When I was very young, my even younger brother asked our two grandfathers, What is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? Now, one grandfather was a Democrat and one was a Republican. And here we all sat together for this little conversation. My Republican grandfather answered first. Well I would say that we all want the same things, but we disagree on how to achieve them. Obviously he was being diplomatic, but this left a lasting impression, and I more or less believed it for many years.
But I can no longer believe this. I am 59 years old, and I have been following politics and culture since I was in high school. If the above sentiment was ever true, it is certainly not true today. Dear reader, let me ask you: Do left-of-center types and right-of-center types (I no longer use the party labels) want the same thing? Perhaps it is just me, but I do not think they do.
So while I appreciate what Peter Boghossian is doing, and I appreciated what Charlie Kirk tried to do, my question is this: What is the point of these conversations when the goals are so diametrically opposed? It is kind of like slavery: At some point, there is nothing left to talk about.
The problem is that not only do we have different goals. But we have different perceptions of the goals of the other side.
I think we can boil it down like this:
The right would define their goal as: Widespread prosperity
The left would define their goal as: Universal equality
But how would the left define the goal of the right: Prosperity for few
And how would the right define the goal of the left: Power for few
So where is the truth? Well the truth depends on where you sit. Yes of course I believe in absolute truth. I believe the right-of-center types are correct, both in the description of their goal and in their perception of the goal of the left. But any left-of-center type will make the exact opposite claim to truth.
The left may be delusional, but you have to remember that the left is a religion. And like any religion, their doctrine is their truth.
So like 1860, really, what is there left to talk about? I am not calling for war. But it seems to me that we must admit reality. These two sides will not, and perhaps cannot, be reconciled. We can have a separation, which has already begun. I predict this will accelerate. But a chaotic civil war at some point seems just has likely.
The film is sort of Death Wish meets contemporary European immigration. With Armie Hammer stepping in for Charles Bronson.
I cannot say that Death Wish was ever my cup of tea. Too much gratuitous violence, and in this case gratuitous sex, for my taste. But if the powers that be in Europe, particularly the increasingly authoritarian German regime, feel the need to censor it, then I must do my small part to fight the censorship.
So is the movie any good? Again, it's not really to my taste. But if you like the John Wick series, you will like this. And because the targets are immigrants rather than the mere thugs and criminals in Death Wish, there is definitely a political dimension to this film. In the end, whether or not you appreciate this film probably depends on your own political convictions.
I will add that both Armie Hammer and Costas Mandylor are excellent in their roles. Same for the supporting cast. I suppose the film is classified as low budget, but it is well made and the reduced budget did not interfere with the story.
In summary I would say that the movie is worth watching for its message. And here I mean, whether you agree with the message or not. You need to hear it. This problem is not going away. And I do not believe that European leaders will sincerely address it. European elites do not suffer the consequences of their policies and actions, so they do not care. Ultimately that is the message of this film.
This line really got my attention: I'm skeptical about any possibility of anybody voting themselves out of this trouble (14:18).
Here it is in context:
All over Europe, you see the rise of alternative political movements. Said before and I'll say again, I'm skeptical about any possibility of anybody voting themselves out of this trouble. But the instinct is there. People want political alternative. So you see it all over. You know the Alternative for Germany for example, the AFD, where the response of the regime is to try and make the AFD illegal. You know surveilling its would be candidates and arresting people just for posing, being a threat to the incumbents.
So the the trust in the in the political system, not just for me, but for millions, billions of people, is gone. What do people do then if the mechanisms that they've been told to trust are demonstrably useless? What do you get? Well, apart from anything else, you get loss of trust.
I am not sure that Oliver, who I quite like and appreciate, really believes this. He's skeptical. Fair enough. But I for one have absolutely come to believe it. The problems of the United Kingdom and continental Europe will not be solved at the ballot box.
Absolutely not.
And sadly, I will take it a step further with this question: In the United States, can we solve the political differences between left and right at the ballot box?
The left is an intolerant religion and proud of it
I do not know if this is real or not; I hope it is. But even if it is not, I think it makes a fair point. Popular culture, media, and the education establishment endlessly foist left-of-center views on people from the right. And those on the left need not ever entertain any views from the right. They are actually proud of this.
