Socially Unacceptable

It’s a good thing I don’t live in New York [list of 20,000 reasons omitted for brevity].  Here’s another one:

Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.

As any fule kno, I don’t have a “social media” presence in the ummm traditional sense.  However, if that “presence” were to include this here blog, I’d probably be disqualified from buying a gun for the next three lifetimes — which is no doubt what these rodents are after anyway.

That said, I will admit that I don’t have too much need for moar guns, e.g.:

Okay, I’ll admit that I don’t have all those guns anymore — just enough to frighten New York politicians.  Fuck them.

Raging Back At The Enemy

As Longtime Readers know, I used to work in the Stat Research department of a Great Big Research Company, so I know a little about numbers.

Here’s the problem with statistics.  They’re a great tool for providing context — e.g. if unemploment now is at 3.7% and it was 7.2% during the reign of the sainted Obama, then things are better for the labor force now than they were then.  (Unless of course you’re a socialist, for whom a lower unemployment rate is disastrous because then they can’t make more people dependent on the State.)

In doing further (non-statistical) analysis, however, the problem then becomes less statistical and more historical.  Here’s an example.

Morris Fiorina of the Hoover Institution is doing his best Chip Diller / Animal House act (“Remain calm!  All is well!”) in looking at how the majority of the American populace is less political than the politically-active / -aware, thus:

To understand contemporary American political life, you should begin with the realization that most of the people blabbering on cable television, venting on Facebook, and/or fulminating on Twitter are abnormal. They are abnormally interested and involved in politics, they tend to occupy the policy extremes, and they are abnormally opinionated. As of today, there are about 235 million eligible voters in the United States. About one percent of them subscribe to either The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal. Liberals rail against Fox News and conservatives against MSNBC; they should take consolation in the fact that the Fox viewing audience is about one percent of the eligible electorate while news shows on MSNBC fall short of that.
Some suggest that the internet and social media have replaced the older print and electronic media, but the available research does not support that suggestion. If “hundreds of millions of people” really were doing politics on social media, I would share Hanson’s worries, but such a claim overstates the number of social media activists by several orders of magnitude. A 2013 Facebook study that tracked Bing toolbar searches found that 96 percent of the users clicked on zero or one opinion column in a three-month period. In 2017 the Pew Research Center reported that less than four percent of adults consider Twitter an important source of news.
In many respects the American electorate has changed surprisingly little in more than six decades. In 2016 about 10 percent of the eligible electorate made a campaign contribution—to any campaign at any level, the same figure as in the 1950s. Despite media hype about Obamamania in 2008 and Trump rallies in 2016, less than 10 percent of the eligible electorate attended any kind of campaign meeting or rally in those years, the same figure as six decades ago. As for people who knock on doors or make phone calls for campaigns, we are talking about two to three percent of the eligible electorate, the same small proportion as in the Eisenhower era.

And so on.  To be fair, Fiorina does allow that our polity has become more polarized (he calls it “sorted”) since the 1950s, but this is where history starts to stick its nose into statistical analysis.  If the Eisenhower era, for example, was not as polarized as today’s, then one shouldn’t look at the former as the comparator.  Rather, we should look at times when political and public opinion was polarized to get a proper perspective.  And you don’t have to be a dorky historian (such as I) to find two excellent examples of that.  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 1776 and 1860 – and in both cases, what happened was war:  revolutionary in the first case and civil in the second.

The only argument to be made is whether today’s polity is as polarized as those were back then — and I would suggest that the correct answer is:  not quite yet.  But it’s damn close.

Let me finish this preamble by examining another of Fiorina’s theses:

Finally, some words about immigration, a major bone of contention between Republicans and Democrats in the political class, although surprisingly, less important than commonly believed among normal Americans. Although the U.S. is an immigrant nation, today’s emphasis on ethnic identity politics understandably leads many people to conclude that today’s immigration differs from that of previous eras, with more negative implications. But the kinds of controversies the United States now is experiencing are strikingly similar to those that accompanied earlier large waves of immigration. Hanson certainly is correct in asserting that political pressures to assimilate are much lower today, but societal pressures remain strong. The evidence indicates that despite the rhetoric of ethnic identity group activists and today’s celebration of diversity, the American melting pot continues to boil. Ongoing studies report, for example, that English language acquisition is proceeding at a rate comparable to, if not faster than, that in the early 20th Century; in particular, by the third generation Latinos are English-dominant or fully bilingual.

Here’s my major problem with this perspective.  In the early 20th century, immigrants came to America to find a predominantly (and fairly stubborn) Western-European / Protestant culture, so the incentive to assimilate and acculturate was strong.  In today’s society, with its multi-culti insistence and hatred of the eeeevil Western European ethos, there is no incentive to assimilate.  In fact, given the deliberate racial / ethnic / gender / cultural divisions caused by the Left, there is a negative incentive to do so because to assimilate is to wave goodbye to all the little financial and societal goodies given to members of all those little sub-groups by waves of Leftist / Progressive / neo-Socialist (and un-Constitutional, an argument for another time) government programs.  And sorry, under such circumstances we don’t have three generations to see if the melting pot will work.

