During the famous – or infamous – Canadian Truckers Convoy, that bastion of clear and honest thinking, The Washington Post printed an opinion piece that declared that the expectation of individual freedom “is a key component of white supremacy!” Never let it be said that the Post ever disappointed its “hard left” readership! However, it is also interesting to note that even our enemies acknowledge that truly great concepts arise from Whites. Yet, the Post’s rather odd interpretation of the blessings of freedom and liberty was challenged by one internet publication, The Blaze. That worthy group opined that, “expecting individual freedom is a ‘key component of white supremacy’ is the latest in the effort to undermine our constitutional republic.” Well, certainly it is that, but it also illustrates that even these mental midgets recognize that really good things come from whites! The column referenced was written by Taylor Dysart, a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Apparently, academia is no more reasonable or intelligent than our current leftist journalists. Mr. Dysart began his “reasoning process” (if anything so unreasonable could be identified as a “reasoning process”) by attacking the Canadian Truckers Convoy that attempted to end the tyrannous Covid-19 vaccine mandates placed on truckers by Canada’s own communist regime. Dysart derided the truckers as “explicitly racist” and said that the convoy’s stated effort to restore their – the truckers’ – constitutionally guaranteed freedoms is “a key component of white supremacy.” The author also charged that the convoy’s motives were rooted in Canada’s settler-colonial history: ”The convoy has surprised onlookers in the United States and Canada, both because of the explicitly racist and violent perspectives of some of the organizers and because the action seems to violate norms of Canadian ‘politeness . . .'” but Dysart claimed. “. . . the convoy represents the extension of a strain of Canadian history that has long masked itself behind ‘peacefulness’ or ‘unity:’ settler colonialism.” Of course, the convoy came about to protest vaccine mandates on truckers, and even the leftist mainstream media reports indicated it was a largely peaceful protest. Neither did Dysart cite any violence on the part of the truckers, but he still attacked the organizers for failing to be “obedient” to the “well intentioned” [!] efforts of Prime Minister Fidel – ah, Justin – Trudeau and his bully boys. Dysart opined, “While the convoy’s supporters have characterized the protest as a peaceful movement, uninformed by ‘politics, race, religion, or any personal beliefs,’ many supporters have been associated with or expressed racist, Islamophobic, and white-supremacist views . . . (the) primarily white supporters of the Freedom Convoy argue that pandemic mandates infringe upon their constitutional rights to freedom . . (t)he notion of ‘freedom’ was historically and remains intertwined with whiteness, as historian Tyler Stovall has argued.” According to The Blaze, In Tyler Stovall’s book “White Freedom: The Racial History of an Idea,” – the basis for Dysart’s conclusion – he, Stovall, contends that the Statue of Liberty “promised both freedom and whiteness to European immigrants.” The book allegedly “provides vital new perspectives on the inherent racism behind our most cherished beliefs about freedom, liberty, and human rights.” In keeping with Stovall’s contentions, Dysart alleged that, “The belief that one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of white supremacy. This explains why the Freedom Convoy members see themselves as entitled to freedom, no matter the public health consequences to those around them.” Of course, the fact that there were no true legitimate public health consequences involved was never addressed by Dysart. He accepts out of hand, the same propaganda that has been handed out by the bio-weapons purveyors and their political allies from the beginning, propaganda that has already killed and crippled millions of people around the planet. Conservative supporters of the convoy’s month-long protest were quick to respond, as reported by The Blaze. Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) made the true point regarding the whole stupid argument: “Why do conservatives want to keep critical race theory out of schools? Because it leads to the insane belief that ‘one’s entitlement to freedom is a key component of White supremacy.'” Movie producer and political commentator Dinesh D’Souza pointed out, “If freedom is a white supremacist notion as this Washington Post article insists, what should we be aiming for instead? Unfreedom? Incarceration? Slavery?” Reason.com Associate editor Liz Wolfe reasoned that, “When you call everything ‘white supremacy,’ the term ceases to have any effect whatsoever.” And so it does. Just as those who use the phrase cease to have any effect or importance whatsoever as well. Soon any efforts to remain alive and healthy will also be seen as "racist."
