Monday, October 31, 2016

Smartest Clinton Cronies Employing Risk Management

Rank and file Democrats are most inclined to see the following as extremely random speculation. But the evidence that has arisen demonstrates how it is a well-considered surmise. Democrats, especially those currently planning to employ all means necessary to elect Hillary on November 8, would be well advised to consider it too.

My thinking that the smartest high placed Democrats have clearly seen the danger to themselves  began here before FBI director James Comey came out with his Friday morning announcement that the Clinton case was being reopened.

Then a few days after me, but before Friday, Fran Porretto published Political Hatred and Its Potential Consequences, which helps sustain the point I was making.

Yesterday, Saturday, Ed Bonderenka asked some questions about the Comey announcement and concluded "I believe Comey has seen something so damning that he IS actively trying to throw the election."


I actually watched the video interview of Julian Assange included in that click bait. Let me be clear. Mr. Assange was careful not to say he thought Hillary's camp had ordered the murder of Seth Rich. Nor did he agree when asked if Rich had been an informant of his. He responded that he protects the identity of his sources. However, in my opinion, he left it to be inferred quite a bit along the lines of that headline when he said with a very slow-paced delivery:
"Our sources face serious risks. That is why they come to us."
"A variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that sort of thing [Seth Rich] happens." 
Indeed, Director Comey may very well know all that Assange does, and as Ed opines, maybe even more and worse and with certainty.

We live after the history of the soviet union has been disclosed. A large number of Stalin's closest associates met a gruesome and untimely end. Even minor apparatchiks wound up there, some believing to the very end that their circumstance was somehow all a mistake: 'If Stalin only knew.' Thank you Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

It is quite possible, given the varied reports that have turned up in the emails, that many of Hillary's closest associates have indeed seen behavior that troubles them. Could any of them have discreetly set things in motion that reduces their risks while not being seen as doing so? Wouldn't some of you?

Anyone who refuses to consider that these are dangerous times is engaging in -- how should I put this? -- "fear management." As one person told me "it's not that I have my head in the sand, it's just that I don't want to know" without displaying a glimmer of realization how contradictory that was.

Indeed, the simplest way to phrase this seems to be
Those close to Hillary who've carefully leaked what we've been provided could be said to be engaging in risk management.

Those who can't bear to consider the far-reaching implications of what Assange said in the link's interview are likely engaging in fear management. 
The fearful ones are laying low because the scheming brain required to protect themselves and not get caught is outside their capabilities. They are the among the latter while the brainier comprise the former. 

Should the clever ones succeed, their actions will wind up protecting the ones who have not realized the danger heading towards them. And they will wind up saving the nation even if that is not the first or even fifth order of interest to them.  

To my way of thinking, Trump is a risk. But Hillary is the greater risk, and that appears to be the opinion of some of those most close to her -- and they are banking their lives on it.  

Here's hoping that before election day enough of the lower echelon apparatchiks of the Democratic Part machine come to understand the risk to themselves too. That goes too for many lame-brains in the GOP who clearly don't know which way is safest and have been backing Hillary.

Monday, October 24, 2016

For All Those Who are With Her

This is your candidate as it appears on my smartphone's wallpaper. She will go after your enemies like you have never before seen in American politics.

Source for photo thanks to Matt Drudge.

You may think you know who your enemies are. But I really hope you know who her enemies are. You never know who is actually on that list.

As for the rest of you who can't stomach the thought of voting this time or are registering a protest vote for a 3rd party:

Do you understand risks and the ways to reduce them or not?

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Ruling Elite Gloating

Here you will see a very well laid out chronicle of the Clinton lie technique.

It is so well done that one ought to wonder why nothing of consequence has come of it. The SSM does what it is told to do and the alleged opposition party members bluster a bit, then they do nothing about it. The Comey testimony was simply a formal announcement that DOJ would do nil. But the political leaders of the GOP still stand by the old Prog slogan 'no enemies to the left.' So, instead, they battle every person to their Right. You not on the left are their enemy you see.

Thus, everything you just saw can be put away as just another "See how bad we are, and there is nothing you little people will do about it." It is gloating. Pure and simple. Just another instance where our rulers have permitted us to be informed as to what they think of our opinion. Get used to your inferior station "citizen." Kind of shows how much a useful idiot is Bill Whittle? Could be.

