Social Justice: An Analysis (Part 1)

Below is the first part of a four-part guest essay by Richard Cocks about Social Justice (and also, of course, Social Justice Warriors).

Social Justice: An Analysis

by Richard Cocks

Part 1

Cosmic justice: infantile and nihilistic

Social class, home environment, genetics and other factors all contribute to differences between individuals. People differ in looks, height, income, social status, morality, various kinds of intelligence and athleticism, musical ability, industriousness, discipline, and every other human characteristic. Differences in culture, history, and geography generate differences between groups. Being born into a culture that emphasizes hard work, education, conscientiousness, and thrift is a tremendous advantage.

“Social justice” advocates describe the resulting disparate achievements as “inequalities” with the suggestion that these represent some kind of injustice. Unequal achievement is treated as though it must be the result of discrimination, “privilege” or some other unfairness, while it is in fact the inevitable consequence of differences between individuals and groups. These differences will exist no matter how a society is organized, barring a race to the bottom where the laziest, least talented individual set the bar and every achievement that surpasses that pitiful measure gets confiscated and distributed — removing any incentive to do anything much at all.

Very young children and even some animals[1] have a sense of justice or fairness. In humans this starts out with an intuitive perception, later gets modified by reflection and culture, which in turn influences what gets perceived as just or unjust. Iain McGilchrist describes this as right hemisphere perception, left hemisphere mid-level processing, returning once more to the right hemisphere.[2]

An egocentric child, without prompting, can perceive that receiving a small ice cream while his brother gets a large one is unfair and unjust.[3] However, he is also likely to think that the fact that his older brother has fewer restrictions on what he can do than he does is unfair. Both cases generate resentment. However, only one is justified.

In the second case, being older and thus a little wiser, the older brother does not need as much supervision. He is more capable, self-sufficient and responsible, and therefore has more privileges. These privileges might seem unfair and unjust in some “cosmic” sense, but they are in fact perfectly reasonable.[4] His parents are not being unjust at all. It is merely that age and experience are on the side of the older brother. To harbor resentment at the parents is unreasonable, unfair and unjust. They are blameless. To resent the brother is also ridiculous. There will always be an older sibling as long as siblings exist. The protest is misguided.

Part of the maturation process is learning to distinguish between events that are due to favoritism, attempts to solicit elicit sexual favors, or some other inequity and occurrences that are the result of relevant differences between people. To feel resentful towards someone merely because he is better in some way, such as in looks, status, wealth, or popularity, is in some sense natural. It is also puerile and undeserved. It is a sin in the literal sense of missing the mark. Certainly the envied person is not at fault simply for being superior. The defect is in the heart of the malicious resentful one.

It is true that even a relatively happy, mature person will almost inevitably suffer occasionally from this kind of inappropriate resentment, but he recognizes that the fault lies in his own breast, not in the other person.

By failing to distinguish between deserved resentment and inappropriate hatred towards someone or some group simply for being superior in some way, “social justice” returns people to an infantile inability to differentiate between resentment based on actual unjust treatment, and resentment that is generated simply by the desire to have or be what someone else has or is.

If the universe itself can be considered unjust in some way, due to the unequal distribution of admirable characteristics, it is not the fault or responsibility of man and it is not in man’s power to fix. It is certainly not the fault of “society,” which the phrase “social justice” implies. Justice and fairness appropriately considered enter the picture only with regard to human institutions and rules.

To reject inequalities is to rebel against reality itself. All people bar two are superior to some and inferior to others in any conceivable characteristic. To reject that fact is to renounce the character of existing at all.

One response to existence and Being is to reject it; to decide that it is better never to have lived and then, having lived, to end it as soon as possible. Mass shooters act out the intention not just to end their own lives, but to kill as many as they can in a rejection of Life itself.[5] Social justice warriors are engaged in a similar kind of nihilism. Scapegoating and killing the “kulaks”[6] in the manner of Stalin has no logical end. Since differences of achievement are unavoidable, the logic of social justice is the complete destruction of the human race. By encouraging undeserved resentment against individuals and whole sectors of society, “social justice” activists ramp up intergroup hatreds that promote internecine conflict and, if unchecked, will lead to more horrible violence than simply one individual picking up a gun. Once the scapegoated group is murdered, differing levels of success within the persecuting group remain, and the process will continue.

