Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (5)

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 7.26.21 AM

Screen Shot 2019-08-14 at 7.22.22 AM

Video screenshots from the Yahoo News story “Beto O’Rourke says Trump ‘is in large part to blame’ for El Paso shooting”

Is President Trump Responsible for Recent Mass Shootings?

The Democrat Party has decided to blame President Trump for the recent El Paso mass shooting, with Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke as their primary spokesman.  Their “case” against the President is that the manifesto allegedly published by the shooter uses words that have also been used by the President.  In particular the word “invasion” as applied to mass illegal immigration at our southern border.

You don’t need to dig far to find manifesto text that counters this thin reed of logic.  In particular, this insane, evil person specifically rejected the idea that his deeds were tied to President Trump.  Note also that the shooter also disavows potential blame of “certain presidential candidates” for his actions, which can only refer at this point to Democrat candidates.

Crusius ended the manifesto by saying he expected to be killed in the attack he would allegedly carry out on Saturday. As it turned out, the shooter was not, and he is now behind bars, charged with killing 22 people and wounding 26 others. He said his actions would be misunderstood as being tied to Trump.

“My ideology has not changed for several years,” Crusius wrote. “My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I [am] putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that.”

That was the only time Trump appeared in the manifesto, and it appears clear that Crusius borrowed his “fake news” characterization of the news media from the president. But that is not what Trump’s critics have charged. They have charged that Trump inspired Crusius to kill. They have charged it so often in the last few days that it has hardened into a general perception that Crusius was inspired by the president. But read the manifesto. It’s just not there.

*The word “invasion” has been used in connection with illegal immigration since long before the president ran for office. In the 1990s, for example, the state of California unsuccessfully sued the federal government, claiming the government did not protect states from an “invasion” of illegal immigrants. In 2010, the state of Arizona also unsuccessfully challenged the federal government over a similar “invasion.” The word was also used, well before Trump, in general commentary, usually by those who sought to restrict immigration levels into the United States. And more generally, too: Bobby Jindal, the son of immigrants and governor of Louisiana who ended his 2016 presidential campaign with a bitter attack on Trump, used to say that “immigration without assimilation is invasion.”

Why would the vile, evil killer mention Democrat candidates in his comments?  Probably because he uses the same eco-dystopian future ideas as numerous of them.

After all, these misanthropic ideas, this green miserabilism, this anti-modern guff about humanity being a plague on poor Mother Earth, is a central feature of the El Paso killer’s manifesto. And if Trump can be held responsible for the shootings on the basis that the manifesto echoes his Mexican-bashing, why shouldn’t greens, who pollute public debate with the kind of anti-humanist ideology that clearly moved and enraged the El Paso murderer, shoulder some responsibility, too?  …

… In his alleged manifesto, the killer, alongside his racist rants about Hispanic people and the ‘replacement’ of whites, attacks modern society for being eco-unfriendly. Westerners’ lifestyles are ‘destroying the environment’ and ‘creating a massive burden for future generations’, he says. He seems obsessed with the core element of green thinking – the idea that mankind is overusing limited natural resources. We are ‘shamelessly overharvesting resources’, apparently.

As with green ideology in general, there is a strong streak of anti-humanism in his eco-obsessions. He attacks ‘urban sprawl’ – also known as human habitation – and the way it ‘destroys millions of acres of land’. As for ‘consumer culture’ with its production of ‘thousands of tonnes of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste’ – he slams that as another part of humankind’s ‘decimation of our environment’. The solution? Surprise, surprise: population control. Echoing the numerous eco-Malthusians who have spent decades calling for a restrictions on human natality in order to save the planet, he says we need to ‘decrease the number of people in America using resources’.   …

… somehow in recent years, this backward, anti-modern obsession with cleansing nature of foul mankind’s uncaring, destructive behaviour has morphed into a supposedly progressive, leftish outlook. And it is now utterly mainstream, being promoted by virtually every public and political institution.

Also, were the Democrats to apply their supposed logic consistently then they would have to blame Elizabeth Warren for the Dayton Ohio mass shooting.  In fact, the case is much stronger.  Here’s what the Dayton shooter allegedly had to say.

Heavy.com got access to the shooter’s social media. Contrary to the media narrative currently boiling over, this shooter was not a Trump fan. In fact, he hated Trump, hated Republicans, was an avowed leftist, used antifa style language in his posts, and loved Elizabeth Warren. …

He used language often used by Antifa, exclaiming that he wants to “kill every fascist.” He also liked and commented on posts expressing support for the group.

“#2016ElectionIn3Words This is bad,” he wrote on Nov. 8, 2016. “You can’t kill 50+ people and injure 600(!) In 10 minutes with cigarettes my dude,” he wrote in 2017. In response to a Buzzfeed story that read, “Virginia has declared a state of emergency in anticipation of the “Unite the Right” rally anniversary in Charlottesville this weekend,” he wrote: “Kill every fascist.

Betts was a politically active socialist who supported Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.