When I first saw this I did a slow burn and then simply put it away. But I'm gonna share with all two of you readers. It's not fair to burn alone.

It's not just national, but local too.

Saturday, September 17, 2016


The first time I read the word misled, mizzled was the way I said it in my mind. It was only from the context of the thread that I recognized my error. I was misled by the very nature of the word.

So I have on occasion had cause to say I was mizzled when the apparent pleasant nature of something misled me into accepting it before I learned that there could be unpleasant consequences in accepting it. As in "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Or "the devil will approach in pleasing disguise."

This blog has been silent for six months. The cause was the videos exposing how Planned Parenthood was selling the body parts of aborted babies.  I was struck by how mizzled our nation has become. Worse, I have learned that many insist on staying that way. What nearly everybody thought was a godsend in medical advancement was having the cloak over its seedy side removed, and hardly anybody did more than blink for a few weeks. PP had its defenders working overtime whilst the whistleblowers got harrassed -- and their harassment is far from over. It was because I felt both fear and inadequacy in trying to address the wider public callousness, and overwhelmed by a sense of futility, that I stayed silent, trying frequently to resume, but not progressing.

However about an hour ago I read this from Fran Porretto. I cannot tell you how relieved I am that somebody finally addressed the wider consequences that those PP videos should have awakened in the people of this once great nation. An expansion on the comment I left at his site -- about a nation of cannibals -- will be [should have been*] the subject of my next post. I expect it will be met by hostility because I've already experienced it when discussing it with a friend last month.  I hope you few readers are not among them. But it won't be pretty. And you may be guilty too.

[*A very difficult subject that it seems nobody wants to hear. I pray for encouragement.]

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Fighting the Establishment of an American State Religion -- Part 3

I wrote the text below the break on September 25, 2014 but I did not publish it. I was waiting for more developments to evolve that would help make it abundantly clear how dangerous it is not to fight such developments before they are fully formed. When climate guru RFK Jr. stated he wished there was a law he could punish his opponents with, I observed that it was good he could only wish.

However developments have moved on rapidly to erase that sense of security.

Today, on episode 4 of, viewers heard this:
This clip ends with these words:
"To use our laws to criminalize politics, to use our laws to compel a belief system, is as tyrannical as is possibly imaginable."
It is of supreme importance that people know that a religion -- a belief system -- need not center on worship of a god.
Religion: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
Mr. Levin almost got to the point where he sees what I see. It sounds like he's edging to fight increasingly heavy-handed government efforts to protect Climate Change belief in a way that is in violation of the 1st Amendment. That Amendment bans the establishment of a state religion. This essay is written in hopes that the constitutional lawyer in him will latch on to the idea.

For easy reference, here are links to part 1 and part 2.

Monday, March 07, 2016

Throwing the Election Part II

While smaller blogs may have speculated that the two previous elections were thrown so the Left, and even spoke of it like it should be obvious to everyone,  it really wasn't discussed by the bigger blogs. Most certainly it was never discussed seriously by the highly visible radio talkers who preferred instead to let Michael Medved deride the idea on his regularly scheduled "Conspiracy Day."

1. But beginning with the day after the 2014 elections, when McConnell immediately reversed all his campaign pledges, then many more people got pissed off. It was quite clear that the establishment was insisting that "The Opposition Party" drop all real opposition. And so GOPe has become the label to signify all the traitors of the country class' war against the ruling class.

2. And since the beginning of 2015, the GOPe has thrown so many fights by refusing to even discuss let alone force compromise with Obama, that it is hard to think of one exception.

3. Since the GOPe has proven itself complicit in agreeing with every Obama advance on destroying individual protections from expanding government, it is fair to ask "what else are they willing to throw?" and  "what else have they thrown already about which they have been left us in the dark?"

4. For those who instinctively dismiss the idea that McCain and Romney threw the last two presidential elections, they have to also dismiss the smoking guns laying all over the place. It's telling when it's hard to think of an issue that the GOPe has not thrown the fight. They and their backers, who are almost unmistakably the same as the Democrats', must WANT what Obama has "gifted" us with. This is what soft fascism looks like. And they've loads of following threatening hard fascism -- such as death for denying AGW, or lawfare attacks for saying things critical of members of the ruling class.

