, to hate the Jews, to kill them, and to destroy the nation of Israel. No hatred in the modern world equals the hate that Gazans feel for the Jews.

It’s likely that Nazi Germany hated the Jews less than the Gazans do.

Gaza is a cesspool of humanity, and the world would be better off without the Gazans. That sounds moralistic, and it is.

But not entirely. Ancient barbarians and, to some extent, even modern ones are the product of their culture. If I were born and raised in Gaza, to Gazan parents and surrounded by Gazan friends, family and propaganda, would I be any less barbaric than the Gazans? I like to think the answer is yes, but I doubt it. Civilization is not in our genes, but in our culture. Bad cultures produce bad people, and the Gazan culture is bad.

In any event, we have Gaza, and we have Gazans. Over two million of them. Their reproductive rate is among the highest in the world – they nearly double their population every generation. At this rate, the population of Gaza will exceed the population of the United States in 150 years. (Ah, the miracle of compounding!)

On this sad two-year anniversary of their barbaric incursion into Israel to slaughter, rape, torture and take hostage innocent men, women and children, it’s worth asking, what now?

What is the long-term solution to this? (I won’t ask, “What is the final solution?”)

The short-term solution is fairly obvious. Hamas will release the few still-alive and many dead hostages it has taken. There will be a disarming, of sorts, of the terrorists and potential terrorists (which means essentially all males over the age of 10). Promises will be made and broken. Peace will come, a little, and go, a lot. The Arab nations will have some say and little responsibility.

But what about the long term?

Readers know that I’ve always been a strong supporter of Israel, particularly since the horror of two years ago. Israel must do what’s necessary to survive. They have, and I’m very glad of that.

That said, the long term will include a new Middle East nation of “Palestine.” (I use scare quotes here because “Palestine” is a misleading word, but, alas, that will be the name of the new nation.) Two million people, going on four million, cannot be under Israel’s guardianship forever. It’s not fair to Israel to impose the burden of guardianship on them, nor is it fair to unborn Palestinians to be guarded.

Their state will not be the West Bank, north of which is the Sea of Galilee, west of which is the Israeli coast, and south of which is Jerusalem, the ancient and modern capital of Israel.

When you separate people who are engaged in age-old lethal warfare, you can’t put them within a stone’s throw of one another. Over the long term, the West Bank will be part of Israel, formally.

Will the new state instead be the 4-mile-wide strip that is Gaza? Same problem.

Will a new nation be carved out of the relatively abundant Arab lands in the Middle East? Good luck getting the Arabs to agree to that.

The problem seems insolvable.

Until a permanent solution evolves, the Trump proposal that has been endorsed by the Arabs and almost the entire rest of the world (with the predictable exception of outlaw states like Russia) is the best we can hope for. With that in place, humanitarian aid can flow freely (assuming the terrorists can be prevented from intercepting it).

Trump probably deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Imagine the creative and tireless behind-the-scenes negotiating and jawboning and strong-arming that he and his administration have put forth to get the world’s buy-in for his peace proposal. It turns out that to “give peace a chance,” you have to work at it, not just chant it.

Trump and his team put in the hard work. It’s hard work that his predecessors never had the energy or will or organizational skills or raw boldness to undertake.

By the way, those aid packages to the Gazans should include birth control pills.

Democrats: “Nobody move, or we’ll shoot ourselves!”

Posted on by
2

Democrats are willing to shut down the government if Republicans refuse to re-negotiate part of the tax bill passed in July. They say the main thing they want re-negotiated are government subsidies for Obamacare.

The Democrats have some leverage here because, while it took only a Senate majority to pass the tax bill, and the Republicans hold that majority, it takes a supra-majority to pass a bill to keep the government from shutting down. A supra-majority cannot be achieved without a handful of Democrats.

There are several principled objections to this strategy by the Democrats, which are worth mentioning before I get to the main point.

First, this isn’t the way legislation is supposed to get done. Once a bill is passed, the losing side is not supposed to get another bite at their losing apple by threatening to shut down the government many months later.

Second, shutting down the government is a little like hostage-taking. The threat is of a different kind and degree from the matter in dispute.

Third, this is stupidly hypocritical by the Democrats. The party of Big Government says that if they don’t get their way, they’ll . . . shut down Big Government.

It reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles, when he pointed a gun at his head and warned his pursuers, “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n***** gets it!” (Note that in what passes for today’s “culture” you can get all manner of porn and snuff films with a few clicks on the internet, but finding that clip takes some effort.)

Fourth, the Republicans are prepared to turn the tables. Trump says that if the government gets shut down, he’ll have no choice but to fire government workers. There’s some logic to that. It’s not fair to employ workers you can’t pay.  

Democrats have shown a talent for political malpractice lately, but this one looks like a real boner. The Democrats can be stupid, but usually not this stupid. So why are they doing it?

The conventional wisdom is that they are captive to their “base,” the far-left kooks. That’s true, but it leaves the question, why are they captive to kooks?