To reward merit or productivity?

In thinking about economic success, Thomas Sowell recommends simply jettisoning the notion of merit. He argues that “the concept of merit brings an insult to misfortune and arrogance to achievement.”[7] It is impossible to separate how much achievement is the result of talent, for which a person can take no credit, and how much is the result of industriousness. On the face of it, hard work seems meritorious. However, even industriousness tends to be highly affected by familial and cultural influences; an unearned advantage. This means that it is not possible to assess merit. What can be rewarded — what is known how to reward — is productivity.

Rewarding productivity creates an incentive to be productive, and all tend to benefit. They benefit because rewarding productivity encourages using the latest technology and most effective methods, raising the quality of products while reducing their cost. Simply rewarding effort would not be optimal for that reason.

Continue reading

The MSM Pushes Back Against the #FreeTommy Movement

One of our anon commenters left a link to an unusually vile “news” report on Tommy Robinson. Gone is the news from real journalists who limited their reports to who, what, when, where, eschewing purported motives. Now MSM jornolistos comment mostly on the various aspects of “why”. For example, there is the description of Tommy:

Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, though he also uses other aliases, is a founder of the English Defense League, which has organized violent demonstrations against Islamic immigrants in the UK in the past decade. More recently, Robinson has branded himself a journalist and campaigner against Islamic extremism, a move that won him contacts with American anti-Muslim activists.

Robinson was arrested in late May outside a courthouse in Leeds, England, while making video recordings about a trial related to child molestation and jailed for 13 months for violating English law limiting publicity during criminal trials.

The real point of this slam by Reuters — aside from its snarky condescension toward TR — is its questioning of the probity of inquiries formally made to the U.K. ambassador in Washington by America’s Ambassador (at-large) for International Religious Freedom. Those queries center around concern for Tommy’s safety while in prison.*

Furthermore, since when does Reuters, infamous for using non-accredited news stringers worldwide, get to decide who is a reporter and who is not? Tommy’s “credentials” would stand up well against those of Reuters’ boys and girls. Tommy Robinson has often been a lone voice raised against Islam’s depredations in his beloved country; who better to report on the story than one of the leading voices crying out for justice?

Certainly, Reuters and the rest of the MSM cabal had set up a wall of silence to not cover this MSM soi-disant “child molestation” story. The collusive, ringing silence allowed Britain’s national shame of horrors to grow unchecked for decades. Had it not been for the UK’s near-total fear of being publicly perceived as “racist”, the massive drugging and grooming of thousands of young British girls, tacitly allowed by cowardly local government agencies (including police), would not have been possible. The pusillanimous MSM went along to get along. It was only with the rise of alternative journalism — e.g., Tommy Robinson, et al. — that the exposure of these grisly crimes became possible. Yet how many hundreds of families’ lives were ruined over the years because of this concatenation of evil and cowardice?

Why are organizations like Reuters permitted to twist reality to suit their own purposes?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Another alternative news source has stepped into the breach to make certain there is adequate coverage of Tommy’s new hearing.

Ezra Levant reports:

I am glad he is traveling to once-Great Britain for this hearing; we made a small donation toward his flight. But while it is important to shed as much sunlight on these proceedings as possible, I have little hope that the hearing will change much. There is now a panel of three judges for the new hearing — rescheduled yet again, this time moved to July 18th — and presided over by Sir Ian Burnett, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. Mr. Levant says this is akin to a small case in the U.S. being brought before the U.S. Chief Justice. But his analogy limps (as do they all). While he’s right about the new gravitas, things are different here. In America, no matter its notoriety, any legal case would have to work its way through the python; there might be intense oversight, but it would have to go through each judicial step. [Remember the Supremes’ refusal to hear the Elian Gonzalez case when Clinton and Janet Reno were pressing to send him back to Cuba? That’s an example.] The UK system appears to be less insulated from quotidian political pressure. If that weren’t the case, why is Britain playing switchies with court dates, judges, and prisons, while stonewalling?

How high-handed can you get?