Since Charlie Kirk's death, the organization he founded has gone off the rails. I think he was naive about the people he surrounded himself with; including his own wife. But that should not diminish his own contributions. The question asked here is paramount.
Rupert Lowe asks: Is the British government a criminal enterprise?
Lowe says that change can be driven through the ballot box. Well as a politician, he would have to say that, right? But as in California and Minnesota, I'm not at all sure that will work any more.
Lowe thinks that people will vote for things to get worse before they get better. That is wishful thinking; I do not believe that people will do that. Collapse is inevitable.
I mean in Britain you have an elite class and a government class who absolutely refuse to hold rapists accountable. Mind you, over decades. They minimize it, they dismiss it, they hide it. And it doing so, they prove themselves worse than the actual rapists. It is, in fact, criminal.
Can the government at large be guilty of accessory and/or obstruction? Or aiding and abetting? Because that is exactly what happened. And Keir Starmer was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
And this is before we get to the vast crimes of the Covid "pandemic" response. Weinstein wonders aloud if the mRNA "vaccines" were not designed to create immunity (which so clearly, they were not), but rather purposefully designed to create some future vulnerability. To what, we cannot yet know. But given the players involved, this clearly is a possibility. This would certainly explain the unhinged enthusiasm for the jab from the powers that be.
Whether designed for immunity or future vulnerability, my question is, what other alternatives are there?
Well there is pure profit. But to me, that does not adequately explain the multi-government fervor, both domestically and internationally. And the punishments for noncompliance. The governmental actions and supposed reactions were unexplained, dark, and sinister. We may not know the tree, but we sure saw the fruit. It was not merely profit-driven; just my opinion.
In any case, these same people are in charge of the election processes. So my question is: Have we reached the end of functional democracy?
I think we have. These people must be dislodged and prosecuted. Keir Starmer must be jailed. Along with many thousands of his ilk. And now, I hear that Andy Burnham will be even worse.
There is a shopping center in town that ripped out much needed parking spaces to install pickleball courts.
The tennis courts down the street are almost always empty.
Los Angeles mayor, Karen Bass is incompetent. How much rebuilding has been done in fifteen months?
Seattle mayor, Katie Wilson, and New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani, do not understand that billionaires can live anywhere.
In fact, most Los Angeles, Seattle, and New York City residents could live anywhere.
China is having a property valuation depression.
Everything about China is a scam.
Candace Owens scares the elites.
I hope Candace Owens has more than adequate security.
The US can open the Strait of Hormuz any time it chooses (see AC130 gunship).
The US has thirty AC130 gunships.
The foreign government of Israel wants Thomas Massie defeated.
So Trump wants Thomas Massie defeated.
The recent Met Gala only proved, again, that Anna Wintour has no class.
When I was a kid, the school cafeteria served peanut butter sandwiches, I'd say, round about once a month. And, no one had autism. It is worth asking what has changed?
Big Food and/or Big Pharma do not want us asking.
The engine of the international economy runs on...petroleum.
If you are paying through the nose for energy... Europe and California ...it is no one's fault except your own.
Regarding the ongoing Hantavirus outbreak, once again the public health apparatus, led by WHO, proves that it is entirely untrustworthy, and likely working against the interest of actual public health. And once again, Bret Weinstein is on it.
Leather pants may be okay for a night club, but I cannot take anyone wearing leather pants seriously.
This seems obvious to me: Volodymyr Zelensky is worse than Vladimir Putin. Zelensky thrives on this war; why would he finish it?
"One thing we know about the state is that it's generally incompetent."
Nominally, this is an interview about New Zealand. But David Seymour, the current Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, offers a case study in the kind of thinking we desperately need in every western democracy.
The biggest problem for New Zealand, and for all western democracies, is that the Jacinda Ardern and Kamala Harris and Angela Merkel types will be back in charge before we know it. And while these three examples are all women, they are as power-hungry as their male counterparts. Say Keir Starmer, Gavin Newsom, and Tim Walz. These people only care about power; not good public policy. They weaponize the suicidal empathy of their voters to achieve and maintain their own power. That's the whole game.