On the Twitter page, Connor Betts indicated he’d vote for Elizabeth Warren for president but not Kamala Harris, responding to a person’s tweet suggesting they be co-presidents. “Nahh, but only cuz Harris is a cop – Warren I’d happily vote for,” he wrote.

I don’t recall a single Democrat or MSM source drawing attention to this information in an accusatory manner with regard to Mrs. Warren.

Finally, recall from this previous post that the significant increase in mass shootings began and continued under President Obama.  What’s going on now is just the continuation of a process rather than something new under the Trump administration.  Were it my goal to “blame” President Obama for the significant increase in mass shootings that occurred on his watch I could dig up many quotes in support.  But that isn’t my goal. Yes, President Obama said many things that I believe to have coarsened our political dialogue and caused social turmoil.  However, I don’t blame him for the mass shootings that occurred during his Presidency, nor should anyone else.

mass-shooting-by-pres

If you blame President Trump but bestow innocence upon President Obama and the current crop of Democrat candidates then you are engaging in divisive politics.

But we should rather be looking at ourselves, at the culture and values that we have embraced for answers, not convenient scape-goats be they be Democrat or Republican presidents or candidates.

Advertisements

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (2)

nazi-justice-demsNietzsche’s Superman Edition

The Problem

Screen Shot 2019-07-15 at 5.47.36 AM

“Proof” that V.P. Pence is a Nazi!

Is there any visible group in U.S. politics who more often and strenuously accuse their opponents of being “fascists” and “Nazis” than do the Justice Democrats?  I don’t think so. Were you to take their rhetoric at face value you’d think that they wouldn’t come within a King’s Mile of anyone who collaborated with Nazis.  But you would be completely wrong.

In point of fact, the Queen Priestess of the Justice Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY) recently identified with and favorably quoted the wife of a well known Nazi collaborator, Evita Peron (see the above figure, emphasis added to the following quote).

Mr. Peron helped many Nazis fleeing Europe after the Second World War to find a safe haven in Argentina, including Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele.
According to the new book: “It is still suspected that among her [Eva Peron’s] possessions, there were pieces of Nazi treasure, that came from rich Jewish families killed in concentration camps.

And, when confronted with this fact she doubled down and favorably re-

Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 5.57.43 AM

AOC doubles down on quoting a Nazi collaborator.

quoted Peron.

Then there’s the curious case of AOC’s recent Chief of Staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who regularly  wears a Subhas Chandra Bose t-shirt.  And who is Bose?  Here’s an enlightening summary of his close and enthusiastic collaboration with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan during WW2.

Screen Shot 2019-07-16 at 6.24.56 AMSubhas Chandra Bose, a dissident Indian nationalist recognized by Adolf Hitler as the leader of the Free India Government. In exchange, Bose enlisted tens of thousands of Indian men to support the Japanese invasion of British India in 1944 and help fight the British in Europe for Hitler. The Indian Legion Bose raised for Germany trained as a regiment of the SS.

He also broadcast propaganda for Hitler on a radio network set up by Bose to encourage Indians to fight for freedom. Bose met with Hitler in Germany in 1942.

If you find this information credible, then you’re also likely pretty confused.  For in the normal world populated by mere humans the contradiction between their stated beliefs (We’re anti-fascists!) and their behavior (We positively identify with fascist collaborators!) is insurmountable.

A Possible Explanation

What you must understand is that people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Saikat Chakrabarti likely don’t consider themselves to be living in a “normal” moral world.  Nor do they likely consider themselves to be “mere humans.”  No, they apparently believe themselves to be something like Nietzsche’s Supermen: beings that transcend normal human morality, who’s will to power justifies their existence.

Nitezsche-superman

Nietzsche’s “Superman”

Superman, German Übermensch, in philosophy, the superior man, who justifies the existence of the human race. “Superman” is a term significantly used by Friedrich Nietzsche… This superior man would not be a product of long evolution; rather, he would emerge when any man with superior potential completely masters himself and strikes off conventional Christian “herd morality” to create his own values, which are completely rooted in life on this earth.

You see, since they live on plane far above that defined by “Christian herd morality,” anything that they conclude will advance their “will to power” is not just permissible, but actually proper for use.  This is a key reason that you will never see these Justice Democrats apologize for any lie, any moral failure, or any intellectual contradiction.  For since they are pursuing ends that are obviously perfect, they are freed to utilize any and all means necessary.

It takes a shocking combination of ignorance AND immorality to occupy this presumed higher moral plane.  May God have mercy on us if they ever achieve the totalitarian power which they pursue.  They have warned us by openly identifying with the 20th century’s fascist collaborators.  If that is permitted by their “superior morality” then what isn’t?

Dispassionate Meditations on Mass Shootings (4)

Lankford-Lott

The Lott study results (right) contradict the Lankford results…why?

Does the United States Have the Most Mass Shootings (2)?

Lankford’s Credibility Challenged

Given the publicity given to the Lankford study it was certain that attempts to review and replicate the results would be made.  However, from the beginning of this coverage in 2016 to well into 2019 Dr. Lankford absolutely refused to release the data upon which his conclusions rested or to engage in substantive dialogue with other researchers.  Therefore, anyone attempting to assess his results was completely on their own.  And, given Lankford’s striking and highly publicized results, John R. Lott, Jr., President of the Crime Prevention Research Center took on the challenge.