Continue reading

An “America First” Judge Nominated to Supreme Court

Or so says Dr. Turley:

The Federalist essay recommending Kavanaugh as the strongest conservative candidate was written by one of his former clerks (who also clerked for Kennedy):

…Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.

But what does that matter? You can expect the “IMPEACH TRUMP!” screaming on the left to begin soon if it hasn’t already. Just one reason for hating him: Kavanaugh’s predilection for calling illegal aliens by their correct designation. This is not an Open Borders jurist.

When The New York Times Was Prescient About Donald Trump

A long essay from 1984 on Donald Trump from The New York Times, no less.

There are so many possible things one could extract from the meandering piece, but on this Fourth of July the following [edited for clarity and spelling] snip seemed most appropriate:

…“The football thing is cute, Trump Tower and the piano and all of that, it’s all cute, but what does it mean?” he says, sounding what borders on a note of uncharacteristic despair.

Asked to explain, he adds: “What does it all mean when some wacko over in Syria can end the world with nuclear weapons?”

He says that his concern for [a] nuclear holocaust is not one that popped into his mind during any recent made-of-television movie. He says that it has been troubling him since his uncle, a nuclear physicist, began talking to him about it 15 years ago.

His greatest dream is to personally do something about the problem and, characteristically, Donald Trump thinks he has an answer to nuclear armament: Let him negotiate arms agreements — he who can talk people into selling $100 million properties to him for $13 million. “Negotiation is an art”, he says, “and I have a gift for it.”

The idea that he would ever be allowed to go into a room alone and negotiate for the United States, let alone be successful in disarming the world, seems the naive musing of an optimistic, deluded young man who has never lost at anything he has tried. But he believes that through years of making his views known and through supporting candidates who share his views, it could someday happen.

He is constantly asked about his interest in running for elective office. Absolutely not, he answers. All of the false smiles and the red tape. It is too difficult to really do anything.

He dislikes meetings and paperwork and is in the enviable position of being able to avoid both.

Well, it took more than thirty years before The Donald changed his mind, rolled up his sleeves, and decided it wasn’t too difficult after all. Now it’s “President Trump”, if you don’t mind… and I don’t. As he transformed New York real estate in that period, perhaps he will transform Washington politics, finally beginning the overdue change of the socialist skyline and the swamp begun under FDR. We can only hope he’ll have enough time.

Meanwhile, Trump continues to lead in crucial domestic areas: his executive orders (a practice his predecessor used to move our country leftward) have, for instance, made it easier to fire incompetent civil servants, and harder for immigrants from terrorist countries to gain entrance (not all of those countries are majority-Islam, despite what the news says).

And then there is his appointment of federal judges. You can see from the wiki that many of those appointments languish in the bowels of our legislative branch. Makes you wonder what they will do to his eventual second choice for the Supreme Court. Have no doubt: it will be brutal.

There’s a great deal to ponder in this, the 242nd year of our independence. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s harried answer a woman’s inquiry at the time they were hammering out the details: “it’s a republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

Happy Fourth of July, y’all.

Hat tip: Thread by @ThomasWictor

The Poor Are Always With Us…

Our Israeli correspondent MC sends these thoughts on the cultural (and moral) foundations of wealth-creation.

The poor are always with us…

…But it is the arrogant who are the real enemy

by MC

Most Islamic countries are poor. They are poor because their religion is a religion of poverty, based as it is on a system where every nuance of a person’s life is dictated by somebody else, thus imprisoning a person’s free will. Even Saudi Arabia with all its wealth in the cities has a real problem with poverty outside the cities.

Most communist countries are riddled with poverty, too. Communism does not encourage wealth-creation except as graft and exploitation amongst its elites. Communism, too, imprisons free will.

Innovation is a prime product of free will, and it is the ability to innovate that generates wealth and civilization. Countries can create their own essences of civilization and export them, others can be gross importers of civilization if, and only if, they have the ability to buy into civilization, otherwise they too are poor and backwards.

Gaza, for example, buys into limited civilization by exporting and exploiting a victimhood culture which plays on the heartstrings of the West to such an extent that the West then exports the bounty of its own civilization to expiate a ‘guilt’ that it perceives when duped by the illusions of abject poverty and victimhood portrayed by the media’s white-guilt propaganda.