And power-consumed leftists win because people on the right do not know how to fight. The right believes that the fight is with the leftist politicians. So they talk about how incompetent Tim Walz is. But the real fight is with the people who have voted for Walz and would vote for him again.
Let's take an example. Donald Trump loves New York City. Of course he does; it is his home. But last year, the good people of NYC elected a socialist mayor. They need to pay for that decision. They, the voters. And it needs to hurt. So when New York asks for the inevitable bailout, the answer must be no. The same for Seattle and Portland and Minneapolis and California. End the deduction for state and local taxes. Or at least cap them. The fight is not with Mamdani; it is with his voters.
So long as voters never pay for the consequences of their votes, they will continue to behave in an irresponsible manner. Mamdani and newly elected Seattle mayor Katie Wilson are power-hungry fools; but we all know exactly what they are. The people who voted for them also know what they are. They, the voters, must pay dearly for their decisions.
But the right will not do this; has never done this. They wring their hands, and complain about the slow but sure leftward drift of the country. They criticize Zohran Mamdani and Brandon Johnson.
Stop trying to win over the suicidal empathy crowd. You are never going to win them over. Instead, start talking about how stupid they are. And it is so easy to cite examples. Think for example: The Trump campaign ad about Harris is for They/Them; Donald Trump is for you. More like this. Much more.
How about: Stop funding Somalia you morons. Okay, clean it up a bit, add a little context, but that needs to be the message. Or: Wait, you want boys on the girl's volleyball team; what is wrong with you? No, of course you will not win over someone who does want this. Rather, you will win everyone else.
I would go max on voter ID. Start with buying alcohol and cigarettes. But find the most stupid thing that people need an ID for, and compare that to voting. Also, voting machine manipulation compared to the numerous internet hacking cases. High taxes are a bit more difficult, but not if you link them to stupid spending cases. And if they want to confiscate the wealth of billionaires, remind the public that billionaires can choose where they live. Billionaires choose where they live, you morons.
You get the idea; do not be afraid to point out stupidity. Relish it, roll in it. For God's sake, learn how to fight. And learn who exactly you should be fighting.
I think it is worth having a look at the actual text of the WHCD shooter's manifesto. This guy sounds like any number of leftists that I have encountered over the last three decades.
And to be clear, at first this attitude could only be found on the fringes of leftist political thought. But over this time period, I have watched this sort of thinking move closer and closer to mainstream left of center thought and argument. Which of course meant that ever greater numbers of left of center types agreed with it.
Also, I am not sure what subject Allen taught, but let's hope it was not English or writing. (More below)
Cole Allen’s manifesto in full:
Hello everybody!
So I may have given a lot of people a surprise today. Let me start off by apologizing to everyone whose trust I abused.
I apologize to my parents for saying I had an interview without specifying it was for “Most Wanted.”
I apologize to my colleagues and students for saying I had a personal emergency (by the time anyone reads this, I probably most certainly DO need to go to the ER, but can hardly call that not a self-inflicted status.)
I apologize to all of the people I traveled next to, all the workers who handled my luggage, and all the other non-targeted people at the hotel who I put in danger simply by being near.
I apologize to everyone who was abused and/or murdered before this, to all those who suffered before I was able to attempt this, to all who may still suffer after, regardless of my success or failure.
I don’t expect forgiveness, but if I could have seen any other way to get this close, I would have taken it. Again, my sincere apologies.
On to why I did any of this:
I am a citizen of the United States of America.
What my representatives do reflects on me.
And I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.
(Well, to be completely honest, I was no longer willing a long time ago, but this is the first real opportunity I’ve had to do something about it.)
While I’m discussing this, I’ll also go over my expected rules of engagement (probably in a terrible format, but I’m not military so too bad.)
Administration officials (not including Mr. Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest
Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who aren’t
Hotel Security: not targets if at all possible (aka unless they shoot at me)
Capitol Police: same as Hotel Security
National Guard: same as Hotel Security
Hotel Employees: not targets at all
Guests: not targets at all
In order to minimize casualties I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls)
I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people chose to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.