Given the previously discussed uncertainty about terms and definitions combined with Lankford’s refusal to share his definition or data, the Lott study used a widely accepted definition of “mass shooting.”  The following definition was used by the Congressional Research Service in their 2015 study titled “Mass Murder with Firearms: Incidents and Victims, 1999-2013,” which is similar to that used by Mother Jones.

… a “mass shooting” could be defined as a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and in one or more locations relatively near one another.

Using this definition and a comprehensive review of foreign news sources (including non-English language sources), the Lott study came to a contradictory conclusion, that being (emphasis added):

Lankford’s study reported that from 1966 to 2012, there were 90 public mass shooters in the United States and 202 in the rest of world. We find that Lankford’s data represent a gross undercount of foreign attacks. Our list contains 1,448 attacks and at least 3,081 shooters outside the United States over just the last 15 years of the period that Lankford examined. We find at least fifteen times more mass public shooters than Lankford in less than a third the number of years.

Coding these events sometimes involves subjectivity. But even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent. By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

Lankford Finally Responds

After almost three years of stonewalling by this public academic, Lankford finally respond to his critics and released his data in March of 2019.  He did so by publishing a paper titled “Confirmation That the United States Has Six Times Its Global Share of Public Mass Shooters, Courtesy of Lott and Moody’s Data.”  Though Lankford spun this paper as a devastating rebuttal of Lott’s work, in reality it amounted to an admission of professional malpractice (if not worse).

It turns out that Lankford had, without disclosure, limited his study to include only mass shooters who “acted alone.”  As was discussed in the previous post, the only definition that assumes a single perpetrator is that for an “active shooter,” and even there the FBI had extended it to include multiple shooters.  Even more devastating to Lankford’s position is the fact that he led his original paper using the 1999 Columbine attack which had two shooters.

One is also left to wonder why, if Lankford had such an easily available “devastating” riposte to Lott’s work, he waited so ling to respond.  The most likely answer is that Lankford had pulled a definitional trick in order to place the United States in a bad light.  For, by supposedly limiting (though he was not consistent, see above Columbine example) his study to lone active shooters Lankford was able to manufacture a statistic that appeared to show the United States to be a “mass shooter” negative outlier.

In order to better appreciate the gravity of this apparent deception, ask yourself if you would rather go to a nation that had 1.57 mass shooter attacks per 100,000 people (Northern Mariana Islands) or 0.015 (the United States)?  Would you really care if you were murdered in an event with only one person doing the mass shooting?  Of course not!

It is for this reason that Lankford most likely refused to explain his definitions, share details of his methodology or publish his data for almost three years.  Only when the pressure to explain himself became overwhelming did he finally come clean; and then in a manner that attempted to hide his malpractice behind a fog of accusations.

Lankford’s Open Admission of Bias

Lankford in his original paper made it absolutely clear that he was a deeply biased source.  Following is the first paragraph from his original paper (emphasis added, see end of post for information on H. Rap Brown).

Are public mass shooters predominantly an American problem? For years, people have wondered whether the dark side of American exceptionalism is a cultural propensity for violence. Political activist H. Rap Brown once claimed that “Violence is a part of America’s culture. It is as American as cherry pie” (Lehman, 2014). Similarly, Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Richard Hofstadter (1970b) concluded that the most notable thing “about American violence is its extraordinary frequency, its sheer commonplaceness in our history, its persistence into very recent and contemporary times, and its rather abrupt contrast with our pretensions to singular national virtue” (p. 7). Although United States history includes the killing of indigenous people, a revolutionary war, a civil war, many foreign wars, slavery, race riots, domestic terrorism, and high rates of homicide, perhaps no form of violence is seen as more uniquely American than public mass shootings.

This appears to be the work of a man on a mission to denigrate and discredit the United States.  I have read hundreds of research papers in my lifetime.  No researcher who desired to maintain a posture of disinterested inquiry would ever start a paper in this manner.  However, if your goal were to catch the eye of like-minded politicians and media organizations then this is an excellent opening paragraph.

Thus, this situation appears to be a glaring example of how a supposedly disinterested academic can distort research to support a predetermined outcome due to their personal bias.



h-rap-brown1

H. Rap Brown: “I say violence is necessary.  It is as American as cherry pie.”

H. Rap Brown:

Rejecting the prosecution’s call for a death sentence, a jury sentenced the former ’60s radical known as H. Rap Brown to life in prison for killing a sheriff’s deputy in a shootout two years ago.
The jury deliberated for about five hours before deciding Wednesday to spare the life of the Muslim cleric now called Jamil Abdullah Al-Amin. He will not have a chance at parole.

So, a supposedly disinterested, public spirited criminology professor quoted a convicted murderer and Black Panther Party member as a credible source on the nature of violence in the United States.  This would be amazing had I not lived through the past ten or so years.