To summarize:  all is not well — in fact, it’s as far from well as I can imagine — and to remain calm under such circumstances is not only counter-productive, it’s a formula for defeat.  Which brings me to my principal point.

“So Kim, what should we do?”

Be aggressive as hell, and fight back (to quote that Commie fucker Obama, “Punch back twice as hard”).

  • If you come out of a restaurant and find your car has been keyed because of your NRA decal, consider finding two cars with liberal decals (e.g. “Beto” (Texas) or “Resist!”), but don’t key the shit out of them:  a simple splodge of black spray paint over the decal will suffice.
  • If some Pantifa fuckwits threaten you with weapons at a protest  / counter-protest event, be ready to pepper-spray or kick the shit out of them — do not be afraid to confront these cocksuckers.  And if they escalate the violence… it will be their problem.
  • If some baying liberals start screaming at you outside a restaurant, why not call the cops on them?  Insist on laying charges of intimidation, public indecency, assault and hate crimes (yeah, let’s use the Left’s little weapons against them).  And if the cops refuse to do anything, file suit against them.
  • If Socialist professors call you out in class publicly for being a conservative or Republican, feel free to tell them that you intend bring civil charges (not university-based, but legal ones) against them personally for creating a “hostile study environment” (see above).
  • If some feminist harpy accuses you of “rape” (regardless of definition), be sure to have filmed a little video of your encounter;  then find a way to publish said video on the Internet as a counterweight to her accusations.  Failing which, make sure you are never alone with a woman (see:  the Pence Rule);  or be sure to have witnesses who can be relied upon to take your side.
  • If you’re asked to speak at a college campus and the Left starts going batshit and threatening you, say nothing;  but consider quietly asking for some volunteer pro bono bodyguards to protect you  — about two dozen should do it.  (And if you’re asked to be one of those bodyguards, accept the gig.  Wear a dark suit, white shirt, sturdy black shoes and a conservative tie, put an earpiece into your ear and talk into your cuff frequently.  Also:  equip yourself appropriately.)
  • Always — always — insist on speaking, and being spoken to in English, regardless of circumstance.  If the other guy continues to scream at you in Spanish, respond with random Spanish expressions such as “Tierra del Fuego!” or my favorite, “Huevos y putas!”.  If being yelled at in Ebonics, simply say, “I’m sorry, but I don’t speak Zulu”.
  • Feel free to add your own suggestions in Comments.

If all this sounds extreme, then let you remind me of the simple irrefutable truth of this situation:  we didn’t start the extremism;  the Left did.  They are very fond of using the old Marxist trope of “Reactionary!” against us, but the problem is that we haven’t reacted enough, or at all, in the face of their criminal and confrontational behavior.  (Note that I am not suggesting pre-emptive or “strike first” action.  But it’s sure as hell time for us to bring a little reaction to the party.)  And yes, some of what I’m suggesting might be considered illegal.  Compared to what the Left have done against us, it’s nothing — and compare spraying someone’s car to tarring and feathering a British magistrate, back in 1776.

It’s time some of the Left’s little pigeons came home to roost — or else we’re forever doomed to be browbeaten, belittled, intimidated and ultimately beaten down by these power-hungry, amoral cocksuckers.

No more.

Yes, I’m aware I might get into trouble for this post.  To those who might attempt to initiate some kind of violent action against me, I have a simple response:  FOAD.  Someone has to take a stand, and it might as well be this immigrant and naturalized citizen.  And please:  don’t bother with death threats, for obvious reasons.

Universitas Delenda Est

(I am comfortable using a paraphrased Latin expression for the title of this post, because most of the maggots at whom my ire is aimed are probably illiterate in the Classics and would understand neither the language nor the context of its origin.)

Victor Davis Hanson has written often (and most recently, here) about the death of Western Civilization, but in truth, the death blows are not actually being delivered by the Democrats, but by their philosophical supporters in academia.

Spoiler:  Western Civilization is a load of old racist rubbish, and shouldn’t be taught in today’s tertiary education systems.