The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question “Why do you rob banks?” asked of serial bank robber Willie Sutton. He replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”

Kooks don’t normally have money, but these particular far-left ones do. Billions are funneled to them from unabashed radicals like George Soros and billions more from purportedly philanthropic foundations and leftist non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace, Common Cause and Black Lives Matter that are only slightly less radical. (Imagine entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and John D. MacArthur turning in their graves at the sight of how their money is spent today.) The kooks receiving those billions, in turn, are major campaign donors to Democrats.

These monied far-left interests are not really driven by details like Obamacare subsidies. That’s just an excuse. If the Republicans compromised on that, there will be another demand and another. What really drives them is a desire to sow chaos and confusion in American society, culture and government. Shutting down the government, they believe, serves that end. They seek a revolution, by whatever means necessary but preferably through a societal breakdown – by violence.

If the Democrats want to shut down the government in order sow a little chaos and confusion, fine. They’ll lose in the end, and it won’t take long. Let’s not take the bait for a violent confrontation.

Charlie Kirk debates Jimmie Kimmel — a BS construction by AI

Posted on by
3

Note to readers: This is what ChatGPT came up with when I asked it to imagine a debate between Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel. Every word is from ChatGPT, except that one or two AI typos have been corrected.

_________________

Moderator: Welcome everyone to tonight’s debate on “Free Speech and Violence in America.” We’re honored to have Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel here to share their insights. Let’s begin with opening statements. Kirk, you have the floor.

Kirk: Thank you. Free speech is the foundation of democracy. It empowers individuals to voice their opinions, challenge authority, and push society forward. Throughout history, free speech has been instrumental in civil rights movements, political reform, and social progress. That said, with this freedom comes a responsibility. Words can incite violence, spread misinformation, and deepen divisions. Our goal should be to promote responsible speech—not censor it. Education, open dialogue, and adherence to social norms are the way forward. The core principle is that speech should thrive, but it should not be used as a weapon.

Kimmel: Thanks. I agree that free speech is vital, but let’s be clear. With the right comes the duty to prevent harm. In today’s world, inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are fueling real violence. We’ve seen many incidents where words have led to deadly actions — racial violence, terrorist attacks, online harassment turning into physical violence. Protecting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating speech that incites or promotes harm. Platforms — especially social media — must be held accountable. We need regulations and policies that draw the line where speech becomes dangerous. Society must defend freedom, but not allow it to devolve into chaos.

Moderator: An important discussion. Kirk, when you hear about hate speech, do you believe there should be limits?

Kirk: I believe in strong protections for free speech. Historically, censorship often suppresses dissent and can be used as a tool of oppression. The issue isn’t speech per se, but how we handle its consequences. Education is key — if people understood the impact of their words, they might moderate their tone voluntarily. Legal limits should be narrow– focused on directly inciting violence or spreading lies that cause harm. Broad restrictions risk infringing on fundamental rights and silencing constructive debate. The solution is fostering social responsibility, not censorship.

Kimmel: But history shows us that certain speech, especially hate speech, has led to violence and suffering. It dehumanizes people and can ignite mob actions or even genocide. Allowing unchecked harmful speech gives license to hate groups. That’s why platforms need clear policies– like removing hate speech and threats — and authorities should intervene when necessary. Sometimes, restrictions are essential for protecting vulnerable communities. We must recognize that the harm caused by hate speech is real, and it requires action.

Moderator: Let’s talk about where to draw the line. Kirk, do you think social media platforms should limit or regulate content more heavily?

Kirk: Platforms do have a role, but overregulation can suppress legitimate discourse. They should implement moderation tools and community standards, but these must be transparent and fair. Ultimately, the true solution lies in education — teaching people to critically evaluate content and behave responsibly online. Suppressing speech outright risks creating echo chambers and authoritarian control, which is dangerous for democracy.

Kimmel: I agree moderation is important, but the scale of social media makes it hard to control harmful content. Platforms often hesitate to act decisively due to fear of backlash or legal challenges. Meanwhile, harmful rhetoric continues to spread. Regulation can set standards that protect users without infringing on free speech. Additionally, social media companies must be held accountable for their role in amplifying dangerous content. We need collaborative efforts—government regulations, technological tools, and community initiatives—to create safer online spaces.

Moderator: Now let’s introduce a new topic — recent controversy surrounding Kimmel’s firing from a major network over comments related to political beliefs. Kimmel, would you like to comment on that?

Kimmel: Absolutely. The situation was very personal to me. I was fired after making some jokes that, depending on who you ask, were either funny or inappropriate, but what struck me was how quickly the culture shifted to silencing opinions and entertainment if they didn’t align perfectly with certain political narratives. It raises a fundamental question about free expression — should entertainers be penalized for their viewpoints or jokes? I believe that diversity of opinion, even offensive or controversial humor, is vital in a free society. Silencing voices due to pressure or fear undermines that principle.

Kirk: I agree with you. Freedom of speech includes the right to express unpopular opinions, including satire and humor. When society starts punishing individuals for expressing their views, it’s a step toward authoritarianism. The marketplace of ideas flourishes only when all voices can be heard, even if those voices are uncomfortable or controversial. I believe that silencing or punishing individuals—whether entertainers, journalists, or citizens — because of their opinions or jokes — undermines the very foundation of our democracy. Free speech is messy and can be uncomfortable, but it’s essential for progress. When we start policing humor or viewpoints out of fear, we risk creating a society where only certain approved voices can be heard, and that’s dangerous. We need to defend the right to express even unpopular or provocative ideas, because only then can real debate and growth occur. Censorship, whether by corporations or government, erodes liberty and sets a dangerous precedent.