Progressive Insanity (1)

McConnell-Mob

For those of you who blessedly aren’t familiar with Progressive mob speech, the obscured words are mo***rf***er and

Ignoring the Real Top Story

I turned on the TV yesterday and came across a cable news show from the Wall Street Journal in which they were discussing some esoteric facet of government policy as if we are living in a sane nation.  What’s really going on of importance is that one of our two political parties has gone certifiably insane and is now stoking hate, division and outright violence against anyone who insufficiently supports (let alone opposes) their madness.

For one glaring example, a Progressive mob descended on Senate Majority Mitch McConnell’s home and threatened to murder him.  The did so after multiple Democrat presidential candidates accused President Trump and his supporters of being “white supremacists” who are directly responsible for the El Paso mass shooting.

FOX News reports:

Protesters gather outside McConnell’s Kentucky home, one calls for his stabbing ‘in the heart’

A group of protesters supporting gun control gathered outside the home of Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. where one expressed that someone should “stab the motherf—er in the heart.”

The protest took place on Sunday night in the wake of mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. McConnell is currently recovering from a fall he had over the weekend, leaving him with a fractured shoulder.

Approximately 25 demonstrators stood on the sidewalk near McConnell’s Louisville home, shouting “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA!” while others called him names like “Murder Turtle” and made loud noises by banging objects and dragging a shovel back and forth on the ground as a group of security personnel stood between the protestors and the home, WLKY reported.

“The b—- is home — we keep seeing the lights go on and off,” another protester can be heard shouting. “This h– really thought he was going to get ready to be at home after he hurt his little punk ass shoulder. B—-, don’t nobody give a f—! F–k your thoughts and prayers, Mitch. F— you, f— your wife, f— everything you stand for.”

And what happened when McConnell’s media team posted a video of the mob and their threats on Twitter…wait for it…Twitter banned the McConnell account!

twitter-bans-mcconnell

team-mitch-suspended

The Democrat Party has revealed itself to hate half of the country they claim the right to govern.  Their supporters in social media are silencing anyone, including the Senate Majority Leader, if they dare to push back against the hateful and violent rhetoric.

This is the top story.  And we are still almost 15 months away from the 2020 election.

A few brave liberals have joined the fray on the side of civilization in the face of this growing mob if violent insane Progressives (obscenity obscured from original).

Pretty soon, America might have to start asking: what exactly is “progressive” about going insane? I think we’re getting close to answering that, and the answer is: nothing. The Left has managed to drain the meaning from the word “progressive.” We will not be able to take it seriously for generations to come (if there are any generations to come). The Left has applied every possible gimmick from the bad faith trick-bag to disable thinking in this republic generally, and the language that serves thinking. But its contorted maledictions are working mainly against itself as one preposterous idea after another bursts out of its collective pie-hole and into the blue-checked Twitter windows.

Speaking of “stabbing mo***rfu****s in the heart,” why are the “progressives” who moiled outside Senator Mitch McConnell’s house the other night not cooling their heels in a federal lock-up for threatening to assassinate a public official? That’s the usual procedure. How difficult would it be to locate them? Nobody has even asked — a peculiar development.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey took the predictable “progressive” action of banning Senator McConnell’s election campaign account for posting a video of the very mob looking to “stab mo***rfu****s in the heart” outside his house. That should be good, at least, for a hearty lawsuit against Twitter that might raise the consciousness of the 23-year-old wokester myrmidons Jack Dorsey hired to pretend that their diligent bannings of non-woke Tweeters are the work of supposed “algorithms” — as well as Mr. Dorsey himself

I could write a dozen more posts (and likely eventually will) about this growing violent insanity, but I hope this is enough to get you thinking about where our country could be headed, and about how to prevent something terrible from happening.

A Two-Tiered Moral Standard (1)

Screen Shot 2019-06-18 at 5.12.43 AM

A Bernie Sanders supporter, James T. Hodgkinson, carefully planed and then conducted an attempted mass murder of Congressional Republicans.  He came within a hair’s breadth of achieving the greatest political mass murder in American history.  After Steve Scalise survived near death from the shooting a Progressive PAC proposes a billboard with the message “Take out Scalise.”

The fact is that the bar for condemnation of non-Progressive speech and behavior is an order of magnitude (at least) lower than for the opposite.  For example:

  • mask-head

    It’s unforgivable to wear an Obama mask; it’s easily forgivable to hold a mock decapitated head of Trump

    Disrespect (or much worse) towards the President

  • Freedom of the Press
    • President Obama’s Record
      • “This is an administration that prosecutes people for leaking information to the press that would hold it accountable, and which continually obfuscates journalists’ and citizens’ efforts to extract any information from it at all.
      • “This is an administration that has used the Espionage Act to punish whistleblowers at least seven times. By contrast, before Obama’s presidency, the act, in place since the first world war, was used to prosecute government officials who leaked to the media just three times.”
      • “This
        obama-trump-press

        President Obama uses government power to suppress the press while President Trump says critical things about the press.  Not a peep of press criticism about Obama, a press firestorm against Trump.

        is an administration that has gone after journalists who report on information obtained from leakers by secretly obtaining months’ worth of phone records. That spent seven years trying to compel the New York Times’ James Risen to reveal his sources. That snooped through Fox News’ James Rosen’s private emails and accused the reporter of possibly being a “co-conspirator” in order to get a warrant to do so, and to then keep that warrant secret.”