As the debates raging in this country go on, I have noticed something that I’m sure others on “my side” of these debates have also noticed; that is, that most of those on the Right or conservative sides are believers in Voltaire’s sentiment, “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Of course, there are those on the right who, tired of lies, threats and insults no longer hold that viewpoint. Why? Because it gets tiring when all attempts at dialogue and/or debate end with name calling on the part of your opponents! And we all know the standard Leftist “comebacks,” that is, those who disagree with their viewpoint however inane or insane those viewpoints, are either a member of the “far right” — a term indicating anyone to the right of Stalin — or, more usual these days, one is a “racist.” This term, interestingly enough, is also used on conservative blacks, a fact that only goes to show the term is a standard – and mindless – weapon in the hands of the Left, without any real meaning other than as an attempt to silence their opponents. In the end, this mindset removes any attempt at not only discourse, but compromise. You cannot compromise with people who see you not as having an opinion with which they disagree, but someone who is intrinsically EVIL. And, of course, that also ends any attempt at discourse for how can one have discourse with evil? Parenthetically, that is something that we on the right have been trying to do for a long, long time only to learn that this leopard at least never changes its spots. I remember learning from former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson that at the time to criticize Black Lives Matter — a hate group if there ever was one! — the person involved could and did lose his or her job. One man was fired because his WIFE wrote a letter to a newspaper critical of the group! People were being advised to openly support and even financially contribute to BLM — OR ELSE! In the past, such horrific denial of fundamental constitutional rights would have resulted in a lawsuit and big bucks proceeding to the injured party. Today, however, the courts are as liable to uphold the actions of the employer as sustain the rights of the employee given the topic. We no longer have a viable legal system. It now seems to depend upon the ideology of the judge trying the case. And, of course, the unhappy consequence of the political success of our WOKE culture with its “liberal” leaders are ever more leftist judges and prosecutors. Alas, while many Americans are concerned about losing the Second Amendment, we may have already lost the First and with it our rights of freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. Once those are gone beyond restoration, the Second Amendment is easily nullified. As well, we also seem to have, in many instances, lost the protection of the civilian police who, we are told, made UNNECESSARY the Second Amendment. If this becomes the rationale, there will no longer be anywhere to seek justice in a world gone mad.
There is an old saying that nature abhors a vacuum, the belief being that when something abdicates or abandons its place in the natural order that place does not remain empty; something else rushes in to fill it. Sometimes, it isn’t even a matter of abandonment, but of the replacement being too strong to be held back. Anyone who has ever seen efforts to strengthen a levee with sandbags can understand this particular displacement scenario. But whether it is a matter of abdication or elimination, simply put, the nature of things tends toward maintenance of the status quo in general if not in the particulars. It would be hard to find many educated people who, with the opening of a new millennium, would have predicted the rise of the medieval Crescent not only in the Middle East but in Europe and even North America. The last time Islam posed a threat to the West, men wore knee britches, silk stockings and long wigs while the Ottoman Empire still inhabited the map of the world. Yet, here we are, little more than two decades into the 21st century and there is a very real threat of a world-wide Caliphate and the victory of the Prophet and his “religion” in every place in the world from Morocco to Mexico and Nigeria to Norway. The Christian Church, once the foundation of Western Civilization and gaining converts in nations that never knew the Roman Empire is fast becoming a ghost—and not a very Holy One at that! If one were to ask Westerners in Europe, Britain and the United States (and Canada), what happened?! most would find no words to describe how the civilization of Plato and Aristotle, Cesar and Charlemagne, the Sun King and Thomas Jefferson could find itself sinking ever more rapidly into oblivion while those openly proclaiming their murderous intentions against everything Christian and Western are protected by the very governments of the West using political correctness and the concept of “hate speech”—which, by the way, only applies to those who resist. If the cultural institutions of the West fail to recognize their danger, much less fight back against that danger, it is even more incredible that the main victim of jihad—the Christian Church—seems equally oblivious to the danger posed to its adherents. Using the pretext of Christ’s admonition that we are “to love one another,” many Christians and their churches fail—or refuse—to understand the peril that so-called “radical Islam” poses not only to the Church, but to the West. As noted, in many instances, the governments of Western nations are no longer even resisting the institution of the Caliphate. They have abandoned their own people to an invasion of Third World revolutionaries who have already killed tens, perhaps hundreds of thousand of non-Muslims and even their own “brethren” in their mad crusade to raise the Crescent over the graves of Christianity and Western civilization. One of the things that many in the West cannot fathom is why so many especially young Westerners embrace Islam. They do not come from the ethnic and racial backgrounds that might explain their conversion, but it would seem every day more and more ordinary Americans and British and French and Norwegians embrace the Prophet. Why? And here we must return to our opening point; that is, that nature abhors a vacuum. At some point in the 20th Century at least Western Christianity determined to try to increase interest among youth by reaching out and making it easier to be a Christian. Fasting, prayer, tithing, moral absolutes and church attendance were considered in many instances a barrier to the acceptance by young people of church membership. This was especially true during the 1960s when much of what before had been accepted cultural norms were not only scrutinized, but often abandoned. The Church tried to deal with this situation by adopting more worldly viewpoints in hopes that the disillusioned (and narcissistic) youth of the West would not abandon what many saw as too restrictive to their chosen lifestyle. In some instances, this worked. For example, the institution of Saturday night Mass in the Catholic Church has permitted young Catholics to participate in Sunday morning sports while maintaining at least some association with their “faith.” But how permanent that association will remain once those involved are no longer concerned with soccer, football and lacrosse remains to be seen. The problem with this easing of standards is not for the minimally involved, but for that young man or young woman who seeks meaning in his or her life; that is, that individual who wants a belief system that challenges and, by doing so, fulfills his (or her) spiritual needs. Very little of this kind of rigorous spiritual exercise exists in the West’s tepid Christianity which is often more secular than religious. For such seekers, Islam presents an all-encompassing way of