Rebuttals to objections:
Objection 1: As a Christian, you should turn the other cheek.
Rebuttal: Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed. I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. I’m not the fisherman executed without trial. I’m not a schoolkid blown up or a child starved or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration.
Turning the other cheek when someone else is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.
Objection 2: This is not a convenient time for you to do this.
Rebuttal: I need whoever thinks this way to take a couple minutes and realize that the world isn’t about them. Do you think that when I see someone raped or murdered or abused, I should walk on by because it would be “inconvenient” for people who aren’t the victim?
This was the best timing and chance of success I could come up with.
Objection 3: You didn’t get them all.
Rebuttal: Gotta start somewhere.
Objection 4: As a half-black, half-white person, you shouldn’t be the one doing this.
Rebuttal: I don’t see anyone else picking up the slack
Objection 5: Yield unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
Rebuttal: The United States of America are ruled by the law, not by any one or several people. In so far as representatives and judges do not follow the law, no one is required to yield them anything so unlawfully ordered.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to a great many people since I will not be likely to be able to talk with them again (unless the Secret Service is astoundingly incompetent.)
Thank you to my family, both personal and church, for your love over these 31 years.
Thank you to my friends, for your companionship over many years.
Thank you to my colleagues over many jobs, for your positivity and professionalism.
Thank you to my students for your enthusiasm and love of learning.
Thank you to the many acquaintances I’ve met, in person and online, for short interactions and long-term relationships, for your perspectives and inspiration.
Thank you all for everything.
Sincerely,
Cole “coldForce” “Friendly Federal Assassin” Allen
PS: Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.
Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.
What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.
No damn security.
Not in transport.
Not in the hotel.
Not in the event.
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.
I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.
The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.
Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.
Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed s–t.
Actually insane.
Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.
Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.
End of manifesto
Less of a manifesto; more of a statement, I suppose. And, am I the only one not surprised this guy is a teacher? Does this episode not perfectly encapsulate where our education system has brought us? When education becomes indoctrination, this is the result. And this is one goal of our modern education establishment.
The left will never admit it, but God, they love it. And Cole Allen is not alone; far from it. Today there are millions of young people just like this guy. If you doubt this, I would suggest you talk with recent college graduates. You might start with a few teachers.
The ultimate goal of our modern education system is to create an army of leftists, willing to use any means necessary to remake the United States into a socialist utopia. It is worth noting that Allen is 31 years old. So not only is he a participant in the education establishment, but he is also a product of it.
We are not going to defeat these people in the war of ideas. They are completely immune to logic and rational thought. For them, it is a religion.
When Trump lost the Carlson brothers, he lost the Right
Watch the whole thing, but the last twenty minutes are truly revealing.
Open questions: Before his assassination, was Trump about to lose Charlie Kirk's support as well? Why is the FBI only pretending to investigate Kirk's death? Who wrote the now famous Tyler Robinson text messages? Why all the subterfuge surrounding the Kirk assassination? And most importantly, why does Trump allow Benjamin Netanyahu such latitude to prosecute the Iran war as he sees fit, even though Israel is clearly the very junior partner in this endeavor?
Why do people on the left believe what they believe?
Bret Weinstein says that he believes communism stems from insurmountable bad luck. And while there is some truth to this, it is not the primary cause. Communism is primarily a function of envy. And there is a class of people who stoke the envy, not for the good of society, certainly not the good of the working classes, but to accumulate power for themselves.
Has history not proven this time and again? If this fact troubles you, just name one communist leader who lived a communist life? Just one.
Weinstein goes on to argue that the best way to immunize people from communist impulses is to give people access to the market and the tools to compete in the market.
Excellent. Left unsaid is that the left believes this can and should be done with some series of never-ending government programs. They argue, who or what else is going to do it? But the reality is that the best way to provide access to the market is to limit the burden of government on everyone: Employer, employee, entrepreneur, investor, laborer, etc.
Further, Weinstein wants to hypothesize and test solutions to our various problems. And that sounds great. But who ends up controlling the process? Again, the government. And government is unwieldy and bureaucratic. Hypothesize, test, fail, re-tool, try again differently. This is not something government does. It is not something government has ever done. But you know who has always done this? The free market.