    • President Trump’s Record
      • President Donald Trump’s “war on the media” has journalists wailing that freedom of the press is under attack. The hand-wringing is happening on both sides of the aisle, as politicians and pundits alike claim that Trump’s partisan war on the press and dissemination of misinformation and propaganda is “unprecedented” and the “absolute worst” in American history.”
      • “Trump has made no bones about his approach to the press. He’s said, “As you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on the earth.”
  • Political Rhetoric
    • Pelosi attacks Senate McConnell’s “One term president” statement
      • Pelosi appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday where she brought up McConnell’s old quote from an inter­view that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010.”Let me re­mind you that when the Re­pub­lic­ans took pow­er when President Obama was president of the United States, what Mitch McConnell said is, ‘The most im­port­ant thing we can do is to make sure he does not suc­ceed.’ If that wasn’t a rac­ist state­ment. That is un­think­a­ble,”
        mcconnell-pelosi

        It’s “racist” to oppose reelection of an opposing President; it’s not “Fascist” to threaten an opposing president with prison.

        Pelosi said.

      • Note: It’s “racist” and “unthinkable” for a leader of the Conservative opposition party to seek election defeat of a President who happens to be black!
    • Crickets over House Speaker’s President Trump “in prison” statement
      • “Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump “in prison” as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings.”
      • Note: It’s perfectly fine for a leader of the Progressive opposition party to threaten the sitting president with prison.
james-hodgkinson

(CNN)  “James T. Hodgkinson, the man identified as shooting a Republican member of congress and four others on Wednesday morning, was a small business owner in Illinois who defined himself publicly by his firm support of Bernie Sanders’ progressive politics — and his hatred of conservatives and President Donald Trump.”

So, yes, the Progressive behavior is generally different in kind to that of Conservatives.  They can get away with it due to their dominance in the media and government bureaucracy, among other powerful institutions.  They also benefit from the silence of Progressives who know better but are intimidated by the radical lunatic fringe of their movement.  Behind this wall of institutional power and tribal loyalty a truly vile and vicious culture of cruelty has grown.  If the near massacre of Congressional Republicans by a hate filled Progressive supporter of Bernie Sanders hasn’t sobered them up then nothing likely will.

What’s changed is that millions of U.S. citizens now see this situation clearly and are willing to oppose it in the privacy of the voting booth if not in public.

Occasional Confirmations (3)

gnd-communistThe Green New Deal is about Socialism, Not Climate Change

You may recall a recent post in which I pointed out that the Green New Deal (GND) could only be implemented by turning the United States into a hard core Socialist nation (i.e., Communism).  I’m not claiming this conclusion as an intellectual feat because it’s obvious if only you (1) actually read the entire thing and (2) are willing to consider the implications with a mind unclouded by climate change hysteria.

But I had no idea that the Justice Progressives would be careless enough to let this obvious truth slip out into the open.  This happened when Saikat Chakrabarti, Chief of Staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) met Sam Ricketts, Climate Director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D).  The curtain was raised in the truth in a Washington Post article that covered this meeting.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Wow,  Thanks for the confirmation Comrade Chakrabarti!

 

Racism Unbound (4)

corruption-catastropheThe Catastrophe of Unaccountability

Background

A primary theme of this blog has been unmasking the moral corruption and intellectual incompetence of the Progressive movement.  What’s shocking is the brazen manner in which the members of this movement now advertise these appalling traits.  In decades past there was a carefully orchestrated attempt to advance Progressive goals under the cloak of moral seriousness and intellectual superiority.

What is currently occurring in the Progressive movement is the catastrophic success of this strategy.  That is, so successfully did the Progressive Left seize the moral and intellectual high ground that they achieved dominance in our nation’s primary organizational and bureaucratic power centers (as they also did in other nations and international bodies).  This dominance has allowed Progressives to fall into a state of intellectual and moral atrophy that has led to this current situation.

In the 1940s and 1950s this near dominance gave what we now call Progressives an advantage at the margins of intellectual and moral conduct.  However, as far back as 1969 we can find an example in the Chappaquiddick incident of a powerful Democratic politician (Ted Kennedy) getting away with at least negligent homicide due to a news media that was unwilling to demand answers or accountability.

Over time, as the Progressive grip on our institutions increased, what had been a marginal advantage turned into almost total lack of accountability.  For, in effect there was no-one in their power-bubble who would ever question their premises or challenge their conclusions.

bubble-universe

We all powerful Progressives are the creators of reality rather than subject to it!

It is in this environment that the Progressive elite so lost contact with reality that they began to believe that they were the creators of reality rather then subject to it.  This is a difficult idea to explain, but one author has made a good start thusly.  The specific issue is the recent Robert Mueller testimony debacle, but one can generalize to cover the larger scope of this post.