Kimmel: Exactly. When individuals are silenced or penalized just for expressing their opinions, it sends a signal that certain ideas are unacceptable — no matter how silly or offensive. That’s not the path to a healthy democracy. We must stand firm in defending free expression, even when we disagree with what’s being said. Otherwise, we pave the way for authoritarian control and a stifling culture where conformity replaces free thought.

Moderator: Thank you, Kirk and Kimmel, for your insightful perspectives. To summarize, both of you agree that free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy, but with important responsibilities. Kirk emphasizes the importance of education, responsible discourse, and cautious moderation to prevent censorship and authoritarianism. Kimmel highlights the need for accountability, especially on social media, and stresses that harmful speech can incite violence and must be regulated to protect vulnerable communities.

Regarding the recent controversy about Kimmel’s firing, both agree that silencing or punishing individuals for their opinions erodes free speech and opens the door to authoritarian control. The balance, as you both suggest, is in protecting the right to express unpopular ideas while ensuring public safety and social harmony. Ultimately, fostering open, respectful dialogue and safeguarding free expression are essential for a healthy society.

Thank you both for a compelling discussion.

_________________

I say bullshit. This sanitized, anodyne debate imagined by ChatGPT sounds like a love-fest.

Sure, it’s likely that both men would come down on the side of free speech, in the abstract, and both would caution against internet excesses.

But the debate imagined by ChatGPT completely ignores the overt calls for violence by such groups as Antifa and BLM and the barely-concealed calls for violence from Democrat leaders such as Senator Schumer’s threat against Supreme Court Justices.

It also ignores Kimmel’s false suggestion that the Kirk murderer was “one of” MAGA. Any legitimate discussion of Kimmel’s firing has to deal with that lie. Finally, it ignores the refusal by about half of the Democrats in Congress to join in a joint resolution condemning that violence.

So why did Chat GPT sidestep these issues?

I saw a piece a few months ago (if I could remember where, I would give credit to the author) suggesting that AI will not take bias out of the news. Rather, it will legitimize it. When you’re watching Rachel Maddow, you know she’s biased. When you’re inquiring with ChatGPT, you assume that the machine is not.

In addition, AI knows only what it reads on the internet. The old saw “the internet says . . .” is literally 100% of the basis for AI’s conclusions. Computer programmers would say garbage in, garbage out.

For the record, I think Kimmel’s bosses should fire him, or not, based on their sense of human decency and what he brings to their business. (My own sense of decency comes down in favor of the firing.) I think viewers should watch Kimmel, or not, based on their personal sense of human decency and what he brings to their entertainment life. I’m wary of the government getting involved in those decisions.

Also for the record, I occasionally use AI for research, but never for writing. I happen to think that, for now, I’m a better writer than the machine.

The banality of this murderer’s evil

Posted on by
4

Political assassinations in America are usually committed by nutjobs. Lee Harvey Oswald was a communism-sympathizing loser. James Earl Ray was a career criminal who copped a guilty plea to avoid the death penalty and then falsely maintained his innocence until the day he died in prison.

This time feels different. This murderer looked normal. He earned college credits while in high school. He was a straight-A student. He had no criminal record.

He lived at home with his parents, two registered Republicans active in their Mormon church in conservative Utah. The family all talked ‘round the dinner table, as families used to.

One of those family dinner table talks early this week was about Charlie Kirk, who was due to visit the area on Thursday.

You know the rest of the story. As Charlie was talking in his trademark sort of way – not ranting, not raving, not cursing, but simply sitting and talking in a normal conversational way – the murderer shot him in the neck from a rooftop with a high-powered rifle. Charlie bled to death in seconds.

After video of the murder scene circulated, the murderer’s father turned him in with the help of a family friend who was retired from law enforcement.

Apart from the murder (but how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?) the whole scene looks like a Norman Rockwell painting – a perfect glimpse of Americana.

Over a half a century ago, philosopher and writer Hannah Arendt wrote Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. She was struck by the pedestrian personality of Eichmann in his trial and before his hanging in Jerusalem. He was not evil in the obvious ways. He had no horns, no cape, no devilish laugh, no foaming at the mouth, no apparent Hitlerisms.

Rather, Eichmann was a not-very-bright technocrat who’d dropped out of high school. He believed he was not just following orders (he was) but that he was following the law. He exhibited no hatred for the Jews, apart from his role in killing six million of them.

If Adolf Eichmann had been born into modern America, he might have become a mid-level manager in the EPA, the IRS or the Social Security Administration. He lacked both the credentials and ideology to be in the White House of either Joe Biden or Donald Trump, and he certainly lacked the passion.

Which brings me back to Charlie Kirk’s murderer. He was a devotee of the vapid echo chambers of online “discussion” but he exhibited little nuttiness or passion, until Thursday anyway.