life that promises rewards—and punishments—for the believer. Very early on in the war in Afghanistan after 9/11, a young man from the “left coast” was found fighting with the Taliban. He was an example of the failure of modern liberalism having grown up within a belief system that offered nothing of consequence or value. This young man was a seeker. At a different time and with a more robust Christian society, he might have become a priest or a pastor or a missionary but in today’s America, he had to adopt a 12th century moral monstrosity in order to find any meaning in his 21st century life! The fate of this young man is a seminal example of a moral and spiritual vacuum being filled by an aggressive moral and spiritual movement. Furthermore, it does not matter that those of us who retain some connection with Western Civilization find that movement demonic and immoral! All that matters is that it provides what is needed to those who cannot abide a moral and spiritual vacuum. There was a study done some years ago regarding an endangered waterfowl. Conservationists hovered about the nesting grounds of these birds to see what could be done to increase their numbers. As they watched the young hatch, they noticed that the poor little things spent virtually hours pecking their way out of their shells only to lie exhausted in the nest for a considerable time afterwards. The naturalists gathered together to discuss this situation, and it was determined that they would go and carefully, while the mother bird was off the nest for a few moments, weaken the shell at the time of hatching. To maintain a scientific balance, however, it was decided to do this with only 25% of the hatchlings. The plan was quickly put into effect and sure enough, at the time of the hatching, the weakened eggs gave way much more quickly and the young hatchlings were far less exhausted by their labors. Great were the expectations of the naturalists until they discovered a few days later that all the young birds so assisted—were dead in their nests! At first there was some thought that the “helpers” had somehow contaminated the eggs and that the birds died as the result of infection, but examinations of the dead chicks proved that such was not the case. In the end, it was determined that the very struggle by the young to escape their calcium prison hardened and strengthened them so that they were able to survive those vicissitudes they were all fated to experience in the wild. In other words, what those naturalists discovered to their dismay was that struggle is a part of life and necessary for the development of both body and spirit! This is something that today’s Christian churches need to rediscover while there is still time, or rather, if there is still time.
In an article by one James A Bacon, carried on the website of The Jefferson Council, a group that presents itself as “preserving Thomas Jefferson’s legacy at the University of Virginia, we have been given a glimmer of hope in these present days of moral and ethical darkness. Under the title “DEI is Dead at VMI,” with a sub-title that says, “Huge news from the Virginia Military Institute with implications for the University of Virginia. . .” Mr. Bacon discloses, “The Youngkin administration has just unloaded a HIMARS rocket attack on Virginia Military Institute’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion program. Speaking Friday in a session of mandatory ‘inclusive excellence training,’ Martin D. Brown, Youngkin’s chief of Diversity, Opportunity & Inclusion, left steaming rubble where VMI’s DEI program had been standing.” Brown went on to make very clear, “Let’s take a moment right now to kill that cow. DEI is dead. We’re not going to bring that cow up anymore. It’s dead. It was mandated by the General Assembly, but this governor has a different philosophy of civil discourse, civility, treating — living the golden rule, right?” VMI recorded the speech and made it available to Washington Post reporter Ian Shapira who proceeded to consult a half-dozen DEI supporters and quote them extensively to suggest that there is widespread concern about the Youngkin administration’s position. Mr. Bacon went on to point out, “It is difficult portraying Brown as a racist, as Shapira’s sources have done to conservative white alumni critical of VMI’s implementation of DEI. Brown is African-American. But Shapira did squeeze in criticism of his invocation of Jesus in an opening prayer. How, he reported one attendee as asking, could Brown claim to support inclusiveness if he opened with a Christian prayer?” This particular statement makes clear that the only thing unwelcome in our present leftist society is Christianity. The idea that a Christian prayer somehow “cancels inclusiveness” is proof positive that what these people want is not “inclusiveness” per se, but only the inclusion of their own particular agendas whatever they may be and however dangerous and counter-productive they are. Bacon continued, “While Governor Glenn Youngkin has worked behind the scenes to appoint members to public-university boards of visitors across Virginia willing to fight for diversity, opportunity & inclusion, he has not publicly taken sides in university disputes. Brown’s intervention in VMI’s contentious DEI debate represents a first. And it could be a signal that the Governor intends to be more assertive in the future.” Well, of course, we can hope! Considering that the whole “inclusive agenda” bans more than it includes at least as far as American cultural values and constitutional rights are concerned, we certainly need our elected officials stepping in and stopping the whole cancel culture. According to author Bacon, “Said Brown, as quoted by Shapira: ‘VMI’s in a unique space … You’ve been at the tip of the spear in serving our country in sending warriors to battle, but in a way, you’re at the tip of the spear in this cultural war as well. Generally, when you are focusing on equity, you’re not pursuing merit or excellence or achievement. Not all the time, but you’re looking at equal outcomes .… What we’ve done is we’ve made diversity the mission. Wrong mission … The challenge is keeping your eyes on the mission rather than the attendant challenges that we experience trying to complete the mission. And when we focus on those challenges, what happens is the mission is undermined … One of the things we want to focus on is whatever the goal of the organization is, that goal is paramount, and diversity and inclusion supports whatever the goal is.’ The author goes on: “At various points during his talk, Shapira wrote, Brown suggested that race relations in the country have dramatically improved over the last several decades. ‘Because they’re better, we can’t ascribe perpetual victimization or even motives because they’re different. Acknowledging those truths frees us up to deal with the issues, the real issues, of today.’ “In an email response to a question, Brown added: ‘It’s proven that institutions achieve more with a more diverse and inclusive workforce. However, equity has become a tradeoff for excellence. Our aim is to expand opportunities but not guarantee equal results.’ Bacon then went on to point out that “[O]ther than Brown, Shapira quoted DEI proponents exclusively. One professor conceded that the culture of DEI had not taken deep root (at VMI). “Other colleges have had DEI embedded at their schools for a long time, but at VMI, it’s new and not fully supported by alumni and staff,” he said. “It’s a place where you can stomp it out.” Frankly, the fact that a VMI “professor” seemed not at all concerned by the failure of DEI to “take root” and spoke about the ability of the Governor to “stomp it out,” suggests that Youngkin’s actions were not at all counter to the mindset of the instructors and the cadets at VMI – thank God! Who knows? There may still be hope for us!