Todd diagnosed the Democrats’ problem thusly: “The fact is we are living in this 21st century new type of asymmetrical media warfare that we’re in. And you have a propaganda machine on the right. And that’s what it is. It’s a full-fledged propaganda machine on the right that the Democrats haven’t figured out how to combat very well yet.”

I would feel better about the news media if I thought Todd was just a liar, but, no, I think he is actually clueless. Because as an American journalist he is, just like the Democrats, surrounded by people who reflect and echo his ideas. There’s no one near him to ask: What propaganda machine, Chuck? Aside from one cable station — Fox News — what network, what newspaper, what university, what comedian or movie-maker or search engine or social media does anything but spew left-wing propaganda all day every day? There’s no one to demand he produce his evidence. There’s no one to require him to show his work.

Thus Progressives have concluded that they need not do the hard and uncertain work of debate and persuasion in order to get their way.  Rather, they leverage their positions of power to intimidate opponents into submission to any idea that they decide to be true.  I’ve written before about this situation.

However, I believe the argument can be credibly made that, due to their undeniable success in occupying most key positions of social and organizational power, the Progressive movement has become far too dependent on intimidation at the expense of persuasion.

This strategy is pursued by never acknowledging opposition as being legitimate and by insisting that opposing points of view are motivated by moral defects.  Thus they are not seeking to persuade peers to see their point of view, but rather using social and/or organizational force to obtain submission.

And, the most extreme form of this intimidation is the application of the epithet racist to any person who in any way opposes the Progressive project, be it based on criticism of policy or person.

This is simply a special case of the general Progressive position of dehumanizing any person who they consider to be in opposition to their goals, and particularly those who are a a threat.  To the radical elite Progressives we nonconformists are only one or two steps above a zombie.  They can therefore attack us by any means necessary without shame or human sympathy.  Of course most Progressives don’t go to this extreme.  However, neither do they generally speak out against their fellow Progressives who do.  And, that silence is in effect an endorsement of these vile tactics.

The sad truth is that Progressives have so misused and overused the word “racist” that it has lost all meaning.  For when everyone who voted for President Trump, anyone on the Left who doesn’t blindly follow The Squad’s lead, any black, brown, Muslim, queer

Screen Shot 2019-07-28 at 2.38.22 PM

Oh come on, you’ll have to do better than that to prove your wokeness!

or female who doesn’t submit to woke intersectional ideology or anyone else who is insufficiently supportive of Progressive goals is a “racist” then that includes everyone but the most radical of the Progressive elite (and they’re starting to wonder about each other).  Thus “racist” has become unbound from any connection to reality to become an all-purpose emotional club by which to beat any opposition into submission.

Perhaps that’s why Senator Cory Booker (D. NJ) had to recently call President Trump “worse than a racist.”  For when 95% of the country is already “racist” then a way of proclaiming President Trump to be worse must be found.

But, what a pathetic attempt.  If Senator Booker wants to impress The Squad then he needs to at least go with “worse than Hitler!”

Racism Unbound (3)

violence-republicans

Republican politicians who have been the victim of actual physical violence.  Rep. Steve Scalise (left) after his attempted murder by a Progressive supporter of Bernie Sanders; and Sen. Rand Paul (right) after a brutal surprise attack by his Socialist neighbor.

The True Nature of Contemporary Political Violence

In the previous post I said that death threats against anyone, most certainly including The Squad members are terrible.  That being understood, I must point out that The Squad, “some of” whom have received death threats are in no way unique in this regard. The fact is that visible, outspoken politicians (and others) of all parties, skin colors, genders, personalities, religions and ideologies are highly likely to receive death threats.  Thus for Rep. Rashida Tlaib to claim special victimhood because “some of” The Squad has received death threats is incredible.

However, if we peer past The Squad’s hysterics it’s impossible to miss that it is Republican politicians who have been the victims of actual recent violence.  I must ask, has any Progressive politician, regardless of group identity, been the target of a mass murder attempt, as were the Congressional Republicans?  Rep. Steve Scalise (the House Majority Whip) received serious gunshot wounds.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) is in stable condition after being shot early Wednesday at a baseball practice field in a Washington, D.C., suburb, according to multiple reports.

Scalise was one of several people shot at the practice in Alexandria, Va., where it is believed a single gunman fired dozens of shots at lawmakers and aides who scrambled for cover.

An Illinois man who volunteered for Sen. Bernie Sanders‘s (I-Vt.) presidential campaign in Iowa has been identified in multiple media reports as the shooter. James T. Hodgkinson was shot at the scene and later died from his injuries. 

Scalise’s office said he was in good spirits and had talked to his wife before undergoing emergency surgery after being shot in the hip.

“He is grateful for the brave actions of U.S. Capitol Police, first responders, and colleagues,” the office said. “We ask that you keep the Whip and others harmed in this incident in your thoughts and prayers.”

Had there not been two brave and armed officers present who stopped James Hodgkinson there could have been more than a dozen murdered Congressional Republicans that day.