5. So backing up to the last two elections, the preponderance of evidence leads the reasonable man to conclude that the GOPe threw those elections.

6. Ergo they have made such a shambles of the current primary system -- including the insane choice of the Dem stronghold of Cleveland for the GOP convention -- that they have been arranging to throw the current election. No, not to Hillary. Maybe to Trump. Maybe to Cruz. Maybe to Biden. Whatever, there is hardly any chance that the ruling class does not have many options at its disposal to get the puppet to rule ala Plato's Republic cave analogy.

I know. You haven't heard anyone else tell you that Hillary won't be the Dem candidate. So does that mean I must be wrong?

So let me remind you why I say it. I wrote last year that Hillary will not serve. I even provided photographic evidence, that should greatly help you agree with me.

Primarily your reason to agree with me is how Obama has wounded her. All the State Dept leaks tied to her remain in the news and are getting stronger. Yet he could have suppressed all or most of it. Look how he suppressed all the memos tying IRS commissioner Lois Lerner to all her high crimes. You know he could for Hill, yet he didn't. So Obama dares not let her win the Presidency.

Kings and would-be kings long ago learned the hard lesson that a wounded king must be finished off.  That is even without the widespread knowledge of so many dead close Clinton associates. Vince Foster, Webb Hubbell, Jim McDougal.  When considering who to nominate, now is the time to spread this thought seriously when considering Hillary's chances of being President, and hence not even the likely Dem nominee -- you may not hear it anywhere else.

I don't know how else to say it that now is the time to back Cruz even if I retain doubts that he is really an anti-Establishment candidate -- and that is how most Americans feel even if they are unclear as to who is the Establishment. Just about all the machinations have been to keep Americans in the dark about Ted Cruz. I'm forced to conclude it is because he HAS the record of fighting all in DC. In the end I'm fighting them too. So sure of him or not, I'm stuck with him.

Friday, March 04, 2016

Throwing the Election to the Prog Advancers

[The following was revised on late on March 5, 2016 to improve clarity.]
(When you finish below, here is Part II.)
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles."-- Sun Tzu

John McCain and Mitt Romney could have won the presidency. But neither man railed against the past of Barack Obama. And Romney also failed to rail against Obama's 4 year record,  a sure loser of a strategy given that it was Obama's record which cost the Democratic party control of the House of Representatives in the elections of 2010.

So half the voters never heard word one from the opposition candidates about the downside and risks of electing and reelecting Obama president. The majority of voters were left not knowing important details about the man who would wreak havoc on them by waging legal, economic and regulatory war on them. The larger majority were left uninformed by the very men they expected to inform them, and so they did not know their enemy.

And so America (as an idea in an historic sense) lost the last two political battles waged to fundamentally change her.

But did Americans really know themselves? More to the point, did Americans really know the character and intentions of her leaders selected to waging war against the fundamental transformers? Who would have chosen either McCain or Romney in their respective primaries knowing the kind of campaigns they would later run? Knowing more about either candidate might have better informed primary voters so that better candidates could have been considered.

I say "might have" because it's not all that clear even today that either men or the Establishment they represent really (given how that establishment has behaved these last 7 years) wanted them to do anything differently.

IOW, just as prize fighters have been known to throw fights, why not political leaders? Especially now that it well known that both party establishments work pretty much with the same lobbyists.

Furthermore, the 2014 elections that increased the GOP control of the House and won control of the Senate on the promise that "THEN WE CAN AFFECT CHANGE" has nevertheless -- disappointingly -- affected nothing in the advancement of the Prog (builders of the ruling class) agenda.  Borders more porous than ever. Obamacare funded via continuing resolutions despite promises not to. No resistance to the nomination of the radical Loretta Lynch to be AG. The list of thrown fights is endless.

Because of this Americans have come to recognize how much the GOP is hardly the opposition party we had expected it to be. Subsequently the acronym, GOPe -- GOPe(stablishment) -- has become the most common of pejorative words that express our disappointment with how the opposition isn't.