Yes, he was a straight-A student, but in today’s schools that barely puts a kid in the top half of the class. Yes, he earned college credits while in high school, but then dropped out of a fourth-rate college. Yes, he participated in discussions at the family dinner table, but why was he living at home and eating his mother’s cooking at age 22?

The kid was a casual underachiever just going through the motions of an unlived life. He was the picture of banality.

The banal evil of Adolph Eichmann was six million times worse than the banal evil of Charlie Kirk’s murderer, but here’s what gives me pause: There are at least six million of these kids out there.

Charlie Kirk, RIP

Let Chicago destroy itself

Posted on by
4

President Trump’s efforts to bring down crime have been successful in Washington, D.C. The rate of murder and other violent crimes is down substantially, and the rate of car-jackings is down dramatically.

Even the Democrat mayor of the city admitted that the crime rate has dropped. Oddly, however, she mumbles in the next breath that the program is “not working,” apparently to mollify national stage Democrats to whom she answers.

Such as Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. He was asked at the outset whether the initial 30-day period for the effort could be extended. His response was “f*** no!” It will be interesting to see him now choose between enabling murders and climbing down from his vulgar perch. I’m guessing he’ll choose the side of murder, and stay on his vulgar perch.

So, if it worked in D.C., why stop now? We can curtail crime and simultaneously embarrass Democrats around the country. We should next send the troops to Chicago, right? And then Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis and Portland, right?

I don’t think so. My reasons are legal, philosophical and political.

Legally, D.C. is a special case. It’s under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government (notwithstanding the limited “home rule” that Congress legislated some years ago). One federal judge has already ruled that the deployment of troops to Los Angeles to quell the illegal immigration protests was illegal. I don’t have much regard for that particular judge – the bowtie-wearing, San Francisco-residing, 83-year-old little brother of retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer – but it is conceivable that his big brother’s former Court will uphold his ruling.

Now the more important reasons – the moral and philosophical ones.

D.C. is the workplace and often the home of over a hundred thousand federal employees who have little choice about their workplace venue.

It’s also the face of America to millions of foreign visitors who reasonably assume that it reflects American values, just as we would assume that Paris reflects French values, London reflects English values, and Berlin reflects German values. (Each of those cities has a lower crime rate than D.C., especially in the category of violent crime.) How America presents itself to the world through its capital city is rightly a national and federal concern. How Chicago presents itself to the world is less so.

Here’s the most important point. The crime in Chicago and other major cities is largely due to ongoing choices they make in law enforcement. Recall that only five years ago, many residents of American cities were calling for the “defunding” – i.e., abolition – of city police forces. Even now, police forces are short-handed because the Democrats ruling these cities are hostile to law enforcement. They hate the cops more than they hate the criminals.

When they’re not short-changing the cops, they’re hand-tying them. Many crimes are simply not investigated or prosecuted. For example, shop-lifting has effectively been de-criminalized. If you want to get fired from your job at a local store, call the cops on a shoplifter or, worse, chase after one.

Other crimes have also been effectively de-criminalized on the grounds that too many racial minorities were being arrested for committing them.

People who commit crimes are criminals, but they aren’t stupid. They know what they can get away with, and so that’s what they do.

In short, big-city crime is a big-city choice. Specifically, it’s a choice by big city Democrats. They could decide tomorrow not to tolerate crime. So far, with the exception of the D.C. mayor who has had an epiphany on the subject, they have not decided that. We cannot coerce everyone into epiphanies.  

Finally, there’s a legitimate issue about using federal troops for routine law enforcement. From the German Gestapo of a century ago to the Mexican Federales of today, federal law enforcement in local matters has a sordid history. 

To be sure, the crime in American large cities inflicts real harm on the residents who, by and large, are not criminals of any kind. They sometimes get attacked, shot or killed and they often get their property stolen or vandalized. Even in the absence of tangible harm, they live insecure, semi-terrified lives.

But they keep electing those soft-on-crime Democrats. They are entitled to, but I say let these residents see and suffer the consequences of their choices – for years and years, if that’s what it takes.

Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago is widely seen outside of Chicago as the worst mayor in America. Even within Chicago, which is an overwhelmingly Democrat city, his approval rating this summer is down to the mid-20s. Maybe that means the Democrat residents of Chicago will throw the bum out.

But don’t count on it. Especially if he can make political hay by distracting the Democrat residents from his incompetence with a show of “standing up to” the Orange Man that they hate more than the criminals and even more than the cops.

You may ask, “What about the residents of Chicago who do want to throw the bum out? Who do want effective law enforcement? Who do want to reclaim their city from filth and crime? Who do vote with their minds and not with their tribe?”

My answer is, they have an alternative. Unlike federal employees locked into workplaces in D.C., the residents of Chicago who vote with their minds but get outvoted every time can vote with their feet.

My advice to them is to get the hell out of the failing cities. Let the failing cities burn and rot. Maybe then, and probably only then, the residents will insist on effective governance. If they don’t even then, well, at least they’ve self-concentrated in places we can watch and, if necessary, avoid or isolate.

And who knows? Their proclivity toward killing one another might prove to be an unfitness in the Darwinian sense.