Even if not a sports fan, anyone who watches Facebook and other such platforms has heard of (and seen) Caitlin Clark, a young lady involved in the Women’s National Basketball Association League. Clark’s talents are intimidating as indicated in the “highlights” of just one season, 2023/24: In her senior season, Clark was the consensus National Player of the Year for the second straight season: 94th AAU James E. Sullivan, Ann Meyers Drysdale, Associated Press, CSC Academic All-America Team Member of the Year, ESPN.com, Honda Sport Award, Naismith, Sporting News, The Athletic, USA Today, Wade Trophy, and Wooden Award. Unanimous first team All-Big Ten honors, Big Ten Tournament MVP, and Big Ten All-Tournament Team honors. Clark was named the 2024 Nancy Lieberman Point Guard of the Year. She also earned 2024 Wooden Award All-America, first team AP All-America, USBWA All-America, WBCA All-America and All-Region accolades. She is the first Iowa women’s basketball player to be named First Team All-Big Ten in four years of competition. Was named the Big Ten Tournament MVP for the third consecutive tournament. She is only second player since 1995 to earn MVP honors in three straight tournaments. (Jantel Lavender, Ohio State) Set a Big Ten Tournament career record with 112 assists in her 13 tournament games. The previous record was held by Samantha Prahalis of Ohio State (67 assists in 11 games from 2009-12). In Iowa’s Round of 32 win vs West Virginia, she became the second player all-time with 350+ points and 100+ assists in the NCAA Tournament, joining Diana Taurasi. Broke the NCAA’s all-time career field goals made record against Colorado in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament on March 30, 2024. Broke Iowa’s NCAA Tournament single game record for most assists in a single game with 15 against Colorado in the Sweet 16 on March 30, 2024. Broke the NCAA record for most points in a single season against West Virginia in the Round of 32 in the NCAA Tournament. Became the NCAA’s men’s and women’s all-time leading scorer surpassing, LSU’s Pete Maravich, in her 130th career game against No. 2 Ohio State on March 3, 2024. Surpassed the AIAW all-time leading scorer, Lynette Woodard, in her 129th career game against Minnesota on Feb. 28, 2024.Surpassed the NCAA’s women’s all-time leading scorer, Kelsey Plum, in her 126th career game against Michigan on Feb. 15, 2024. She is the only player in NCAA DI men’s or women’s basketball history to lead her conference in scoring and assists in four consecutive seasons. 2024 National Player of the Year honors: The Athletic and ESPN.com. She is the sixth player to ever amass 1,000+ career assists.Clark is the first Division-I player to record 3,800+ points, 1,000+ assists, and 950+ rebounds in a career. Is the first Division-I player to notch back-to-back 1,000-point seasons. She is the third Big Ten and 15th NCAA women’s basketball player to eclipse 3,000 points in a career. Clark is the all-time leader in 30+ point performances in men’s and women’s college basketball over the last 25 seasons. (59) She has 20 career games with 30+ points and 10+ assists, no one in college women’s basketball in past 25 seasons has more than two such games. Since 2009, no player has recorded more games of 35+ points, 5+ assists, and 5+ rebounds. (21) Has 67 career double-doubles, she is third on the Big Ten’s all-time list.Iowa was 10-4 when Clark recorded 40 or more points in her career. In Clark’s 103rd game, she became Iowa’s all-time leading scorer. Iowa is 17-0 when Clark registers a triple-double. Tabbed as the GC Showcase Most Valuable Player of the Tournament. Registered her 17th career triple-double against Minnesota, her and Sabrina Ionescu are the only players in college women’s basketball history to record a triple-double in four consecutive seasons. She recorded a nation’s best six triple-doubles in her senior season. Named Big Ten Player of the Week; Nov. 13, Nov. 27, Dec. 11, Dec. 18, Jan. 2, Jan. 8, Jan. 15, Feb. 5, Feb. 19, Feb. 26, March 4. Named WBCA National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Nov. 28, Jan. 3, Jan. 9, Jan. 16, Jan. 31, Feb. 6, Feb. 20. Named AP National Player of the Week; Nov. 14, Jan. 9, Feb. 20.Is the first three-time AP NPOW this season. Clark holds the Big Ten record for most weekly awards at 29. But there’s a problem with this young lady. In a league filled with minority lesbians, Clark is straight and white! She even has had problems with “officials” – including referees! – and not just opponents on the court! Indeed, some of her problems have come from white League officials who have worked to “explain away” her popularity with the fans as being race and not talent driven. Playing for a less than mediocre team, the Indiana Fever, Clark’s participation changed the Fever’s narrative to the point at which that team became “playoff material.” Clark was continually fouled, sometimes so egregiously that even the “higher ups” could no longer turn a blind eye to what was happening. Indeed, in a significant development, the organizers of the WNBA officially announced an investigation into players accused of engaging in dirty plays involving physical contact with Clark. These individuals face potential permanent bans