And I'm saying, if the GOPe has proven to throw fights on individual issues, why not conclude that they've been throwing the fights for the top job?

Now here is the most important graf of this short post. The GOPe still controls the banner under which Americans wage political war against her internal enemy.

So America. How much do you know yourself and know who is claiming to be your leader in the battle coming in November?


Lighter Side Look at Super Tuesday

Friday, February 26, 2016


Equanimity. What's that?

Yesterday I and some others were watching a racquetball match. I observed to a successful lawyer that one of the reasons Jim was so good at the game was how equanimously he took both good shots and bad ones. He doesn't admire his great shots and he doesn't grouse over his poor ones. The most he does is go "oh!" after a losing shot and then he goes right back into a ready stance awaiting the next serve.

Nick asked "what was that word?"  I repeated the adjective equanimous and pulled it up on my smart phone. Equanimity is the noun. Nick liked that. It fit the case we were watching, and Nick already was thinking beyond the one man to others to whom the term fit. A successful lawyer enlightened on language by a retired engineer.

So the preceding events got me to thinking. If a lawyer wasn't familiar with the word, what are the chances that many more living in this media driven and poorly educated world would not recognize equanimity and its value to their lives?

In the current GOP field of candidates, the only anti-establishment candidate for whom this fits is Ted Cruz. The last candidate in my lifetime to display equanimity better was Ronald Reagan.

Cruz has come under relentless attack by the SSM, radical Leftist hacks (Google Robert Reich on Ted Cruz) by the GOPe (see the latest outrage by the idiot senator Lindsey Graham), and by both allegedly anti-Establishment candidates Trump and Rubio.

The abuse have come in many forms.
  • He has been called a liar by proven liars who desperately need to engage in the fallacious argumentation  known as Tu Quoque -- "you also" -- to take the spotlight off their own lies.
  • Indirect lies have been used too. Disingenuousness. The "news" that Ben Carson was leaving after Iowa that had been tweeted by a Cruz staffer was started by SSM outlet CNN which "reporters" mingled in blatant speculation about what the news item meant -- and their baiting snagged the Cruz staff tweeter.  The charges leveled at Cruz after this were disingenuous at best because the entire timeline indicates it was all about baiting and trolling. And Cruz's opponents capitalized upon it. If Cruz' opponents really are anti-establishment they'd be unanimously pillorying CNN and Jake Tapper for their biased reportage. 
  • Trump lumping Cruz in as part of the establishment simply because he's a member of Congress -- as if Cruz has not consistently been under attack for behaving as the TEA Party rebel we all wish far more other "TEA Party" candidates would have proven to be.
Look my friends. I really don't like Cruz all that much for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere. I wish he'd embody some more humility -- indeed much as Reagan did.

Here's how I look at a Cruz presidency. A Reagan Presidency today would stand a far better chance of disestablishing awful Leftist advances because this time both houses of congress and many state houses across the country are in right of center hands.
  • Ted Cruz could deliver on many more Reagan promises than Reagan could.
  • Donald Trump would not do this because he's all about doing deals with the Left from which he has historically been much more connected. 
  • Cruz is the candidate closest to Reagan and nobody is calling him a dumb actor. Trump is the closest candidate to Michael Bloomberg -- the former Democrat who bought the NYC GOP nomination so that he could provide New Yorkers a non-radical choice to run their city.
One more thing about equanimity. You, my dear readers, need to practice it now more than ever. Because you will be speaking with others who are EMOTIONALLY caught up in the media circus. You be your friends' anchor.

Make your equanimity your friends most vital commodity.  

Sunday, February 14, 2016


The transcript of a conversation overheard late yesterday.

α: #who knocked off Scalia?

β: Is that a new twitter tag?

α: Yes, Conspiracy Boy, I'm starting it.

β: I'm sorry Alpha, but it's not original by you.

α: I haven't seen it. It was an invitation for you to start the conspiracy theory.

β: If it's true, then it's hardly safe saying it.

α: Scalia is the proof.

β: LOL. Tautology much? No. Scalia is the happenstance.
One of us would be the coincidence, and the other would be the proof.