But guilt money does not relieve the cause of any of the poverty, especially when the cause of that poverty is Islam or socialism.

The Gulf states have oil. So do the USA and Russia, but the Gulf stuff is cheap and plentiful. So Islam has a rich uncle who can buy influence. Saudi Arabia is like a spider sitting at the centre of a web of intrigue: Islamic intrigue, the intrigue of the wealthy barbarian.

If the West has a vulnerability, it is its denial of its own culture; its denial that the Judeo-Christian basis of the West is superior because it allows the individual the free will to innovate. When one denies the cultural basis of the West’s success, one becomes vulnerable to having one’s behaviour coerced, and in the case in question, coerced by bribery. Saudi Arabia has found that it can use its oil revenue to buy a place in the West’s cultural sunshine. Not only that, it can use its wealth to have the civilization upon which it depends slaughtered as unbelievers — as Islam demands.

Western cultural nuances are ubiquitous across the world, and many have adopted the products of Western culture: phones, bicycles, televisions, tee-shirts, shoes, cars, buses; the list is endless. This is amazing flattery if, we would just be humble enough to stop and think about it. No other culture has contributed anything close to it.

But Marxism has effectively destroyed Christianity. When one can see a Pope actively working a communist manifesto, then one must assume that Christianity is in its death throes. Whether or not the revolutionary theology that the current Pope has brought with him from South America is KGB-inspired is difficult to determine, and the truth may only come out when it is ancient history.

Continue reading

Twelve Characters Searching for Character

JLH weighs in on the Culture Wars, particularly as they pertain to the leftist hysteria about Donald Trump.

Twelve Characters Searching for Character

by JLH

Twelve familiar fictional figures speak out on recent comments by their even better-known flesh-and-blood portrayers. They claim parity with other fictional narratives like the (fake) news media, and therefore an equal right to speak about Trump Derangement Syndrome — in this case, some recent comments on Donald Trump by their real-life personas. Alphabetically by (first) name.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

BARBARELLA (From the film of the same name) to her real life persona: Hi, remember me? I’m the galactic secret agent who went looking for the inventor of a new weapon, to prevent his passing it on to some malign force. I sort of bumbled from one place to another, and at the end of each adventure, I found a new way to be sexually stimulated. The climax came (pardon the double-entendre) when the villain trapped me in his notorious love machine, from which no woman had emerged alive. Fortunately, my superior sexual stamina outlasted the machine, which was destroyed in the process. So stop worrying about things you don’t understand, Jane, and go back to being your true self — air-headed and oversexed.

(Jane Fonda said, “I won’t call President Donald Trump by his name. I call him the predator-in-chief.”)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

CONRAD BREAN: You’ve played a lot of parts, Bob, but none was quite so prescient as my character in WAG THE DOG. The film was hardly over, when Clinton demonstrated its principle by blowing up a donkey and some tents in Afghanistan. And now the pièce de resistance — can you be as wrong this time as you were right the first time?

(Robert DeNiro said: “He’s so blatantly stupid. He’s a punk, he’s a dog, he’s a pig, he’s a con — a b******t artist. A mutt who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, doesn’t do his homework, doesn’t care, thinks he’s gaming society, doesn’t pay his taxes. He’s an idiot.”

Later, taking a cue from Jennifer Lawrence and waxing eloquent at the Tony Awards : “F*** Trump!”)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

DAVE BOYLE: Hi Tim. Remember me, from MYSTIC RIVER? People who believed rumor and innuendo decided I was evil, so I had to die. It’s painful to see you so sucked in by propaganda that you make the same kind of far-fetched accusation just to assuage your bruised leftist soul. You remind me of my former friends!

(Tim Robbins: “It occurred to me the other day that we are living through a Marty McFly moment. [The film] was set in the 1980s and, thanks to advances in technology, a DeLorean car could travel through time and brought our lead character Marty McFly back to the 1950s. What he found … wasn’t a romantic, nostalgic time but an Oedipal nightmare. A time of bullying, a time of intolerance and ignorance.”)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

HELEN (SISTER) to her real-life persona, Susan Sarandon: Hello. I am the empathetic nun in DEAD MAN WALKING who illuminated the last days and hours of a man condemned for terrible crimes. My deeply human understanding caused me to experience not only the torment of the concerned man, but also the wretchedness of his victims’ families.