and disciplinary measures for their actions! Some forget that these egregious fouls run the risk of inflicting physical damage even to the point of cutting short Clark’s career. Worse, many of those involved would not be at all upset by that consequence, a direct result of their petty envy and hatred. One black “superstar” openly jealous of Clark, Angel Reese, announced that she had to cut her season short because of a wrist injury though there seems no outward manifestation of this “injury” arising from the fall she insists was its cause. Reese and Clark were in a battle for Rookie of the Year and Reese had every assurance that she would win until Clark came upon the scene. Quite a number of very ugly fouls have been committed on Clark by Reese and it is thought that by ending the season early, Reese would not have to deal with losing the award to Clark or receiving discipline for her unsportsmanlike behavior. Another interesting matter is that Clark has been continually called for “technical fouls” that, upon examination, seem without any proof of such a foul ever having been committed. For instance, after missing a shot, and virtually being pushed off the court, Clark, annoyed at her own failure, struck the foundation structure of the basket with her fist. She didn’t strike another player, neither did she indulge in any interaction with another player, but she was charged with “disrespecting basketball”(!!) for nothing more than her momentary anger at her own performance! As a result, Clark has had fouls against her NOT called while non-existent fouls have been called against her! Of course, jealousy and envy are the motivation for most of Clark’s treatment, but some players as well as owners and officials have also silently condemned Clark for being white and straight. On the other hand, the fans love the young lady and Fever fans frequently attend the home games of other teams to see their Caitlin sink baskets from points well outside of the zone! The WNBA, never a financial draw, saw ticket numbers it has never seen before so it seems odd that so many in that organization whether players, officials or team owners are so negative when it comes to a real “pheenom” as they say, in their midst! The only reason that can be discerned as Clark is anything but a contentious player, having shown great sportsmanship during this period, is that she is white, something totally against the narrative of black superiority in sports. The Clark phenomena is reminiscent of the “breaking of the color barrier” that came about in other professional sports though the WNBA does have other white players. From Jackie Robinson in baseball to Tiger Woods in golf – both examples of blacks entering previously all-white professional sports – there have been periods of stress when the races “mixed” for the first time. Of course, it was much more difficult for Robinson given the era, but nevertheless it did work and soon professional baseball was filled with minorities who played – and traveled – with their teams and were adored by their fans, black and white, without any problem. However, the greatest example of this “welcome” given to great talent without concern about race was that of Tiger Woods. Golf is very different from other sports but the “white” infrastructure of professional golf welcomed Woods openly and without any nasty side effects – and this response included the audience! He was welcomed not because – or in spite of – his race, but because he was a talented golfer, the only criteria utilized! How different was the welcome given black Tiger Woods by a white sports establishment – players, officials and fans! – to that being given to white Caitlin Clark by a majority black sports establishment – players, officials and fans! And what does this say about those involved! Even the whites in the WNBA are not “pro-Clark” and that is probably because they are filled with the angst of artificially manufactured “white guilt!” Fortunately, a great many black athletes and commentators have spoken up for Clark. Indeed, most have called out the racial bias involved, but in another example of the existing problem, almost all of these have been men! It would appear that most of the ladies involved in the issue just cannot stomach a straight, white, Catholic woman especially when she is better than they are! [Post Scriptum: Clark’s season ended when her team was eliminated in the second game of its playoff series. Clark received an atrocious attack by a black player who deliberately stabbed her in the eye with her claw-like artificial nails! How a basketball player can handle the ball with nails over an inch long is beyond me, but video of the matter taken from the front rather than behind – the view most viewers saw on TV – clearly illustrated that the other player acted intentionally. Clark had to leave the game and wound up with a black eye, a fate considerably better than no eye at all, something that might well have been the outcome of such a vicious and intentional attack. Of course, with Clark gone, so are most of those interested enough to go to the games or watch on TV and the League’s “cash cow” is no longer providing the money she had brought to the game throughout the season. My heart bleeds . . . .]