One thing that pro-government types struggle with is the concept of incentives. And without this understanding, government programs of any type, are doomed to fail. Again, who gets this concept correct? The free market.
When government is involved, they bring their bureaucracy and their group think and their politics and their power dynamics. And their guns. It is always worth remembering that everything government does, and every policy that it enacts, is at the point of a gun. Group think with guns. That pretty much sums up every government ever.
But that is not the worst of it. Leftist power players care very little about policy. They only care about policy insofar as it helps them achieve and maintain their own power. They certainly do not care about the long term effects and consequences of their policies. So Weinstein's experimentation process is never actually started much less accomplished. The left's so-called solutions are only proposed to win elections. To the extent that anything ever gets done, there is zero attention to efficacy. The whole thing is a sham.
But then it gets even worse. Because all governments lie with impunity. Either to further their political ends or to hide their corruption and/or failures. Yet the left seems to believe that if they could just get their imagined version of an honest, good government, then everything will work as they envision it. But this never happens; has never happened in the history of the world. But next time, they assure us, they will get it right. Just in time to carry out Weinstein's experiments.
So let's keep government in a small box, doing only the absolutely necessary. Yes, I realize this ship has sailed. But this should be our goal.
This is so obvious that it begs the question, why do leftists believe what leftists believe? Well there are two kinds of leftists. The small group I mentioned above who lust for power. And the more common useful idiots, some driven by envy, some driven by other emotions, such as an overabundance of empathy, who buy all the bullshit peddled by the power players. Many of the useful idiots have turned away from faith in God and replaced it with faith in government. And as with any religion, faith does not make it true.
Now let's consider Weinstein himself. I like Bret, I really do. And I have learned a great deal from him. See capture; see Cartesian crisis; see Goliath; see the difference between complicated and complexsystems; see his numerous Youtube videos produced during the Covid crisis and response. In fact, I credit Bret and his wife Heather for largely guiding my thinking through the time of Global Covid Nonsense™.
So it is odd to me that in the video discussion above, Weinstein advocates for the use of complicated government solutions, yet to be identified, to solve highly complex societal problems; ignoring his own distinction between these concepts. Why does he do this? Yes, he is obviously smart enough to recognize that he is doing this. So why?
Government can provide for basic societal needs. Roads, bridges, parks, police, courts, military. It can address, if not solve, some more complicated problems like social security, immigration, and antitrust. So I think what happens is that pro-government types assume that it can also address complex societal problems like black family disintegration, climate concerns, drug abuse, and a falling fertility rate. They advocate for and usually win the argument that government must act and spend vast sums of other people's money to address these and uncountable other societal problems. But as with any complex system, government fiddling simply ensures new problems, greater problems, and/or perpetual problems.
Again, Weinstein knows this. He is not a useful idiot and he does not lust for power. I just cannot understand how anyone who knows this can remain on the left.
It was Bret Weinstein, during the Covid response episode, who first introduced me to the contemporary metaphorical concept of Goliath. It may be a metaphor, but it represents something real. This is clearly true even if we cannot identify exactly what that something is. Matthew 7:16 taught us to know a tree by its fruit. Using this lesson, we may not know exactly whatGoliath represents, but we can know its purpose by what it does. The purpose of any system is what it does. And today, I think we can broaden Matthew: By its fruit, we know it exists.
There is much in this two part conversation that I disagree with; there is much more that I do agree with. Plus, I also share many of Weinstein and Carlson's open questions. In any case, if you want to be smarter about what is going on in the world today, have a listen.
Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim, and the Cameraman
Boghossian and Ibrahim talk about why Europe is dying, but about ninety minutes in, their cameraman injects himself into the conversation, with a real time demonstration of suicidal empathy. The argument of the left on full display. And they allow the cameraman to make his points. Then after quizzing the cameraman on what exactly he believes, Boghossian makes the point the we are going to get the Europe that the cameraman is championing. The cameraman seems to be okay with that because he does not believe that Islam offers any danger to Europe. And besides, Muslims are too low of a percentage of the overall population to make much difference.
