2017-05-27

McCarthy 1 DNC/Liberall Media 0

At least McCarthy found some collusion between commies and celebrities and others.

The media has yet to find squat between Putin/Russia and Trump/America.

Zilch.

Zero.

You probably have more on Hillary and Podesta and than on Trump.

Pay close attention. Progressives are now in seditious territory with their faux-righteous outrage. When you have fricken Lew Rockwell defending Trump (and soon conservatives I reckon), you know you're jumping multiple sharks.

This oft-baseless narrative the media and the left are punish is going to spin out of control.


2017-05-26

They Have The Blood Of Children On Their Hands

It's come out the suspects (or at least one of them) who carried out the gross, murderous, cowardly act at an Ariane Grande concert in Manchester were known to police having been reported by people who attended the same Mosque. They had told police the person (s) had become radicalized.

Yet, the police did nothing.

They sat on their stupid, politically correct asses choosing instead to play politics and political correctness by going after people on Twitter for hate speech.

This is what's become of Great Britain; the West. Where we go after our own before the perpetuators.

Now. This is not to say the blame falls squarely on the those who committed the crimes. They possessed their own moral agency and chose to do it. I'm just pouting out the failure of law enforcement to protect citizens possibly made harder by the absurdity of political correctness.

It's worth noting Muslims are not victims and do not face anywhere near the levels of hare the Jews do. And Christians around the world. 

Why have we given them victim status? Why are we turning a blind eye to their activities?

They have children's blood on their hands. 

British law enforcement and politicians do thanks to the cesspool of political correctness they've hideously engineered.

Rotherham or Manchester.

There's something wrong. 



About That Reporter Who Was Body Slammed

Left, right and center, straight news and opinion, journalists at CPAC have one thing in common, the overwhelming urge to punch Benji Backer

Now you know what it feels like to be punched, right Ben?
Violence is unacceptable. Until the left call for it.
File under: Progressives admire and tolerate violence reason #405050506.

Of course, this won't stop the left from running with the 'See, I told you so! Trump has made the world angry and violent!'

As far as we know, there's only a video that may or may not have been edited (Hello NBC and Zimmerman!), of an encounter between a Republican politician (who was way ahead in the election polls) and a reporter for The Guardian who was in a private room to which he was not invited. According to accounts, he was being aggressive and holding his stance which led to a physicals altercation where Gianforte was said to have 'body slammed' Jacobs.

This part makes me suspicious. It doesn't sound in the video like Jacobs was body slammed as he just claims his glasses were broken. Now, I don't know what any of you know of pro-wrestling but if you're body slammed, and I've been body-slammed, you ain't talking about your glasses afterwards. Rather, your asking yourself 'what the fuck as you catch your breath likely under a cloud of confusion'.


And if I were to conclude anything given what we know of how the DNC and left works, this guy is probably just another provocative left-wing journalist doing some dirty work on behalf of his Democrat tribe.

Gianforte won by the way. Thus continuing the Democrats losses in special elections.





The other thing I wonder

2017-05-22

Fear And Ignorance 1 History And Reason 0

I read the story of New Orleans removing a Robert E. Lee statue with much dismay.

I can but nod my head at how shallow are supposed advanced intelligence is. How removing a statue makes anyone feel better in any meaningful manner is beyond comprehension for me.

N-O is by no means unique when it comes to this sort of symbolic flatulence. Quebec quietly has, where possibly, moved to remove the English fact in the province. Where they can erase by removing or replacing, they will do it.

It's upsetting but it's how it goes with insecure nationalist forces.

In the United States, it's an obscure obsession with erasing the slavery fact and the current discourse on race - which is going nowhere. It's not a national conversation on the way; it's one side simply telling the other to shut their white privileged asses up, listen and do what they're told because slavery. Even though the vast majority of these people have never experienced and aren't connected to anyone who went through the institution. It's a little like if the Irish demand reparations for indentured servants.

Never mind that when we consult the history and facts of human slavery throughout the centuries, America's slavery periods was among the least violent despite its evilness. It's worth noting it was the 'white' American society that abolished it while slavery today continues unabated in other parts of the world.