Yes, my advice to sane people in insane places is to move to another place. Move to Texas, move to Florida, move to Idaho. Move to Galt’s Gulch.

The policies of the left are outrageous – by design

Posted on by
Reply
George Frederic Watts – Chaos

It’s now a truism that the policies of the left are widely viewed as outrageous – at least the cultural ones such as allowing male voyeurs and exhibitionists into girls’ bathrooms, discriminating to benefit favored races and sexual orientations, grabbing the guns held by hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans while simultaneously coddling criminals who will never give up theirs, and abolishing the nation’s borders.

Such issues have earned a name – the “80/20 issues” – because something near 80% of Americans oppose the left on such issues.

That 80% figure would probably be even higher if not for some Democrats whose hearts and minds are on the 80% side but whose instinctive tribalism boxes them into the 20% side just because they (correctly) see the 20% side as part of the formal Democratic Party platform.

Yet, the left seems unable to effectuate a course correction on those outrageous policies disfavored by 80% of the people.

One result is that the Democrats lose elections. Who cares about the nuances of tariffs, an issue on which reasonable persons disagree, when they’re putting boys in drag into your daughter’s bathroom at school, an issue on which reasonable persons do not?

My reaction to the Democrats’ truculence is one word: Good. I hope they stay bound to the losing side of those issues. Because I want them to keep losing elections.

But I’m left wondering: Why? Why is the left so bound to the losing side of issues that cost them elections?

I have a theory.

Recognize that the left is not like you and me. At the core, they aren’t trying to solve problems. Instead, they’re trying to provoke ordinary people. What better way to provoke ordinary people than to put messed-up teenage boys into the bathrooms of those people’s daughters?

But that, in turn, leaves a question: Why does the left want to provoke ordinary people?

Here’s where it gets sinister. They hate America. They really do, you know. Polls consistently show that the hard left feels genuine hate for America. Even mere Democrats – as opposed to hard leftists – often feel something less than love for the nation.

Thus, the left is fundamentally different than the right. On the right, neo-Nazis are loathsome and even mere right-wingers are sometimes not very appealing, but I’ve noticed that most of them do not hate America as a nation and an institution and a culture and a people.

The left’s hatred of America is the reason they seek to provoke Americans. Hatred is the mother of provocation and, ultimately, violence.

Did Hitler really want to own Russia? I doubt it. But he certainly hated Russians. He never did succeed in owning Russia – he never even reached Moscow – but his hatred of Russians succeeded in killing 20 million of them.

Do the leftists really want self-proclaimed teenage transexual peeping Toms in the girls’ bathrooms? I doubt it, but what a great way to express the hatred in their dark hearts for our nation, our culture and our people.

And in their dark minds, they hope that maybe the chaos they wreak by ritually torching age-old cultural norms will destroy that culture.

Imagine how things would have been different for Hitler if, prior to his invasion of Russia, he had demoralized them with boys in the bathrooms of Russian girls, if he had grabbed the guns of the Russian civilians, if he had abolished the Russian border, if he had fueled race wars within Russia.

The hateful left and their naive Democrat enablers are playing the long game of history, not the short game of the next election. In taking the 20% side of these issues – the side of confusion and chaos – the left will certainly lose many battles for elections, but they could well win the war against our civilization.

Democrat betas think the F word will make them alphas

Posted on by
2

There’s a Democrat in Texas (yes, really!) who lost a race for senator, and then lost a race for governor. He’s a designated loser.

His name is Robert but he has a nickname. Since he’s proven himself not exactly an Alpha, you might assume his nickname is “Beta.”

Close. It’s “Beto.” Beto has a lot more in common with “Beta” than with “Rambo.”   

Beto/Beta attended elite private boarding schools and then Columbia where he took a degree in English Literature. It was probably Shakespeare that taught him not to be.

But Beto/Beta has a strategy to show his toughness and finally rise to leader of the pack. He says the F word. A lot.

When he lost the senate race, he informed his supporters, “I’m so f***ing proud of you!” He and his supporters promptly regrouped and went on to lose the gubernatorial race.

Offering incisive commentary on Donald Trump, he exclaimed, “What the f***?” Significantly, the object of his invective is now President; Beto/Beta is not.

His brave response to a mass shooting was, “This is f***ed up.” Shooters everywhere scurried.

His recent legal argument in opposition to the Texas rules requiring state legislators to, well, legislate rather than flee the jurisdiction, was, “F*** the rules!” The Democrat lawbreaking lawmakers caved yesterday. Beto/Beta fought the rules, and the rules won.

Other Dems have joined the f-fest. New York Senator Charles Schumer, formerly the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most powerful people in D.C., at least on paper, was asked whether the National Guard would be permitted to keep the peace in D.C. beyond just 30 days.

“No f***ing way” was his response. (But Schumer is already checkmated. Crime will be down during this 30-day period. At the end of the 30 days, Dems will then be in the position of saying they want it to go back up.)

Dems always had potty mouths – LBJ cursed like a Texas roughneck – but the election of Trump really unhinged them. They’re angry and frustrated. Turns out that advocating crime, boys in the girls’ bathrooms, racial quotas and open borders didn’t go over as well as they anticipated.