Monday, February 08, 2016

Partials: Hellbounders, Leftist Thuggery and SSM Assassins

1. Madeleine Albright: 'Special place in hell' for women who don't vote for Hillary.

Dear Sec Albright. More likely a special hell for you all who claim to support voter blocs only to lead them astray in order to sate your own lust for power. I think it even more damning when you are using envy as the key tool.  There's no greater way to make people unhappy without directly harming them than by making them feel dissatisfied with whatever happiness they currently have. Your side engages in unconscionable demagoguery so frequently that you wear it like a suit seamlessly. Utterly revolting.

2. All those socialist/communist societies of the 20th Century -- having murdered 100 to 200 million people while terrorizing the rest of their subjects with 'you might be next' -- were doing it all wrong. We're told.
Today's socialists are broad minded and would never descend to strong-arm tactics let alone murder.
We're told.

I first saw this posted on FaceBook. It received thousands of likes and comments such as "That's the way!" Cartoon Bernie slapping his adversaries all while being protected by a scowling thug. But this century will be different. We're told.

In case this video gets pulled due to embarrassment for revealing too soon where the Left is going, the title of this video is "Bernie Sanders - Don't Tell Me America (Cartoon) Vote By Rodd Perry."

3.  Beginning last Monday, CNN began a lying earworm that Ben Carson was giving up. It was used to create a firestorm within GOP ranks, the kind of rancor that benefits the Dems, and the GOPe no less. Surprise, surprise! 

The evidence of CNN's words is timed and fully documented.  But CNN is lying to cover-up all that they said and the Washington Post is backing them in the face of all that evidence. Guess which story most American's are hearing? 

The Soviet Style Media (SSM) is very good at character assassination and the Left is very good at closing ranks. But the right is terrible at closing ranks. That is because the GOPe are Prog partisans out of uniform they too easily roil the ranks of the GOP and even the yet smaller ranks of conservatives. They are traitors in conservative clothing.

But the SSM are also very good at protecting their own. They've used this minuscule lying meme to take substantive news pressure off of Hillary. Her being investigated both for betraying our country to its enemies by making its top secrets insecure and for her lying and cover-ups of those betrayals. Mark Levin calls the SSM the praetorian guard media. They are that, but as this little vignette demonstrates, they are even more loathsome.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Establishment Tactics

Very few of the Establishment appear to be honest brokers. Hence I understand the short-term allure of the tactics of Donald Trump. But long term? Really?

Please let examples such as the following serve as a warning (one of many I've received, but I'm providing this one as an abject lesson) to those who want to believe that "someone is working for ME." My letter to them [Heritage] could be sent to Trump and a horde of others. I suspect it will be met with deaf ears if it is even read by anyone.

Dear Christie Fogarty (presuming that's your real name), or anyone who cares for the reputation of Heritage,

Re: Christie Fogarty <>

I just stepped out of our final membership team meeting of the month. I wanted to remind you that you haven't renewed your Heritage membership this year. 
You’ve been one of our most dedicated members and I know you wouldn’t want your Heritage membership to expire...."

Heaven forbid that anyone at your institution or others like you would bother to personalize a fund-raising message at least somewhat.

I do not remember what year it was exactly -- I think 1999 or 2000 -- when I last sent you any money.

First of all, I'd say my membership long ago expired and so it is impossible for me not to want it to expire now. In fact once was the only time I sent you anything.  It was because I read of an attempt by the Clinton administration to attack you (I do not recall now the nature of that attack). In retrospect you have forced me to conclude that it was a weak moment on my part. I find it painful to recall. Thank you.

And secondly, but more importantly, since 2000 was the last time I could have sent you anything, how is it possible that I could now be one of you most dedicated members?  The very essence of what Heritage is supposed to stand for is undermined by such a preposterous designation. 

I can hear your best explanation now:
"What we do is so important that we must maintain funding, and past contributors have proven to be future ones, thus we are hoping we can touch you again, so please excuse a little hyperbole." 
In other words: "Our ends justify our means." 

How exactly is that not similar in nature to Nancy Pelosi's "Are you serious? Are you serious?" when asked where in the constitution one could find permission for Obamacare.

I am sadly aware how sophistry is a nasty part of our heritage. Given that the ends justifying the means tactics are being employed by your fundraisers, it would appear sophistry, or at best its useful idiot tool casuistry, have become a mainstay at Heritage.