Or how about Sen. Rand Paul, who was brutally surprise attacked from behind by a Socialist neighbor.  With regard to the physical attack itself:

The Associated Press story described how injuries like this “can lead to life-threatening injuries,” with pain lingering for “weeks or months.”

With regard to the political beliefs and actions of Sen. Paul’s attacker:

The man responsible for attacking Sen. Rand Paul Friday afternoon was an avowed liberal who frequently fought with his neighbors about politics, according to a report Sunday from The Washington Post.

Local citizens say Rene Boucher, the 59-year-old man who assaulted Paul, was a socialist who frequently fought with neighbors about health care policies and other liberal issues. Boucher and Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, they told reporters.

Jeff Jones, a registered nurse who worked with Boucher at the Bowling Green Medical Center, described Paul’s attacker’s politics as “liberal.”

“He was active on social media and said some negative things about the Republican agenda,” Jones said of Boucher, a Bowling Green, Ky., citizen who lives in the same gated community as Paul. “I think it was unfortunate that they lived so close together.”

Boucher is a divorced socialist who is “pretty much the opposite of Rand Paul in every way,” Jim Bullington, a former member of the city commission who knows both men well, told reporters Sunday.

A Facebook account Boucher maintained before the attack contains numerous anti-Republican postings.

Boucher wrote “May Robert Mueller fry Trump’s gonads” in a May post referencing the former FBI director’s investigation into possible collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian government.

griffin-head

Kathy Griffin ‘beheads’ Trump in a graphic photo

To these actual acts of violence we can add numerous cases of death threats and public violence, public statements by Progressives threatening violence, and violence pornography against President Trump and Republicans in general (see accompanying photos).  On top of this, it is only Republicans who have been driven out of restaurants by angry, threatening mobs.

Can anyone provide anything close to this level for vicious actual and spoken violence against The Squad or any other Progressive politician?  Heres’s a small sampling of the violent rhetoric being deployed against Republicans.

  • Kathy Griffin ‘Beheads’ Trump in a graphic photo
  • Madonna: “I’ve thought a lot about blowing up the White House.”
  • Snoop Dogg: “Shoots” Trump in the head in a music video
  • Robert De Niro: “I’d Like to punch him in the face”
  • Joss Whedon: “I want a rhino to [F—] Paul Ryan to death”
  • Shakespeare in the Park: Stabs ‘Trump’ to death in performances of ‘Julius Caesar’
  • Rapper YG Threatens Trump with “[F—] Donald Trump” song
  • Marilyn Manson: kills ‘Trump” in music video
  • Stephen Colbert’s Late Show: Puts Stephen Miller’s head (a senior advisor for policy for President Donald Trump) on a spike.
ColbertMillerClimateofViolence

Stephen Colbert’s Late Show puts Stephen Miller’s head on a spike

I challenge any Progressive to generate an equivalent list of violent statements and actions by Conservatives against Progressives.  The sad reality is that it is the Progressive camp that most often uses violence, threatened or actual, against their political opponents.

I’m not saying that Progressive politicians aren’t under threat.  I am saying that they are being dishonest and hysterical when they pretend to be under greater or even similar threat to that of their Republican colleagues.  And, this applies particularly to The Squad, who have leveraged their presumed state of victimhood to claims of heightened threat to their personal safety.

Of course, this situation could change in the blink of the eye, so all threats against all politicians (and other citizens) must be investigated, and appropriate protective measures taken.

 

Racism Unbound (2)

the squad 1

The Squad (left to right): Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ayanna Presley

A Cowardly and Dishonest Epithet

There’s no point in mincing words.  The Squad has made it absolutely clear that while they are free to hurl hatred for the United States, Israel, Jews, their very own Speaker, President Trump and anyone else they deem fit; anyone who dares to oppose or even criticize them is designated to be a racist. Some of you may be doubtful.  So, here are the words of Rep. Rashida Tlaib in The Squad’s interview with “CBS This Morning” co-host Gayle King.  Note that this statement is with regard to Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House from their own party.

She is Speaker of the House. She can ask for a meeting to sit down with us for clarification. The fact of the knowledge is and I’ve done racial justice work in our country for a long time. Acknowledge the fact that we are women of color, so when you do single us out, be aware of that and what you’re doing especially because some of us are getting death threats, because some of us are being singled out in many ways because of our backgrounds, because of our experiences and so forth.

Rep. Tlaib is clearly saying that even Speaker Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t single them out for criticism because of their race, gender and backgrounds.  And, they are doing so by claiming special protection due to the implicit victimhood associated with these characteristics.

The one specific claim is that some of them have received death threats.  We can all agree that no-one should be receiving death threats.  I can only imagine the upset and fear that reception of such a communication would cause.  However, is it credible that The Squad, because of their race, gender and backgrounds are uniquely threatened?  Do they have the most credible reasons to fear actual physical violence against themselves?  These questions will be explored in the following post.

For now let it be said that these four freshmen Congresswomen claim immunity from any criticism from anyone because of their race.  Thus, anyone who dares to criticize them is by definition acting out of racism to some significant degree; even Nancy Pelosi, Democrat Speaker of the House of Representatives!