So . . . drop the f-bombs!

A Dem in New York who says he’s a “former journalist” (of course, there’s no such thing as a current journalist – they’re all former ones) has started a campaign to unseat a Republican Congressman with the erudite slogan “Unf*** our country!” That’s typical of journalistic eruditeness these days.

Another “former journalist” Dem running for Congress – this one a woman – declared in a video clip she posted on X that it was time for the Dems to, “Grow a f***cking spine.” How endearing. They even put the F word into their teleprompter speeches

Back when these potty mouths were future former journalists, I’m sure they were very careful never to let their political leanings get in the way of objective reporting. Uh huh.

A sitting Democrat Congresswoman began with a confession: “I don’t swear in public very well” and then showed that her inability is surely not for lack of practice in declaring, “We have to f*** Trump.”

Lady, who you calling “we”?

Another sitting Congresswoman ejaculated on live TV, “Somebody slap me, and wake me the fuck up!” As for her second request, she seems plenty woke already. But I’d be happy to fulfill her first request.

So, why are Democrats spouting the F word as eagerly as fourth graders who just learned it?

Several reasons. First, they’ve always been just a step from the gutter. While conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Milton Freidman and Thomas Sowell were slicing and dicing the Democrats so eloquently they didn’t know they’d been filleted until they saw their guts on the floor, the mob and their molls were infiltrating the JFK White House and the rest of the Democrat machine, from Chicago to Philly to San Francisco.

It’s all about raw physical power. The Democrats’ idea of intellectual debate for two generations has been, “Nice argument you got there, be a shame if something happened to you.”

Second, the Democrats truly are angry. They’ve lost the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, most state legislatures, most governorships, their lunch money, and their cookies. They’ve lost it all to people they hate, and, in their ignorance, despise and disrespect.

When people get angry, they often get profane. It feels good to express anger.

Third, much of the Dem f-bombing is to rally their filthy f***ed up base. They’re making a show of uncontrolled anger – in a controlled, manipulative sort of way.

This manipulative f-bombing does indeed rally the filthy Dem base, but that base is already rallied. They always are. They wouldn’t be filthy f***ed up Democrats if they weren’t on Adderall.  

It’s the middle-of-the-roaders that the Dems need to rally. Those middle-of-the-roaders who decide elections are not paying much attention (that’s why they’re middle-of-the-roaders) but they don’t like hearing government would-be leaders shouting words that they would not let their children hear or speak.

So, bring it on, Democrats. See if you can f*** your way back into f***ing control of the f***ing government.

An alternative approach might be to change your language, change your tone and change your policies. Nah, f*** that!

Democrats sacrificed socialism on the altar of cultural wokeness – thank goodness

Posted on by
9

Here’s a thought experiment. First, picture Vladimir Lenin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and other communist despots of the 20th century. (I could add to that list the head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but I don’t want emails purporting to correct me.)

Now imagine if part of their pitch to the public had been the following:

  • Men pretending to be women should compete against women in women’s sports, and, after the women lose to the men, they should be forced to shower with them;
  • People should be judged not on their merit or even their economic class, but on their skin color, and, moreover, those with skin colors who commit murder at 7x the ordinary rate should be judged more favorably;
  • Gay people should get preferences in admissions and hiring;
  • We should abolish our national borders;
  • Boys having adolescence issues should be called “girls” and have their penises cut off; and
  • Criminal laws are illegitimate.

If Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and the other communists had preached such nonsense, the result would have been fantastic. Because they never would have come to power. And so we would have avoided 100,000,000 deaths caused by communism.

Fast forward to today. In an incredibly lucky twist of fate, would-be socialists and communists calling themselves Democrats over the past two decades did pitch that nonsense.

Enough people paid attention and recognized it as the nonsense that it was, that the Democrats were finally voted out of power.

Yes, there was also the matter of their latest leader and his senility, corruption and incompetence. But in the absence of their culturally woke nonsense, the Democrats/socialists/communists probably would have overcome the drag of their bad leader. They probably would have won the last election, and we’d be well down the road to lethal, ruinous economics.

That’s because socialism polls surprisingly well. Although people understand that men in drag should not beat and shower with women, they understand basic economics less well.

Among young voters especially, there’s a convenient tendency to believe that the reason they aren’t as wealthy as they’d like is because rich people are stealing their money.

Many young people believe this because they’ve never heard of Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Pol Pot, or the destruction and misery they inflicted. That’s no surprise, for their “teachers” are mostly (not all, fortunately) socialists themselves.

Democrats are now at a crossroads. One road is the one they’re on – the road of socialism in combination with woke cultural issues. The other road lets go of the woke cultural issues while continuing the socialism.

It’s common wisdom, at least outside the fever swamps of academia, that the Democrats need to take the road away from woke cultural issues if they want to win elections. To win elections, they should focus on socialism, not rainbows and bathrooms.

I am praying they don’t take that advice. I’m praying they keep losing elections by staying on the road of woke cultural issues in combination with socialism. If they’ll just stay the course, the story of the 21st century might be the 100,000,000 lives that we didn’t lose to communism.