If you retain a vestige of shame you will rectify this behavior immediately.

At the least one would think that Heritage, which claims to be in the forefront of protecting individuals from large and remote institutions, and a institution in its own rite, could respond favorably to an individual who has caught you employing tactics apparently learned from those you want us to believe you are protecting us. Et tu Heritage?

Your cynicism feeds my skepticism. If your purpose in life is to convince the public that nothing beyond divine intervention can save us, then you are firmly on the road to damnation.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Between the Lines #5 [Age Cap]

All you need to know about your position in the state of American health care today I assert you may discover from two posts, one from 2009, and another from 2014. Both reveal the mindset of the architect of American health care under Barack Obama.


The first is an analysis of what the architect of our current "heath care" system created by presenting a clear examination of his thinking.

The second is an admission by the architect of his own feelings. Twelve pages worth. What do I read between the lines there?
"If my feelings are good enough for me they are good enough for you. Period."

I know from sad experience there are some who will refuse to get this message.

Below is repeated Zeke Emanuel's graph as published in 2008. Those who noticed how it ceases at age 75 thought it was merely a matter of convenience -- nobody knows how far to the right someone might live, right? Right?

Well, it wasn't until 2014 that he openly disclosed his wishes. It is hard not to conclude now that the graph ending at 75 was not merely incidental. It's surely been his and Obama's intended policy.

Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Defeating the Progs and Critical Theorists

The thought that follows this introduction began as a comment to What is Cultural Marxism and What is Critical Theory? that Redbaiter posted at his blog, TrueblueNZ. This is not the first time RB has written about the Left's nihilistic tendencies, particularly its employ of Critical Theory to bring Western society and culture to its knees. But this time he brings to our attention a newer video "What Is Critical Theory" that he pleads that his readers watch so as to gain more familiarity with the tactic even if they are largely aware of it already. His reason for desiring that more of us are better educated and aware of the enormity of the threat he makes clear at the end. "They [Cultural Marxists and Critical Theorists] are a massive force, but we can defeat them if we unite in that one purpose and that one understanding. Go out there, and fight the Cultural Marxists at every opportunity. If you don’t, everything is lost."

I largely concur with that request. But I also know what a daunting task it is he is wishing that many more of us will take on. Daunting because overcoming denial of the very real existence of evil is far more difficult today when the religions that traditionally stood against it have been eroded both from within individual institutions and in the minds of the huge percentage of adherents it has lost.

So in the interest of building up RB's case I tried to show what was missing from the video he featured and what more can be accomplished once we look at what was not said. I ask that you read RB's post and view the short video, and including comments left by AF and EAD. I think it will help you greatly understand what I think is an important lesson to be learned.

As I think you know RB, I love history. With my recall and ease at synthesizing connections between the past with the present I can bore even you before you gain an inkling as to why I am mentioning some story -- say, from ancient Greece.

Speaking of boring. While this video's narration is somewhat informative even for me who has familiarity with Critical Theorists, it will bore a lot of viewers in part because of something critically missing from it.

The narrator in the video says “defining or categorizing Critical Theory is exceptionally difficult.” His reason — essentially that it’s too complex — misses the mark set by the title of the video. “What is” is not really answered dammit. When I’m done here — it won’t take long — I hope you might say it is his own intellectualism that gets in the way of getting to the point.

Yes the narrator finally decides to provide listeners with an oblique definition that I’ll shorten just a bit to aid clarity “Critical theory is the searching for … instruments of social transformation.”

Transformation of Western Civilization to what? This video leaves that out too.

Let me grant that he does do something very well. He lists most all the common varieties of attacks on Western Civ. But he never classifies it for what it is. Let me do that.

Critical theory is the application of criticisms beyond what those with common human decency call “constructive criticism:” criticism intended to aid the person or project criticized. Therein lies the answer to the question. Critical Theory aims for destructive criticism. Criticism for the sake of criticism. The social transformation sought by its adherents is the destruction of happiness, seeking to make everyone dissatisfied with life. Its ultimate end is the destruction of human life. Their perfect outcome would have every man at every other man’s throat.