Listening to the cameraman, I could not help but reflect that this is what millions of Europeans believe. They either don't think about this at all, or they believe what the cameraman believes. And there is no reasoning with the cameraman because he has his doctrine and his dogma, and these convictions are immune to reason. As with any religion.
I love the way Boghossian dealt with this guy. He did not argue with him. He let the cameraman make his points, and then he simply asked a few questions to clarify what the guy believed. And here, if you do not understand the reality of Islam and European political leadership, you might think that the cameraman got the better of Boghossian and Ibrahim. But I think Boghossian is well aware of who is watching, both in the live audience and online. And to those people, the cameraman is simply yet another naive leftist. So Boghossian just let him dig his hole.
Ordinarily I would say that this was painful to watch. But it was not. Watching this was like watching someone predict a train wreck without realizing that is what they are doing, but you know with certainty that they are correct. By the time that the bien-pensants wake from their trance, it will be too late.
What this shows is that suicidal empathy is a choice. A warmly embraced and welcome choice. It is also a bit smug; you hear this in the cameraman's responses: He looks down on Boghossian and Ibrahim for their obvious bigotry.
Civil War: The Somewheres versus the Anywheres and the Muslims
The above videio is from earlier this month. I have posted David Betz videos twice before in the last year: Here with Louise Perry (audio only), and here with the Triggernometry guys. Further, I have collected notable Betz videos on this topic here.
For residents of Britain, I see four possibilities. One, you can stay and fight. Two, leave now, before the violence begins. Three, stay and work towards peaceful subjugation. Not because you want subjugation, but because you believe in coexistence. Of course you do. Four, denial. This is the Keir Starmer approach. And millions of Anywheres share it. They will bear the brunt of the violence, and as the cause of this problem, they surely deserve it.
In the end, options three and four will be one and the same. Ultimately the deniers will die in the coming violence or submit to Islam, which arguably, they already have. When you are willingly giving over your daughters for rape, you have already submitted.
But wait, one might argue that Keir Starmer and his ilk are not giving over their own daughters for rape. Right? But that is the whole point: They are giving over the daughters of the Somewheres. And before they fed the Somewhere daughters to the immigrant rapists, they let uncountable numbers of these consanguineous monsters into the country. And rape is but one part of the cultural conflict.
This is the reason I say they, the Anywheres, deserve it. What did they think would happen? No, they did not think at all. But they love to tell people how clever they are; just ask them. After all, they are citizens of the world.
So for we of lesser intellect, but with perhaps a modicum of common sense, only the first two possibilities are viable. Stay and fight, or flee. But make up your mind quickly; both options require planning.
If you choose to stay and fight, one does wonder if, in fact, there is going to be a fight? If recent history is anything to go by, submission will be more palatable for most. So if you stay and fight, I do not think you will be joining the fight.
No, if you stay, you will have to start the fight.
While it may be hard to believe, Katie Porter does have a natural constituency.
Many others have written about the emasculated men of the Democrat Party; they seem to make up the majority of men in the party. And what are they looking for? I mean, if you could create the perfect candidate for them, what kind of person would she be?
Because it is obviously a she, right? The real question is: What kind of women do these men prefer?
And the answer is blindingly obvious. Emasculated men want a strong, powerful woman to tell them what to do. They want a full time lecturing Karen. If she makes them feel small in the process, so much the better.
It does not matter whether or not this woman is attractive or bright or charismatic. Her primary attribute is that she is belittling towards them. Katie Porter makes Amy Klobuchar and Hillary Clinton look like the frumpy novices they are.
I remember Rush Limbaugh used to say that Hillary Clinton reminds men of their ex-wives. And yet, the Democrats made her their nominee. Of course they did.
Yes, Democrats like a shrew.
But these men? They secretly desire a dominatrix.
Can you not just imagine Katie Porter in that role. She was made for it.
Porter felt no humiliation wearing a cheap batgirl costume to a congressional hearing. No, I am not making this up and that is not an AI photo. Look it up yourself.
Can you just imagine what she might force a partner to wear to a dinner party? For her own amusement, at his expense. And then when the poor guy uses the wrong fork, can you just imagine what she would do to him when they get home?