When I was young, there was a very famous and much articulated saying by Voltaire, to wit: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!” Everyone—or at least everyone who was rational, moral and decently educated—knew that this was the creed of a free society in general and “America” in particular. Admittedly, at times even during our history, this sentiment was more honored in the breach than in the observance. Political correctness is not a new invention! But, on the whole, Americans have admitted to and acknowledged the right of unpopular views to be openly expressed especially in the Public Square. In fact, that sentiment is articulated in the first of the ten amendments to the United States Constitution that became known as the “Bill of Rights.” Even more to the point, people did not necessarily become pariahs for holding views contrary to the current orthodoxy whatever that was. Charles Lindberg did not lose his status as a hero when he came out against the United States taking up arms against Germany in World War II. True, even Lindberg had to embrace “war fever” after Pearl Harbor, but many understood and sympathized with the Lone Eagle’s desire to avoid another European war even if his apparent sympathy with the Nazis was looked upon askance. Indeed, the above sentiment is most apt to go out of favor in times of war. When he was inaugurated, Abraham Lincoln used his office far beyond its constitutional powers when, among other things, he suspended habeas corpus and issued orders to arrest and incarcerate without due process over (it is believed) forty-thousand Northern citizens who disagreed with that war. Later—much later—it was acknowledged that Lincoln violated the Constitution far more than he adhered to what was supposed to be “the law of the land.” But most of those acknowledging that fact either excuse or applaud his actions. The fact is, whether we are considering the United States or any other nation, empire or tribe, in times of war, there is very little sympathy for anything “unpatriotic” however legal, moral or just. As Judge Holt says in the film The Conspirator, “In time of war, the law is silent.” Sadly, this is not only wrong but evil simply because for all intents and purposes, when the law is most needed, it is not. We now live in a time of triumphant political correctness in which we not only fail to defend unpopular speech, but we condemn that speech and those who utter it. Yet, this is also a very odd period because though we are immersed in several wars—including the ubiquitous “war on terror”—the fact is we do not condemn those who speak out against these wars, but rather, against those who voice certain ideas and viewpoints within the culture with which those purveyors of politic correctness disagree. Worse, it now seems that any viewpoint that does not embrace the totality of the agenda of those same purveyors are labeled with the most powerful weapon in their arsenal of censorship, the dreaded universal race card. For instance: You do not accept the man-made origins of global warming? You are a racist! You do not accept open borders and total amnesty for millions of illegals? You are a racist. You do not accept a double standard which excuses crime and corruption when certain groups break the law but not others? You are a racist. You criticize the current progressive agenda in this country? You are a racist. You support the Constitution—and especially the Second Amendment? You are a racist. In fact, just recently, a black gentleman declared that ending Saturday mail delivery was “racist.” I think you get the point. No matter how false, no matter how silly, no matter how obviously dishonest, to disagree with the current “orthodoxy” is to be a “racist.” It is even more interesting when you realize that there actually is blatant—even violent racism in the society but those involved are considered incapable of being “racist” because—you guessed it!—of their race! Looking at the present state of American culture, there is another saying from ancient Greece that comes readily to mind: “Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.” I don’t know about other folks, but I am mortally tired of explaining myself to these politically correct types—and no wonder! They aren’t interested in what I think. They aren’t even interested in what I say! They are only interested in quieting a voice—any voice—saying what they do not wish to hear—whatever that may be. You cannot converse with such people. You cannot debate them. You cannot even argue with them! Why?Because they are not really people at all. They are the cheering section of and for a socio-political-economic-moral view of the world that brooks no deviation, no dispute, no debate and no diversity. In a way, that’s what makes the whole matter so very, very odd! Because the most potent code word in this movement—after “racist,” of course—is “diversity.” Nothing is more important, nothing is more needful, nothing is more required of any society than “diversity!” And yet, actual “diversity” is just what is notpermitted. Everyone in the society must hold the same views, must demand the same relief from the same social, economic and political ills, must condemn the same “wrong-headedness” and worship at the same political and ideological altars. Those who fail to do so are not just “wrong,” but wicked and the cause of all that is unjust and unfair in the world! Obviously, no humane, intelligent or rational discourse can occur when one side at least looks upon those with whom it disagrees as evil incarnate! Americans were more sympathetic with Lindberg and his affection for Germany than they are today with the “monsters” who practice “political incorrectness” no matter what their motives.