What I’m suggesting is that Critical Theory serves a definition of evil that I’ve seen (most often in novels and film) but about which I’ve never seen written before. I think it was Mortimer Adler who defined love as the emotion wherein another’s happiness is essential to your own (others may recognize in it a similar line used by Robert Heinlein in one of his fictions). The form of evil we see behind critical theory is the emotion wherein everyone else’s misery is essential to your happiness. In other words, what I'm defining is beyond hate. It's love of hatefulness. Critical Theorists will not rest until everyone else is dead or wishing they were.

If you can see what I’m saying, then you know there is an antidote RB.  The problem lies not in that we people most inclined to behaving decently couldn’t win the battle. The problem is that most of us are too civilized to believe that such rotten people exist. But they are currently thriving. And they are doing so it at our expense, with the cooperation of many of us and with the unawareness (if not denial) of most of us.

The antidote is found in the basic decency code of the Judeo-Christain ethos. Critical Theorists have worked hard at undermining a lot of Western thinking, but never more hard than at undermining the fundamental message of the Western creeds. They do this by relentlessly using Alinksy's rule number 4 against western religions by as many angles as each religion has adherents, because every man will simply will fall short of the ideals they profess. Those failings provides an endless supply of low-hanging fruit. The relentless criticism achieves its destruction first by always focusing on the failings no matter how minor. Then they go on to downplay all the magnificent benefits to living that resulted from the civility induced by the religions into the individuals that provided those benefits.

The consequences of all of this criticism is that the very gains that have made living easier and the means by which they were achieved are belittled.  We are witnessing a large segment of the latest generation being misled into discarding it all. In essence they've been inclined to aligning with the notion that less civilized would make life better. Nihilism being mainstreamed. Proving that the Critical theorists' campaign has been supremely effective.

Think of it as Chinese water torture applied to personal morality. One gift horse after another has its mouth inspected by the torturers, linking any flaw, real or imagined, to the self-interests of the giver. No good deed goes unpunished is the message they have imbued in too many of us, but especially the current youngest generation. The Critical Theorists understood before the rest of us that anyone who takes them seriously will find it hard not to become invested in the same death spiral as our torturers.

Now here is where I begin to address all those who continue to value the older ways that have led to all the good things our Western Civilization has delivered. To you who continue to strive to make life better for yourselves and those around you.

When next you experience callous ingratitude, the sort suggesting dismissal of the many benefits you have provided others, I think it is where "turn the other cheek" has the power to change the world one ungrateful soul at a time.

Those who continue to provide comforts and warmth and happiness to others in the course of their lives mocks the efforts of these rotten death dealers.

And then there will be the time where the enemy, the neighbor who no longer can tolerate your happiness no matter how large or small, will have gone too far. Each of you at some point will come to recognize that no matter how many cheeks you offer to the enemy they will remain the enemy of common human decency forever. Each enemy will have clearly inscribed his name to his own proscription.

Love the Lord your God with all of you heart and all of your might and all of your soul.
And love your neighbor as yourself.

These two sentences can be stated in a secular manner.

Love that you have life; be grateful for the abilities with which you've been endowed to discover all about it that you can; strive to learn to feel to your depths life's worth and value it with your utmost to do so.
And offer to help your neighbor learn to strive for himself; because it will be harder for you to enjoy life when your neighbor does not know how and is afraid to try. It is in your best interests to carry him for a time whenever you are able. Make him aware that you are offering only a starter course and that he will signal its end.

Do these things as much as it is in your power to do so and you will have thwarted the Progs in ways far beyond any reachable by argument.

Friday, January 08, 2016

Red States May Expel Blue Ones

The movement to use Article V of the United States Constitution in order to rein in the excesses of the federal government appears to be gathering steam.

There may still be some difficulty in making headway with the new Amendments that would result. That is because 38 (3/4 of 50) states must ratify them. Too many blue states suggests we may have a problem getting the Amendments adopted.

So I was wondering if we could do to the blue states what their colleges campuses seem to be able to do with students whom they deem to be politically incorrect. Expel them. And we have the Left's own rules by which we could compel their expulsion. Alinsky Rule number 4. Look it up.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

More Evidence "Do They Want You Dead?"
View My Stats