But there is a certain class of men who love it. After a long day of teaching gender studies, they yearn for a powerful matriarch to forcefully cure them of their internalized white, patriarchal impulses. They deserve no less.
We can easily ask ourselves: Who would vote for such a creature? How did she make it this far in politics?
She may very well be mentally ill. But there are many leftist women who view shrewishness as a power move. And there are also many leftist, emasculated men whose secret desire is to be dominated and humiliated.
I'm guessing both groups fantasize about Mistress Katie.
All of the below videos have appeared in my feed, in the last couple of days. This cannot be a coincidence. Youtube must be doing this on purpose to have fun with people who do not buy into the narrative they are pushing. I can just imagine some blue-haired, tatted-up, 20-something, with a nose ring, sitting in a Google cubicle somewhere, thinking this is hilarious.
Memo to the adults at Youtube: This is not helping your cause.
Note: There were at least a dozen more before I started grabbing screen shots.
I somehow missed Kurt Schlichter's American Apocalypse when it came out in July. I only discovered it after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. In the novel, both Trump and Vance are assassinated, and the book is basically about what happens afterwards, up to and including a second American civil war.
But the parallels between the plot of the novel and what we have seen after the murder of Charlie Kirk are eerie.
I noticed the first parallel long before the Kirk assassination. And that is the sheer number of Americans, of all political stripes, who are just not paying attention. To the extent they vote, and many people who do not pay attention, do in fact vote, they simply vote for their party's candidate de rigueur.
Both in the novel and by long standing custom, everyone the left disapproves of is a fascist or a Nazi. And anyone with ideas that the left does not want to hear, and importantly, does not want others to hear, is an insurrectionist. Obviously.
In the novel, the left celebrated the assassinations of Trump and Vance. Just as many people of the left celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk. As I said at the time, they were giddy.
If you do away with merit, replacing it with some form of non-merit based system, you can expect incompetence. And if you then have the incompetents focus their attention, and everyone else's attention, on non-mission focused objectives and psychopathic delusions, the mission will fail. We saw this in Schlichter's book as well as in the Biden government. God knows we will see it again when the left inevitably retakes power.
I note one other point the novel makes: When the war started, we really didn’t know it was a war. It was more like a mass riot, except bloodier. (Page 245) I think this is an interesting point. Will the shooting war begin as armed city rioters, who are really hoodlums, shooting at various forms of federal law enforcement? Say this breaks out in twenty cities...is that a war? And what if, like Chicago and Portland, you have the governors and the mayors egging them on? I don't know; maybe something to watch for.
Personally, I believe that it will be a civil war when the president tries to nationalize a state national guard, and the governor and his commanders refuse. I think that is a pretty good litmus test of the definition of civil war. Reasonable people might disagree with this as a definition, but what if it is more than one state? I am open to a more transparent definition, but this time it is not going to be a clean North/South secessionist divide. It is going to be murky.
Now, what about guns? Make no mistake, leftists love guns. All types and sizes of guns. Much more than any conservatives ever will. But with two caveats. One, that government has a monopoly on guns, and two, that they control government. This way, they control all the guns and they can disavow guns at the same time. Gun control is a moral-sounding, virtue-signaling, propagandistic method of insuring that people on the right do not have access to guns, but people on the left, including criminals, do.
Finally, I have to add that I am not the greatest fan of Schlichter's novels. They read like comic books. Or maybe more accurately, as young adult novels. But I continue to read Schlichter because his works are so on point. No one else, that I am aware of, is even close to his perception of the danger we are in as a perilously politically divided nation.
Plus I think he correctly captures the attitude and goals that American leftists truly hold. And I believe he is correct in his assessment of what they would do with unbridled power. We know this is true because they would have gleefully imprisoned Donald Trump. Of course, back in power, they will gleefully imprison you and me.
They do not care about people or policy. No matter what they say or how much they preach.
Who is the audience for "fascist" and "nazi" and "Hitler"?
I used to think that people on the left threw these terms about as a form of hyperbole. I would think: Oh that's ridiculous, he knows that is not true, and he is just being overly dramatic. Makes a good soundbite, appeals to his base, etc.