I’m sure my soulmate, JANET WEISS, of the ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, would also be deeply shocked at the contempt and venom you display in your comment. Come back to us!

(Susan Sarandon said: “He reminds me of a drunk uncle at a wedding, who gets up and starts talking and just loves the crowd and just goes on and on and on and says whatever he can to get a reaction. He’s like a figure from a Kurt Vonnegut novel; I can’t even address him seriously.”)

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

HELLBOY (Of the popular HELLBOY films) Ron, you’ve played some pretty dicey characters. but I like think I’m one of the good guys. Whatever else you can say about me, I am not petty. My mistakes are big, and my successes even bigger. ‘Peeing in somebody’s food’?! Grow up, Ron!

Continue reading

Elections Have Consequences

How quickly things can change.

America itself is now about to flip, in no small part due to Donald Trump’s presidency.

It’s Dr. Turley (again), this time with background and commentary on the breaking news of the resignation of a Supreme Court Justice:

Trump has already gotten one conservative on the Supremes’ team:
Neil Gorsuch. Adding another will change future generations of law in America. This is huge, guys.

Here is the White House list of possible candidates from the previous so-called “shortlist” used to pick Gorsuch.

And this is the infamous Federalist Society, which will have once more have significant input into President Trump’s second selection. The Senate grilling of whoever is chosen will be brutal. Expect every dirty political trick to be pulled out of the Dems’ hats in an attempt to short-circuit the next conservative nominee. The left is seeing its house of cards collapse; leftists never go quietly into that good night – you’ll be able to hear the shrieking from wherever you are.

Just think: these appointments could have been Hillary’s to make. She must be having another meltdown; by now, ol’ Hillary “Fukushima”* Clinton is probably radioactive. Bless her heart.

Next? Look for The Wall/Fence/Barrier to start growing again on our southwest border as Americans increasingly ask for a limit to immigration. With the Supremes’ recent upholding his list of terrorist countries as a valid immigration restriction, The Donald’s on a roll.

Will he gloat?? Does the sun rise in the east?

*edited for accuracy.

What Happened at Baltimore

Today is the 387th anniversary of the taking of Christian slaves in a razzia by Muslim pirates at the Irish port of Baltimore in 1631. To commemorate the event Michael Copeland sends the following essay.

What Happened at Baltimore

by Michael Copeland

It was nearly the longest day of the year, June 20th, when the menfolk of the English fishing settlement of Baltimore in south-west Ireland, set off for a full day out at sea. The year was 1631, the weather good.

When the men returned they were faced with a hideous and life-changing shock. The village was empty: wives and families gone. While they had been out fishing a marauding force of armed muslim Ottoman slavers from the Barbary coast of North Africa had landed, taken everyone as slaves, and sailed away. Some 108 English settlers, who worked a pilchard industry in the village, and many local Irish were taken.

The muslims, Algerians and Turks, had not “misunderstood their religion”, or “perverted”, “twisted”, or “hi-jacked” it. Piracy is part of Islam. Slavery is part of Islam. They were doing what Islam authorises, taking the filthy kuffar by force as spoils of war, Islam being, as Al-Azhar University teaches, in “a permanent state of war” with non-muslims, the “unbelievers”. Sheikh Huwayni of Saudi Arabia makes this clear:

Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars… there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

(Translating Jihad, 11 June 2011)

This doctrine accounts for why pantomime pirates are depicted in turbans and with scimitars. It is no coincidence, and no joke. They are based on the sea-borne muslim jihadis who plagued shipping in the Mediterranean, raided coastal Mediterranean villages, and ventured further north, attacking places such as Boscastle in Cornwall, making a slave base on Lundy Island, and even going as far as Iceland.

The ships of the young United States, lacking the protection of the British Navy, became subject to the depredations of these “Barbary Pirates” back in the 1780s and 1790s. The Barbary States declared war, the first war of the young USA. Ships were taken by force, their crews sold as slaves, or held for ransom. United States representatives John Adams and Thomas Jefferson enquired in London of the Ambassador of the Bey of Tunis why they were doing this.