Democrats can’t get past “Oppressed vs. Oppressor”

Posted on by
4

The nature of humans and their relationships is complex and interesting. It involves friendship, hate, cooperation, competition, love, impulse, greed, work, betrayal, family, tribes, envy, sympathy and dozens of other emotions.  

Great writers and even bad ones have written billions of words on these powerful feelings, and how they function and dysfunction in groups of humans. Writers keep writing about them and their readers keep reading about them because they strike a chord within us. We witness them in our everyday lives.

Democrats have reduced it all to one thing: class struggle. In this class struggle, everyone is pigeonholed into one of two competing categories: the oppressed and the oppressors. But beware, there are some arbitrary exceptions because there’s something of a hierarchy of oppressors and oppressed.

For example, if your skin color is dark, then you’re oppressed. Unless you’re a dark-skinned Asian who wants to be judged fairly on merit, or a Black man like Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted to be judged on the content of his character, or a political conservative like Justice Clarence Thomas or Professor Thomas Sowell or Secretary of State Marco Rubio – in which case you’re an oppressor.

If you’re a man who likes to pretend he’s a woman, then you’re oppressed. Unless, like Caitlin Jenner, you object to men pretending to be women competing against women in women’s sports – in which case you’re an oppressor.

If you like to do sexual things with people of your own sex, then you’re oppressed. Unless, like several of President Trump’s appointees, you happen to be politically conservative – in which case you’re an oppressor.

If you’re one of the 51% of humanity who is a woman, then you’re oppressed. (Never mind that you live six years longer than your oppressor.) Unless, like most women, you think men don’t belong in the women’s locker room – in which case you’re an oppressor.

If you haven’t made much money because you’ve chosen to use your time doing things other than working hard at well-paying jobs, then you’re oppressed. Same goes if you’ve made plenty of money but you’ve chosen to spend it all.

Enough about the oppressed. On to their oppressors.

If you’re a white man, you’re an oppressor. (That’s true even in Africa where white men are a distinct minority because . . . reasons.) Unless you’re a white man who chooses to use his time doing things other than working hard at well-paying jobs, and therefore has no money or has spent it all – in which case, as mentioned, you’re oppressed.

If you’re . . . well . . . hmm.

I planned to set forth the other types of oppressors but straight white men are pretty much the only ones. Oh, and Thomas Sowell, Martin Luther King, Jr., Clarence Thomas, and a couple billion Asians.

Credit this oppressor/oppressed view of humanity to Karl Marx, an intellectually feeble straight white man hiding behind a grotesque beard of pseudo-intellectualism. Of the myriad human emotions, he was blind to all but one: envy.

His envy led to his famous formulation for how to run an economy, which I paraphrase:

“From each according to his ability to make things, and to each according to his desire to have them.:

Marx’s formula doesn’t work for obvious reasons that are replayed predictably through the course of history. People who have the ability to make things stop making them if those things are taken away from them, and people who desire those things are never satisfied with what’s given to them if they aren’t required to expend any energy to get them.

Of course, the government can force people who are capable of making things to keep making them, even if they know those things will be taken from them. And that’s what socialist states wind up doing. But then you’re not running an economy, you’re running a slave labor camp. That’s not a sustainable plan. 

The Democrats are blind to this logic and this history, perhaps because they want to see themselves as part of the oppressed du jour, to whom, conveniently, the oppressors du jour owe a living, and a good one at that.

Hence the Democrats’ obsession with heroizing losers who are failures in life, from the Rosenbergs to George Floyd to Hunter Biden. For a Democrat, the greatest achievement is to be a failure and therefore a victim, because that means you’re oppressed, and that means you deserve sympathy – along with the material things that your oppressors made and you want. 

Give the Democrats some credit. They’re good at the first element of this non sequitur – the element of failure. I would say they’re still working on the other elements, but that would suggest they’re engaged in an activity they’re unwilling to engage in – work.

Until Democrats learn to achieve and celebrate more than just failure – until they learn to walk the walk of complex human emotions and relations – they still have talk. They can still talk the talk of oppressor/oppressed and perpetrators/victims. From such simple talk, they evidently derive great pleasure.

I think Shakespeare, Tolstoy and Faulkner might say . . . yawn. I know I do.

Ohh noooo, den-mark is mad at us!

Posted on by
7
Nuuk, the capital of Greenland

Turns out, this is an actual country, not the name of a Cub Scout troop. And it’s not den-mark. It’s Denmark. And they don’t call themselves “Denmarkians. They call themselves “Danes.”

Anyway, the Danes are mad as hell. Or at least heck.

You see, back when the Spanish were looting the locals in South and Central America, and the Portuguese were lucratively, if inhumanely, trading slaves in what’s now Brazil, and the English were accidentally planting the seeds of a great republic in North America, the Danes were . . . [drum roll] . . .

. . . stealing ice from the Eskimos. Here’s the story.

But first, change “Eskimo” to “Inuit.” The word “Eskimo” went extinct in favor of “Inuit” about the time the predecessor word to “Black” went extinct in favor of “Black.” You see, “Eskimo” is the Inuit’s own word for “eater-of-raw-meat.” Which they were. (Have you ever tried to start and build a campfire on a glacier?) But they don’t like to be reminded of that fact.