Do you imagine that this derangement is limited only to The Squad?  Absolutely not so.  Here’s what powerful Progressive media figures have been saying about Speaker Pelosi.

The Squad has plenty of friends in high places. One such is Karen Attiah, global opinions editor of The Washington Post. On July 14, taking note of Trump’s most recent anti-Squad animadversion—the instantly notorious “go back” tweet—Attiah volleyed her own strong tweeting: “Make no mistake: Nancy Pelosi’s dogwhistling snipes at @AOC, Ilhan Omar, @RashidaTlaib and @RepPressley helped pave the way for this vicious, racist attack from the president.”

Today, through this infidels versus heretics prism, we can see plenty more evidence underscoring Woke anti-Pelosi ferocity. On July 22, left-wing YouTuber Cenk Uygur went even further, declaring in The Wall Street Journal, “Democrats Should Unify Behind AOC, Not Pelosi.” In Uygur’s opinion, “Democratic voters were clear in 2018 that they want Mr. Trump impeached.” And yet, he continued, “There is not a single public official doing more to protect Mr. Trump than she is.” That pro-Trump “she,” of course, is Nancy Pelosi.

But it’s even worse than this.  For the Squad doesn’t apply this immunity from criticism to all people who can claim victimhood under their Intersectional ideology.  In fact, if you are brown, black, Muslim or gay and don’t toe their Progressive line you are persona non grata.  Here are the words of Rep. Ayanna Presley at the Netroots Nation conference explicitly making this point.

Screen Shot 2019-07-21 at 8.32.43 AM

For example, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), who despite their black and brown skin decided to vote en masse with the racist Democrat House Speaker rather then with the true “brown, black and Muslim” Squad.  The BCB must be racist (or maybe just traitors to their race)!

“I don’t want to bring a chair to an old table. This is the time to shake the table. This is the time to redefine that table. Because if you’re going to come to this table, all of you who have aspirations of running for office. If you’re not prepared to come to that table and represent that voice, don’t come, because we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice. If you’re worried about being marginalized and stereotyped, please don’t even show up because we need you to represent that voice.”

Do you see?  The Squad has no respect for any person, be they brown, black, Muslim, queer (or a white woman) who doesn’t think exactly like them.  If you are a member of these groups and stray out of the the Progressive camp then you are fair game.  And, if you are outside of these groups then any criticism is racism.

This is not courage or honesty.  No, it is the exact opposite.

The Passing Progressive Parade (3)

climate-insanity

Only a small sample of the fraudulent “climate change will end the world in X years” predictions.

Endless Climate Hysteria Insanity Edition

Here’s a vignette that captures the insanity of the climate change true believers.

My family and I were visiting the Milwaukee Art Museum at least a decade ago.  We took an elevator and were joined by two employees of the museum.  One was speaking to the other in the most highbrow, pompous way imaginable about the certainty that the world was going to end if we didn’t do something soon about global warming.  The other employee listened in a posture of deep respect and concern.

It’s safe to say that the speaker wouldn’t know the scientific method if it hit him in the head.  It’s absolutely certain that he knew zero about the intricacies and problems associated with use of computer models to predict complex, chaotic physical phenomena.   But none of that prevented this man from presuming a position of intellectual and moral superiority on “climate change.”  He is my personal poster-child for all the know-it-alls who repeatedly go into hysterics over serially false predictions that “climate change will end the world in X years!”

Oh, I know, “97% of all scientists agree about climate change.”*  In the first place, this statement utterly contradicts the scientific method.  Science is not decided by vote, but rather by evidence and successful prediction of future events (more on this later).  In 1633 know-it-alls could have said “97% of all scientists believe that the earth is the center of the universe.”  In the early 1900s they could have said “97% of all scientists believe the the Newtonian theory of physics is completely accurate.”  Pardon me if I’m less than impressed.

Let’s now return to the issue of the predictive power of a scientific theory.  Here’s how one source describes this concept.

If a theory explains available data, then it should be able to predict what currently unavailable data should look like. … These responses suggest that, at any level in the scientific hierarchy, from a hypothesis to a fully formed theory, the ability to make testable predictions is absolutely essential to science. What constitutes a prediction, and how readily testable they are may vary from field to field, but this quality appears central.

So, I’m compelled to ask: “What is the track record of predictive power for climate science?”  The answer is “pathetically failed!”

And yet, so powerful is the social compulsion to belong to the in-group, so pleasurable is the experience of emotional posturing, that people cast off any semblance of critical thinking even after dozens of failed predictions over decades.

This is indeed the definition of insanity.  But, hey, if it feels good it must be a valid scientific theory!©**



* Note: This claim has been shown to be based on studies that use imprecise, even deceptive methodologies.  The percentage of scientists who believe in the catastrophic climate change theory is likely far lower than the 97% claimed.

** Copyright 1692, Salem Massachusetts.

Lemmings at the cliff

Yes, we must “fundamentally transform” our nation into a Socialist cesspool based on a fraudulent scientific theory to ensure that the planet survives!