Continue reading

My Old Halal Kentucky Home

Several Kentucky Fried Chicken (or are they just KFC now? — an acronym with no title reference) restaurants in Australia have made themselves 100% halal, and are therefore no longer offering bacon or any other pork products to their customers.

This story merits further discussion, but first here’s the brief news report from The Daily Mail:

How Australian KFC stores are refusing to sell bacon in their burgers — because they only use HALAL products

KFC has refused to sell bacon at three Australian stores to keep in line with Halal certified products.

A customer revealed the rule after contacting the fast food company about the lack of bacon offered at a store in Punchbowl, in Sydney’s west.

‘Why is bacon not available at KFC Punchbowl, NSW?’ Disgruntled customer Marc Miller wrote on Facebook.

In response, KFC said the fast food chain’s stores in Punchbowl and Bankstown South in NSW, as well as a location in Fawkner in Victoria, don’t sell bacon to keep in line with other halal products.

‘Hi Marc, currently, the KFC stores at Punchbowl (NSW), Bankstown South (NSW) and Fawkner (VIC) have a number of products which are certified Halal and are available to customers from these stores only,’ the statement reads.

‘Some Suppliers of chicken have indicated they are Halal certified. However, we cannot claim our stores can be classified as being 100% Halal, as there is bacon in all stores (except for three stores listed above) plus the Suppliers of certain seasonings, marinades etc have indicated that they are not Halal certified.’

The spokesperson added that there are no current plans to extend the number of stores in Australia which have Halal products.

I ask readers to temporarily suppress their natural and understandable outrage over this news, and consider it as part of a larger process, one that is underway throughout the Western world.

The offering of halal products is obviously a business decision. If you have a lot of Muslims in your customer base, and you see a lot of women in bags and men in dresses in beanies, then you will offer them halal items, because that’s what they want, and that way you will sell more stuff. It is of no moment to you — if you are aware of it at all — that a percentage of the cost of halal products is turned over as zakat to “charitable” organizations, including jihad groups. After all, that’s just part of the cost of doing business.

However, in this case the decision not to offer any non-halal products goes beyond a mere business decision. KFC has at least some kafir customers — obviously, since one of them publicly complained — so the franchise in question could make a greater profit if it continued to include menu items with bacon to satisfy the demand from the kuffar.

Yet they decided to withhold bacon and forgo some of their profits. Why?

Continue reading

Imprisoned by the Deep State

If you thought the United Kingdom’s jailing of Tommy Robinson was something that couldn’t happen in America, think again:

The Daily Caller has a recent video of Alan Dershowitz, who normally leans to the Left. However, he says of the jailing of Paul Manafort:

“He has never been convicted of anything. He is as innocent as you and I. And the idea of locking somebody up before a trial is so obnoxious to our Constitution that every civil libertarian should be up in arms. What they can do if they think that he’s tampering with witnesses is: they can subject him to home arrest, take away his computer … they can have all kinds of restrictions, but the idea of putting somebody in jail before they’ve been convicted is an enactment of civil liberties” he said.

Dershowitz, who was often thought of as liberal, has recently become a defender of President Trump in the media over the Russia investigation.

Here’s Dershowitz again, this time back in April:

Dershowitz said, “I think the key point is to make sure that in an effort to get Trump, we don’t diminish our civil liberties and create bad precedents…”

“Who’s trying to get Trump?” Stelter asked.

“A lot of people are trying to get Trump, a lot of radicals, and a lot of lefties,” Dershowitz said.

“A lot of people — a lot of my friends and relatives are furious at me because they want to get Trump, and I’m in their way, I’m standing in the way by of getting Trump by raising Article Two issues, civil liberties issues, civil rights issues… If you don’t think there are people are out there that trying to get Trump, just like they were trying to get Hillary Clinton, people were trying to get Hillary Clinton — ‘lock her up.’”

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

So who is Paul Manafort?