But now that there have been two assassination attempts on Donald Trump, and Charlie Kirk is dead, I have changed my mind. In fact, I now believe that I was simply naive about what they were doing and continue to do.
When people on the left label Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk fascists and nazis, who are they talking to? That is, who is the audience that they are addressing?
I see three possibilities. Let's take them in turn.
One: People on the right. When Kamala Harris told Anderson Cooper that, yes, she does believe that Donald Trump is a fascist, was she hoping to win converts and/or voters from the right? This seems implausible.
Two: Sensible people on the left. Such as they are. Was Harris talking to intelligent people on the left? That is, people who are fully aware that Donald Trump is not anything like Adolf Hitler, or any actual fascist. If you have any sense at all, while this language may not cause you to leave the party, you are unlikely to find it appealing. If for no other reason than you know better. But the sensible left-of-center types will shrug and vote for Harris anyway.
But we have to ask ourselves: How far left does this crowd extend? I am not at all sure, and no doubt, there is a great deal of blur. But somewhere to the left of the sensible left, there are the far left kooks.
Three: The far left kooks. These are the people who say to themselves, well if Kamala Harris states so matter-of-factly that Donald Trump is a fascist, it must be true. And since it is true that Donald Trump is a fascist, he should be dealt with properly. And if I am the one who does so, I will be a hero.
Now group three throws these terms around all the time...for each other. I suppose to prove their bona fides. Just have a quick visit to Bluesky to see this in real time.
It can be argued that, at one time, the left threw these terms around to unjustly drive someone out of polite society. To cancel and censor them for no good reason. As with racist and sexist, and homophobic and islamophobic. But to the extent that this worked, they overplayed their hand. And now those days are over.
So if Kamala Harris was not being hyperbolic, then the question becomes: When she made this claim, who was she talking to?
I submit that she was talking to group three.
Why?
She already had their votes.
What was her goal? In fact, what is the goal of anyone on the left throwing these terms around? They know it is not true, and most of their various audiences know it is not true. So why do they do it?
Why indeed.
Finally, we must ask: But don't people on the far right behave in the same way?
Okay, so do they?
I mean, how often do we hear the far right throw around terms like Stalin and bolshevik? That would be the equivalent to Hitler and fascist, right? Oh sure, some on the right will use terms like socialist to describe the left. But surely it lacks...er, the death toll.
And besides, today, an increasing number of far left politicians are embracing the term.
It would be better if young people laid in a field and looked at the sky
Peter Boghossian on the universities (three minute compilation video)
So, is this the correct position to take?
Here is where I am:
Question: What is the mission of the academy?
Answer: To teach people to think and how to think. I mean, we could all go to trade schools. We could have trade schools for medicine. No, the core mission is teach young people how to think.
Are they doing that? Obviously not.
So what are they doing instead? Proselytizing leftist doctrine; like the religion that it has become. And campuses are their cathedrals, attended by priests and monks and various other clerics and votaries of the left.
Don't believe me? Talk to young college graduates. Even if they are not overly political, they are completely unable to think. They confuse narrative for thought. This is how we get Queers for Palestine.
There is also a side-effect of all this indoctrination. Even though they know absolutely nothing, they overestimate how much they do know. After all, they have the parchment on the wall to prove it.
I mean for Christ's sake, what does a degree from Utah Valley University even mean? For many so-called students, college is a very expensive four-year party. They are not there to learn any more than the clerics are there to teach. Do the time, get the credential, then tell everyone how smart you are. Meanwhile I read that they no longer read books. No surprise there.
To a large extent the students are there under duress. They cannot get the jobs they dream of, unless and until, they get a piece of paper. So they all go to the college that will give them the most valuable piece of paper that they can get. And if you are forced to be there, you might as well have a good time.
But the clerics of the left, they are there leeching off their student-hostages and the rest of us. Indefinitely. The academy gives them a better income than they could make doing anything productive. And it gives them authority to pontificate on all matters, political and otherwise. They are missionaries: Yes, of course we will feed you and your children; but first, we all must attend church.