It was a moment in history and continuing to rehash rather than letting lie in the back pages of history is not healthy. The black community is not going to progress if it focuses too much on something that's long since past and demanding whites be fed a lard of guilt is most certainly going to backfire.

People, as a whole, mean well. Push even the non-racist people and they will push back. It's a matter for principle and respect at some point. Keep broadly painting everyone as racist - even to the point of claiming we're unaware of our racism - and there will be unintended consequences and a backlash; probably it's already underway.

Removed from the meek symbolic gesture of removing a statue it actually teaches people not to explore the full story of an event and the figures behind it.

You can remove the statue, but you can't run from the heritage. Nor is it a sign of moral advancement to continue to pummel the losing side.

This is the crux of the problem as I see it. When people read history, they tend to impose their modern sensibilities on the era they're reading. Of course, the past will always look 'barbaric' to us. In fact, we commit the same moral and intellectual posture as people who asserted in the past their own era was superior to the previous; which usually was indeed the case. It's only normal. We tend to be an advancing species as technology, health and wealth improves.

Back to Lee.

"The city of New Orleans on Friday dismantled its statue of Robert E. Lee, the last of four Confederate monuments to come down. The removals have divided the community along familiar lines. One camp denounces the monuments as tributes to white supremacists. The other argues the memorials honor men who protected their states from an intrusive federal government. Is it possible that both sides have a point?"

It's rather tragic really. Robert E. Lee was an interesting figure from a momentous moment in American history. In knocking him down, we forget the work he did forever condemned for his position during the war. Obama was against gay marriage and was said to evolve into accepting it and everyone applauded his change of heart (whether it was sincere is another matter).

Yet, we seem to choose who we extend this applaud to.

For example, Lee following the war he spent much of his post-war life working towards reconciliation between the North and South, and between whites and blacks.

Nathan Bedford Forrest, for his part, eventually repudiated the KKK and also worked for racial reconciliation.

Is this not something they should be commended for?

Contrast this to documented facts of Lincoln who thought blacks were inferior and that they be sent back to Liberia.

Yet, his statue is safe and sound.

This is the problem when you go political. You spin out of control and lose any sense of perspective.

We see this with how The Constitution is treated. It goes something like going from 'You mean they had slaves' to 'Why do we need it?' in under five seconds. The faulty premise leads to an untenable conclusion.

Perhaps Lee should have known better given he was well-read and had to have known of the Abolutionist movement, but this is why we examine history carefully understanding all the factors and conditions of the period free of our judgment.

History is a fragile art form. It's vulnerable to the whims and perceptions of the reader; and quite frankly historians with an ideological bent, as the one in the article, are no better and don't advance the spirit of history. Carefully examine the primary, secondary and tertiary sources (oft subjective and without firm representation other than the authors) can be a challenge but along the way, you see the picture and images develop. And it is here where an astute reader will begin to drop their personal modern thoughts and stop imposing it on the past. If they do this, they just unlocked a better understanding of their past.

If we keep the deception up, we may as well erect statues of athletes and celebrities (and of course, we won't consider their past or backgrounds provided they fit the narratives).

The author in the link above concludes:

"And so we spiral down this Stalinist path of history-flattening and monument-erasure, one side waving a battle flag that Robert E. Lee himself renounced, the other insisting that every man who wore gray was little different than Leonardo DiCaprio’s caricature in “Django Unchained.” Americans long ago abandoned Lincoln’s admonition—malice toward none, charity for all—and in some important ways the U.S. is less united today than in 1866.
In a world of demons and angels, we can’t agree on who’s which. And we don’t have the charity in our hearts to admit most of us are somewhere in between."

Idiocracy indeed.

 







'

2017-05-21

Quote Of The Day

"We have to understand that cultural appropriation is institutionalized, it is the very foundation of what Canada is built on," said Jesse Wente, an indigenous critic for CBC News. "And not just cultural appropriation, but appropriation of all things Indigenous: our lives, our lands. This is what this nation was founded on. It was the policy of the government to do this. To ignore, to pretend now, that we somehow have moved on beyond this and that somehow we're all on equal footing and thus we can all share equitably is to fail in your responsibility as a storyteller."