The answer would easily be a book, given how long he’s been in Washington. But for the sake of our cautionary tale, here is where he crosses paths with President Trump:

Continue reading

It’s “Bismillah” for Everyone at UConn

A University of Connecticut professor named Felix Coe demands that all visitors who enter his office, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, remove their shoes and say “bismillah” (“in the name of Allah”) before they are allowed to enter. If they refuse, they are curtly ordered to get out.

Many thanks to Jihad Watch for producing this video, and to Vlad Tepes for the editing:

Mohammed Cartoon Contest in the Dutch Parliament

Update: The PVV sends this email address to which entrants may send their cartoons: muhammadcartoons@pvv.nl

Geert Wilders is planning to hold a Mohammed cartoon contest in the Dutch Parliament later this year. The PVV says it has obtained approval for the event; it will be interesting to see if the Dutch government finds a way to prevent it from happening.

Bosch Fawstin, the winner of the 2015 Mohammed cartoon contest in Texas, will serve as judge. He’s an excellent choice for that position.

The PVV sent out this press release today:

International Muhammad Cartoon Contest to Be Organized in Dutch Parliament

Geert Wilders MP, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), the second biggest party in the Dutch Parliament and the largest opposition party in the Netherlands, is going to organize an international Muhammed cartoon contest.

The Dutch Counter-terrorism Agency NCTV had just given the green light to organize a Muhammad cartoon contest in the secured PVV quarters of Dutch Parliament later this year.

Mr. Wilders has invited American cartoonist Bosch Fawstin, winner of a similar contest in Garland, TX, in May 2015, to act as a judge in the contest.

Geert Wilders MP: “Freedom of speech is threatened, especially for Islam critics. We should never accept that. Freedom of speech is our most important freedom.”

More information will be provided soon.

Below are excerpts from a Reuters article about this Islamophobic event that adds some extra-special MSM spin to the story:

Continue reading

Protest in Support of Tommy Robinson Outside the British Embassy in D.C.

I forgot to notice the date, but it must have been last weekend, what with all that rain:

Interestingly, the event was organized by Ford Fischer, the same guy who did the famous live stream from Charlottesville last summer. His footage contained some of the “smoking guns” used by people who deduced that the “Nazi” rally last July was a setup. I watched quite a few of those videos after the debacle, but I don’t remember all the details now.

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

The Handyman’s Tale

For readers who are unfamiliar with the novel The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood — to which the following allegorical pastiche by JLH pays non-hommage — here’s the Wikipedia entry for the book.

The Handyman’s Tale

or

Margaret Atwood meets Quentin Tarantino

by JLH

Birth of a Nation

It happened in a place once called California. There was a surprising change of leadership in the national government, which had, until then, pursued a reasonable policy of social benefits for the poor to offset the incredible wealth amassed by the governing class and its consiglieri, and a sensible foreign policy of financial rewards for countries most likely to dislike and attack us. With the unexpected shift in leadership came a fanciful desire to improve an economy that successive bipartisan leaders had shown could not be improved; and a wrong-headed insistence that this country — like any other — should stand up for itself.

The final straws were perverted, “fundamentalist” interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendments. A brush-fire revolutionary movement formed, led by a retired power politician named Barbara Wrestler (known to friend and foe alike as “Barbie Bananas”). 10-term Governor Lunagleem was persuaded to declare the Feminist Nation of Westland, with the Golden Teddy Bear as its symbol. Its ready-made rallying cry was the title of the runaway bestseller, Cherchez la femme puissante. A widespread and visceral distaste for “flyover fundamentalism” among the elite of Westland was the impetus for a decree that the official philosophy of the new nation would be based upon principles outlined in the sociological milestone 50 Shades of Pink. The defining motto on the Teddy Bear seal of the new nation would be “allectio privus puellae” — To each her own.

Governor Lunagleem — in recognition of his long and faithful service in government, and his unflagging advocacy of women’s rights — was retired with great honors and offered, by way of exception, a passport that would not expire, should he ever decide to leave Westland and seek the presidency of that other country.