To, um, engage with the Inuit people, the Danes (back when they were called Vikings – a demographic not known for being kind and gentle – and later the “Norse”) stole the home of the Inuit. They took what’s now Greenland.

The Danes got many of square kilometers that nobody but the Inuit wanted. After all, Greenland is roughly 50 times the size of Denmark. But the land is not exactly the Fertile Crescent. It’s not even the potato farms of Ireland. It’s mostly covered with ice year-round. (See, “eater-of-raw-meat,” above.)

Choosing the name “Greenland” for this icebox-in-need-of-defrosting was a nasty joke. The Danes named it that to encourage their fellow countrymen to colonize the place. Imagine their disappointment after a month at sea in the North Atlantic when their “green” new farms turned out to be glaciers.

Even so, the Danes’ colonies in Greenland survived, due in part to a climate that was warmer than today’s. Like most of the world, Greenland did better back when the climate was warmer, not colder, than today.

All this happened well after the greatest Dane in history, Laurence Olivier, also known as Hamlet, gave the answer, “to be.” (And then, he was. For a little while.)

“To be,” however, was not the fate of Greenland. They were never meant to be, even for a little while. There was no gold rush, no taming of the West or even the North, no railroads, no cattle ranches, no saloons, no nothin’. They didn’t even have slaves.

The icebox cruelly called Greenland still has a population of fewer than 57,000 people. That’s roughly the population of Bothell, Washington. There’s a reason you’ve never heard of Bothell, Washington.

Spread over a landmass, or rather ice mass, that is four times the size of Texas, this place called Greenland is one of the least-inhabited places on earth – second only to Antarctica, which the Danes would also have stolen from the Inuit except there were no Inuit there.

In WWII, Denmark declared itself neutral in an obvious attempt at appeasing Hitler. In a matter of days, Hitler’s armies marched through zero resistance in Denmark on their way to Paris. History tells us more about Danish pastry and Danish collaborators than Danish resistance.

After Denmark was overrun, Greenland was rescued by the Americans from the Nazis and their U-boat submarines. The Americans went on to rescue Europe and the world, then gifted Greenland back to Denmark. The Americans further gifted to Denmark – and the rest of western Europe – a massive rebuilding from the ruins of the war.  

Apart from those few years under the umbrella of America’s protection, it’s fair to say Greenland’s fortunes have been like her winters – endless darkness.

But in Greenland’s latitude above the Arctic Circle, the summer brings endless sun. Greenland may now be embarking on her summer, or at least her spring.

You see, the North Atlantic Ocean was unappealing to yesteryear’s conquistadors, but it is strategically important to today’s would-be conquistadors such as Vladimir Putin. Also, the ice sheets of Greenland show signs of shrinking due to Global whatever-they’re-now-calling-it. Greenland could wind up almost as warm as, oh, northern Alaska, in which case you could do all the things in Greenland that you now do in northern Alaska.

Like eat raw meat.

This literal and metaphorical turning of the seasons in Greenland has not gone unnoticed by the Americans. We have a National Weather Service, you know, which is on the lookout for such things when they’re not asleep at the flood-warning switch.

And so, our Troller-In-Chief told the Greenlanders that maybe he’ll just, you know . . . invade.

President Trump is not afraid to think and talk outside the box. Sometimes it seems like he lives there.

Greenland is still technically part of Denmark, sort of. They’re something like a colony, but without the success of one. So, the Danes took offense to this suggestion that America might liberate and protect the Greenlanders, as we did 84 years ago while Denmark was appeasing the Nazis.

That suggestion sent the popularity of America among the Danes south faster than a thermometer in Nuuk in November. The Wall Street Journal announced that this has “ended Denmark’s love affair with the U.S.”

Sheesh, can we still be good friends?

Building on the media’s typical everyone-hates-America story, the Journal interviewed some Danes who indeed do. They all had names that are unpronounceable and often unspellable. Suffice to say they’re real sad and kinda mad about their unrequited and now undone love for us.

But, they warned, if we make good on our threat to take over Greenland, they’ll . . . they’ll . . . they won’t talk to us anymore.

I admit I’m exaggerating their feebleness, but it’s for the noble purpose of mockery. The Danes’ real warning was more threatening, but just barely. Here’s the actual quote from a Danish military analyst (though I’m a little surprised such a job exists):

“I guess the rules of engagement would be, hand over the keys and take the next plane home, because there is very little we could actually do about it, and it would be sort of pointless to fight it because we have four dog sleds and some civilian police there, that’s it.”

In Greenland itself, they see this as more comedy than tragedy. Many of them have wanted to separate from Denmark for years, much as the Basque want to separate from Spain, the Welsh from Great Britain, and the Californicators from Earth.

In fact, I suspect the Greenlanders are pleased with the inordinate and unusual attention they’re receiving. On a per-person basis, Greenland’s icy escapade is more attention than Americans received when our 1980 hockey team performed the Miracle on Ice.

Maybe now we should troll the Greenlanders with a tweet and a smirk that we’ve found some other country, a younger and warmer one – maybe Fiji – to invade. But we can still be friends.