Life is filled with problems to be solved. Some are simple, some complex. Some are superficial, some crucial. Whatever the case, once one has encountered a problem, usually it is to the benefit of that person to solve it. On the other hand, a problem within the matter of problems is that often we do not bother or even want to solve a particular problem but to ignore it – often to our detriment. Either we don’t recognize it as a problem, or we don’t think it worth the effort to solve – or the problem itself is so grave that we prefer to avoid the whole mess. But frankly, though simple or otherwise harmless problems can be ignored, problems that are in fact, matters of life and death must be addressed even when it appears that no true “solution” can be found. After all, it is better to try and fail than to die without having tried! Of course, the first step in any solution is to define the problem. That sounds simple, but it seldom is – and it is especially difficult when those who are the problem (or part of the problem) do all in their power to muddy the waters. The answer to this is to simplify, attempting to look past the nonsense and the lies designed to frustrate attempts at a solution. It is very difficult to determine the shape or size of something when it is covered with nonessential doodads and camouflage. Indeed, it is in order to prevent recognizing the shape or size of something that camouflage is used! Ergo, it then becomes obvious that whoever or whatever works to hide the problem benefits from that problem remaining unsolved. This knowledge itself is a godsend for the first thing in any matter is to know your enemy as the presence of those particular people or that particular situation may offer what is the only solution. Today, in the third decade of the 21st Century, our planet and especially our country, the United States of America, is plagued with problems. They are many and they are very serious! Most decent people seek solutions but the problems are so many and so diverse that it appears impossible to achieve what is necessary to allow them to be successfully addressed. For instance, we have the well-known and (apparently) extremely important issue of “climate change.” This particular problem used to be known as “global warming,” but the known facts went from a predicted ice age in the 1970s to the claim of an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide that would warm the globe to the point at which only Tibetan monks would find themselves above the high tide line. Climate change is a very real example of the type of problems we are dealing with today. Why? Because, first and foremost, it is a lie – period! The earth is billions of years old and during that period, its climate changed many times. At one time we had what was called “snowball earth” with the entire globe wrapped miles deep in ice! Geologists and archeologists have been able to determine how, when and, most importantly, why this happened and, as it occurred before humans arose, nobody has tried to blame it on us. Then there were times when the whole earth was green. Even the poles were covered with lush forests and many creatures lived in the high latitudes year round though they hibernated through the long dark winters. And, yes, we weren’t around then either! So, neither the centuries long ice ages nor the equally long eras of heat and humidity could be blamed upon mankind. But today, that’s all changed and we’re told that not only are “people” responsible for whatever climate change is presently occurring (and those complaining don’t really know what that is!) but these same “blamers” also insist that they can “fix” it. Yeah. Actually, climate change is a perfect example of the “problem” issue in this country and the rest of especially the West because it can be conveniently used as a platform for the “climatologists” to render their view, their “science” and then put forth their “solutions.” Of course, if there is a real problem, we need solutions – but we soon find that the whole problem is not what it appears. The general cry in problems like “climate change” is that we must “follow the science.” This sounds reasonable, except that we soon discover that “the science” is another term for what the “climatologists” want us to believe and, in consequence, want us to do! In other words, it ain’t science; it’s opinion and poorly reasoned opinion at that, often based on deliberately incorrect data and designed to accomplish an agenda that has nothing to do with the climate or of the good of mankind or the planet. It is this dishonesty that puts the lie to the claim that those involved in the “climate change” issue have the good of mankind as their aim. No, as in just about every other such “problem,” whether it be climate or the environment or health and sociological issues such as race relations or gender issues, the true aim of those involved in providing us with their “solutions” is found in one word: control! We must realize that most of what is presented to us today as “problems” requiring the intervention of the governments of the United States and/or the world acting through the UN are nothing more than opportunities for those agencies to seize control of the people of the world, destroying forever our very delicate and tenuous liberties so hard won in at least American history. And, in fact, often the “cure” is infinitely worse than the disease! The horrific results of the ongoing “vaccination” programs forced upon people by a very questionable “disease,” COVID and a much more questionable medical establishment should make us realize that those who put themselves forward as agents of the good, are more wicked than the worst of the tyrants in all the long centuries prior to the dawning of the Millenia. For instance, right now we see a 40% increase in the death rate of healthy human beings ages eighteen through sixty-four!This has been revealed by the actuarial tables of group life insurance companies whose expenditures are going through the roof in a situation that hasn’t been seen since the years of the Black Plague! Meanwhile, the entire establishment – government, media, science and medicine – remain silent or suggest that it has nothing to do with the hazardous bioweapons being used on an innocent and unsuspecting public. On the other hand, among those who do understand what is happening, reference has been made by them to the Nuremberg trials held at the end of World War II that led to the executions of various political and “medical” persons found guilty of experimenting on captives under their control. Now, we must remember that the above figures are limited to American life insurance companies. We do not know how many have died or how many will die in the rest of the world from this continuing planned genocide! So, what about America’s “problems?” First, intelligent people must understand that while some these problems are the result of natural forces and do not need “solutions” other than the passage of time, others are created by those who present themselves as having the solution to what they, themselves, have created. Most of these “problems” are designed to further an agenda. The first and foremost object of that agenda is to control the people! The entire matter of “gun control” has nothing to do with crime but with removing guns from law abiding Americans. We have seen the ultimate fate of those who are thus disarmed at the hands of their own countrymen and it isn’t pretty! The “mass shootings” that so often “appear” when the government has hopes they will result in good people giving up their guns “for the good of society” will continue but it is hoped by those who recognize what is going on, that the Deep State is so predictable and so openly evil that it has lost that particular argument at least with regard to intelligent Americans. Then they want electric cars and digital currency not for the environment or the economy but because if you disobey, your car can be turned off and your money removed – control! They have told us you will own nothing and be happy and they have made it clear that they are going to “remove” 90% of the world’s population leaving only those who will serve them – that is, the elites. Obviously, COVID has provided them with a damned good start in that effort and still many people wear masks and take shots while those who go into hospitals are murdered by protocols that include a drug – Remdesivir – with a 55% death rate! Until Americans (and the rest of what was once the free world) begin to ask the real question, qui bono(who benefits) and to realize that everything is designed to increase the government’s control over us, we will continue to have “unsolvable problems” and until and unless we are ready to openly and physically resist, the vast majority of us have no future at all.