Offal

Our tale of life in the Feminist Democratic Republic of Westland is largely contained in the life of Offal. We first encounter him in the exclusively female- staffed public pre-school (there was no private schooling, except for the few daughters of highly placed officials), where he learned that a dispute between boys was decided on the basis of which boy was perceived to be the aggressor, who was then punished by being sent to an isolation corner for a while. A dispute between girls was resolved by a serious talk with an advisor, who would mediate an agreement between them. A dispute between a girl and a boy was regarded as Right versus Wrong or Good versus Evil. The girl was Right and the boy was Wrong. He was required to stand alone, as all the girls circled him and slapped his face — some angrily, some more kindly and softly. If he resisted — which became increasingly rare — he graduated to being Evil. He was made to lean his elbows on the teacher’s desk; and each girl was given a willow switch to strike his buttocks as she passed by. Offal and his classmates learned two lessons from this: 1)Never argue with a girl within view of any authority; 2) Never wear shorts to school — some girls will choose to whip the bare legs.

Bathroom facilities in schools, as in all public institutions, were of two kinds: Female and General. Offal’s introduction to this system was witnessing an outraged 7-year-old classmate complaining to their teacher that there was a girl standing at the urinals, observing and commenting. “Of course, dear,” the teacher told him kindly, “How else will she learn? She aspires to be a urologist.”

After the conditioning of pre-school, Life Entry School offered more substantive knowledge in arithmetic, reading, writing and the History of the Golden Teddy Bear Republic. All classes were issued waterproof helmets for their required, weekly depilatory shower. Boys were observed, to decide when they should be issued facial depilatory. The goal was no visible hair below the eyes. Everyone alike. There would be no returning to the era of “hairy-chested men.”

A companion program in the summer found every boy at “Summer Camp” — a more social than pedagogical training. Instead of a recorded version of Reveille, the day began with a loud call of “Soo-ee, Soo-ee, Pig! Pig! Pig!” Breakfast was sugarless oatmeal served in lengthy wooden trenchers referred to as “troughs” and a thick slice of bread. After eating, each boy carried his trencher past an open spigot, rinsing it off as he passed and stacking it upside down on the large drainboard. Lunch was beans with some salt pork in the same trencher, and bread. Supper was meatballs in tomato sauce, and bread, with a suety chocolate pudding for dessert. Each meal was presided over by watchful female counselors, who roamed between the long tables, noting when a boy seemed not to be eating, and rapping him across the back with a bamboo stick, saying, “Eat, Piggy, Eat!”

Activities during the day were various kinds of manual labor: moving boulders, leveling paths and roadways, gathering firewood from the surrounding woods. The great advantage for both “campers” and “counselors” was that this regimen facilitated an exhausted sleep. Nonetheless, the older boys were pulled — one by one — out of their bunks during the night and taken to one of the counselors’ cabins for what the counselors laughingly called, “Sex 101,” where they learned all the ways in which a woman could be pleased.

Offal never did know what the girls’ Summer Camp was like, but he noticed that with each end-of-summer return to school, the girls seemed to become more distant and contemptuous of the boys.

The final levels of public education — before girls went to one of the plethora of Westland universities, and the boys went to either blue- or white-collar trade schools — were also the closing phases in the treatment of male toxicity. Boys were separated into algorithmically selected groups and pulled from class twice a week to attend “de-masculinizing” clinics, where they were electronically connected to monitoring devices. Conducted by therapists working in pairs, the clinics featured 50-minute videos of young people at various activities. Blood pressure, pulse and skin temperature often spiked with one of three things: dangerous activities like cliff diving or dirt bike racing; warlike confrontations between males; the sight of an unexpected expanse of female skin. Every boy who registered a spike received an instantaneous electric jolt high inside his thighs. By the end of the second year, the attraction of danger, physical conflict and sex had dwindled to such an extent that images that had once caused a spike now barely registered. Many of the boys just closed their eyes or looked away.

Boys’ credits for graduation — aside from the masculine detoxification sessions — included the ability to read a newspaper, math through plane geometry (algebra and beyond were considered too intricate), a comfortable acquaintance with a computer and keyboard, and at least six credits in gardening/farming, tool-handling and crafts.

Thus well-trained in the necessary rules and attitudes of the Feminist Republic of Westland, Offal matured into a shy, comely young fellow. He was appointed to be a Domestic Worker, and was given a multi-year assignment as a handyman for three of the leading Wives in his designated community, doing yard work, animal husbandry and carpentry.

Continue reading