From the Renaissance until the 1960s, the humanities, derived from the expression ‘studia humanitatis’ or the study of humanity, made it their purpose to make sense of and understand the world through the great traditions of art, culture and philosophy. There appeared in the 1970s and 1980s however, a range of ‘new humanities’ subjects which rejected this tradition. The new humanities were underpinned by a range of radical post-structuralism and post-modernist theories which had been conjured up in the previous decade by a predominantly French group of philosophers such as Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Michel Foucault, as well as the psychiatrist, Jacques Lacan.
The new humanities maintain that for the last 500 years, Western Civilisation has got it wrong when it comes to knowledge, truth and science. These fields tend to claim that both knowledge and truth are not absolute, but are relative. For example, there is no objective truth and truth is dependent on who is speaking it and in what context. Insofar as science is concerned, they claim that scientific theories don’t really provide us with what we could call knowledge but are actually “invented” rather than discovered.
History as a discipline best exemplifies the influence of the postmodernists and their ilk on the humanities. Many historians have enthusiastically embraced the idea that truth is no longer within the historian’s grasp and that it’s impossible to use history to add to knowledge about humankind. This is the kind of thing which would normally signal the death knell for any discipline, but historians have risen from the ashes and have forged for themselves a new purpose—the attainment of social justice.
This is not social justice in the Enlightenment sense, which meant equality before the law and equal rights, but social justice in the activist sense, where the ultimate goal is to achieve perfect equality by destroying ‘oppressive’ institutions and rearranging society. The historians’ new role is to tell the inequality narrative of the oppressed and the oppressor through the lens of class, gender, and race.

Here’s my “modern” take on their attitude:

MFCS Commies… the sooner their whole rotten edifice falls over like the statue of Ozymandias, the better.  (They’re not going to get that reference either, the bolshie bastards.)

I should also point out that the university system per se was a creation of medieval European society (100% White people) and therefore as the university has its roots in racism, academia should probably be abolished in its entirety — just to be logically consistent.  However, logic is also inherently racist, it being an outcome of classical Greek thought, and we all know what racists the Greeks were (“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”  was the Turks’ Trojans’ opinion of the Greeks, although the actual expression was coined by a Dead White Man — Vergil — so that should probably be discounted as well).

I could do this all day.  But frankly, I’d rather pay a visit to a liberal arts faculty meeting at an Ivy League university.  Carrying a flame-thrower.  (What the hell:  none of them would be armed, right?)

And in the final irony:  the flamethrower was also an invention of White Europeans.

Reaction Part 2

Here’s an interesting little snippet:  about nine people a day are being arrested by British officials for the crime of posting “offensive messages online.”

Such “offense” is seldom actually defined (vagueness being the root of all tyranny), unless we include the qualifier “it hurt some ultra-sensitive asswipe’s feeewings” in the casus praehendum.

It’s a good thing I don’t live in the U.K., or else I’d no doubt get visited by the rozzers just for expressing my reaction to, for example, the South Yorkshire Police, who posted this bullshit:

Hate will not be tolerated in South Yorkshire. Report it and put a stop to it.

Here’s my response:

And that goes for all you little PC scolds, tattletales and snowflakes out there as well.

Hate, you assholes?  I’ll show you hate.  A pox on all of you.

Reaction Part 1

Sometimes I wonder when I’m ever going to lose the childish impulse to react in the precise opposite way to officially-mandated stupidity.  Here’s one example of the latter:

Los Angeles would become the largest city in the U.S. to ban the sale of fur products if the City Council approves a proposed law backed by animal activists who say the multibillion-dollar fur industry is rife with cruelty.
The council was expected Tuesday to direct the city attorney to draft a law prohibiting the manufacture or sale of fur products in the city.
The ban would cover apparel made in whole or in part of fur – including clothing, handbags, shoes, hats, earmuffs, jewelry and keychains.

I don’t live in LA, of course, nor would I ever;  but if I did, I’d be buying one of these things tomorrow:

The paws are a nice touch, don’t you think?

I don’t know where I could wear it in order to create the greatest outrage, however;  perhaps some of my California Readers could suggest a few choice locations (e.g. Century City) in Comments?

Kicking Back

As usual, His Excellency John Bolton has the right stuff, this time about the horrible International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague:

“If the court comes after us, Israel or other U.S. allies, we will not sit quietly.  We will negotiate even more binding, bilateral agreements to prohibit nations from surrendering U.S. persons to the ICC.  And we will ensure that those we have already entered are honored by our counterpart governments.  We will respond against the ICC and its personnel to the extent permitted by U.S. law.  We will ban its judges and prosecutors from entering the United States.  We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and, we will prosecute them in the U.S. criminal system.  We will do the same for any company or state that assists an ICC investigation of Americans.  We will take note if any countries cooperate with ICC investigations of the United States and its allies, and we will remember that cooperation when setting U.S. foreign assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing levels.  We will consider taking steps in the UN Security Council to constrain the Court’s sweeping powers, including ensuring that the ICC does not exercise jurisdiction over Americans and the nationals of our allies that have not ratified the Rome Statute.”

I’m gonna give y’all just 20 minutes to stop applauding.

Some liberal asswipes created this pic to whine about God-Emperor Trump’s appointment of The Mustache (“The Warmonger”) as his National Security Advisor:

Me, I wanna make a fucking tee-shirt of it.