Sometimes it is difficult to understand the aim of any article presenting facts to the public. Even when supposedly explanatory titles are provided, that does not necessarily mean that such a heading is the real thrust of what follows. But when the written word obfuscates the true intention—that is, what the writer intends the reader to understand of his meaning without actually coming out and stating it plainly—there are usually words and phrases that give clues to his or her intentions. Of course, to begin with, the very need to hide the author’s intent should raise red flags regarding the honesty of that person. Why is there a need to hide the writer’s intent if the intent is honorable? Of course, there isn’t any. Ergo, from the beginning the article that couches its intent in questionable rhetoric should excite the suspicions of all but the terminally naïve. Below is a list of at least some of the words and phrases whose appearance in any document should make the reader wary of the author’s intent: 1. Racist. This word was coined by Communist Leon Trotsky as part of what we today call “Cultural Marxism.” It is a slander intended to destroy the reputation of the person or action to which it is applied. When this is used, the reader/hearer is supposed to believe that the person to whom it is applied is unworthy of belief or respect. On the other hand, it does not in any way indicate whether that person is correct! It makes no judgement applicable to fact or truth. It merely means to imply that while the messenger is not necessarily wrong, he is certainly unworthy of belief. Why? Because he or she is a “racist!” The word is becoming somewhat ineffective through massive overuse. Other words used in this nomenclature are as follows: a. White—all uses of the word white in this instance, describe a particular race; that is, white supremacy, white nationalism, white privilege etc. The use of any and/or all of these terms indicates complete bigotry and a total lack of reason or reality. People who use and believe these have an agenda that does not represent either of these necessary qualities. a. There are two types who use these terms. The first are people who actually believe the concept, many of whom are themselves white. b. The second are people who use these terms to persuade others that the greatest danger to human life today is the white race and that once whites are extinct whether through interbreeding with other races or through physical death, the planet will prosper and flourish. 2. X-phobe as in “homophobe,” “Islamophobe” &etc. The term/word “phobia” indicates an irrational fear; that is, a fear that is either far more acute than ordinary fear or, in the alternative, an intense dislike of something factually unworthy of that situation. When it is applied to a word, it indicates that the person being so identified has an irrational fear or dislike/hatred of the object identified. As a result, any liberal icon whether it be “illegals” or “transgenders” &etc., when resisted, the person and/or group resisting are labeled as “phobic.” Simply put, if you don’t like a particular liberal agenda, the response is to name those resisting as “phobic” thus marginalizing their resistance by making it into something irrational. 3. Conspiracy as in “conspiracy theory or theorist. According to the dictionary the term means a secret plan by a person or group to do something unlawful or harmful; and also, the action of plotting or conspiring. With regard to our present political circumstances, the term “conspiracy theory was first brought into the public discourse during the Warren Commission’s (supposed) investigation into the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John F. Kennedy. After the initial shock of the assassination itself, few were the people at home or abroad that believed in the “lone gunman” theory of the assassination promoted by the government. For people worthy of public notice, the government approved the appellation of conspiracy theorists thus presenting those who refused to accept the “official version” of events as unworthy of being taken seriously. Fortunately (or not) this did not remove the ongoing public doubt but, sadly, it also did result in further questionable “deaths” after the original event. However, the term was deemed worthy to be used when and if any other government action came under investigation by those deemed dangerous by the Deep State and so we continue to be relentlessly presented with “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists” no matter how well proven the account or believable those who present it. Again, it is becoming a parody of its former use, now being more apt to validate the claim and the claimants than otherwise. 4. Expressions of contempt, disrespect and/or derision toward the people or subjects under scrutiny. This methodology generally cannot be reduced to singular terms as can the expressions above, but certainly the reader is able to discover when the author is dismissive or contemptuous of those being observed and reported upon. When an author has no respect for the subject(s) of his or her opinion then it is probable that the opinions expressed are themselves dismissive of those same subjects. No true examination can be made of any issue when the person making that examination has no respect for his or her subject and this must be recognized by the reader. Why? Because without any true respect, the author does not feel obligated to treat the matter with the intellectual deference and seriousness required for any true investigation. It becomes a “throw-away hit piece” designed to destroy the reader’s interest in further study of the subject and those who present it by virtue of ridicule or outright insult. a. The noun insult is defined as to speak or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action: or a thing so worthless or contemptible as to be offensive. b. The verb is defined as to speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse: In the past, debate and dialogue in the Public Square rejected all such attempts to undermine the matters being debated and either side indulging in such practices were usually considered to have lost their position on the issue under discussion. Certainly, any scholastic groups or individuals so engaged would not have used any of the above nomenclature or strategies to further their position. Today, however, since all that matters is that the “chosen side” prevails, the rigors of scholarship and fair debate – never mind historical accuracy! – are of far less importance than that the desired narrative is overwhelmingly accepted by the public! And so, when you pick up a magazine or read something online, beware when the author or group offers any of the above strategies in presenting their “side” of the matter being debated. You may rest assured that there will be very little actual facts and what are presented as facts are more than likely lies or else they would not feel the need to encase them in weapons created to hide the truth from the public by destroying those presenting it.