What a load of crap. Tell you what Jesse. Since you feel I *appropriated* your existence, how's about you hand over your cell phone or computer or any other invention by us white appropriators.

After all, can we not argue 'reverse cultural appropriation?'

Not that I want part of that dance. Cultural appropriation is a concept for remedial minds with pointless axes to grind. It's lazy as hell too.

If you think for one second I'm going to be made to feel guilty, you're kinda on the wrong side of the track, pal.

History, in case you haven't noticed, is but one gigantic cultural appropriated process. Never mind you can't *own* culture. If you could, it means you have to own people; the minds, soul and body.

Sounds like, erm, slavery.

Culture isn't a piece of tangible property. Sure there are works of arts the form a nation's patrimony but this is not what we're talking about here. The point is, as a Quebecer, I can't prevent someone from eating poutine. I don't have that kind of power; the nation-state gives itself this sort of power but that's another matter altogether.

Think Madame Butterfly. It's a French novel about a Japanese girl that was made into an Italian libretto. Opera, by extension, is not exclusively performed by Italians but singers often sing in Italian. And in the opera a bunch of Americans wear kimonos.

And yet it's a landmark piece of art loved by millions around the world.

Why do you hate opera Jesse? I think Jesse needs to read 'I, Pencil'.

Or are we to rewrite this like some dopes in the States with Huckleberry Finn because it's offensive and racist.

And while we're at it, Shakespeare set his novels in Italy. This triggers me.

It's all so reminiscent of Tipper Gore with her dumb crusades in the 80s. People always gotta find something to bitch about.

As for storytelling, you get to set the parameters, right Jesse? You get to project your arbitrary and subjective values onto someone else, correct? 'You can't write like that. You gotta do it like this!'

Next thing you know, you have shitty writing thanks to your kind. This is how imagination and great storytelling gets stunted and even recedes. And when you push for Native literature isn't that cultural appropriation too? Native American (not Mesoamerica since this is not the focus of the discussion) history is oral and not a written word civilization. Writing is something that belonged to other civilizations. 

The Jesse's of this world are looking to set a narrative and in the process eliminate those who don't kow-tow to it. The bottom line being offended is something you choose to do or be. 

Don't let Jesse (and his appeal to emotion) have power over you via nonsensical anti-intellectual l gibberish like cultural appropriation.

What a silly, sad state of affairs our intellectual discourse is at the moment. 




History Clip Of The Night

The next Daily Derp is gon'be a doozy.

And I'm mounting a take down of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Be on the look out for it.

In the mean time enjoy this:

Comic Of The Night

2017-05-16

Trump Is Not An 'Existential Threat'

The hysterical and irrational reaction to his every move without scant evidence, however, is more so.

2017-05-12

Mother, What Is Irony?

Predictably, the media isn't setting the record straight in keeping citizens informed in the case of James Comey. Rather, it chose to delve into 'why' and 'why now?' and all other irrelevant questions meant to deflect from the facts of his record.

Here's the thing I find most interesting. Both Democrats and Republicans, former Deputy Attorney-Generals and AG's who either would have fired or agreed with the dismissal of Comey.

It sounds like he did serious damage to the FBI and failed to recognize he did such harm to the Bureau's reputation and image. It is more than likely Hillary would have fired him had she won (which I guarantee would have garnered a different spin from the media. Masnbridge on the CBC the other day made the sly connection to Nixon).

When you look at the facts, every serious scholar and observer agrees Comey needed to go.

So what is the issue?

As it always is. My guy or gal did or did not do it.

Molyneux does a great job of juxtaposing before and after the firing comments of top Democrats including Pelosi, Sanders and others. That they even manage to function as a party and to keep straight faces is a marvel only God can answer at this point. They literally went from 'fire Comey' to 'Trump acted brazenly' for firing him. Even though the dismissal was warranted.

That's all it is. The rest is all noise.

And the noise has reached absurd, if not dangerous levels. The left better chill a little because their fake resistance panic is going to go too far. So far Trump has not done a single thing to garner such reactions. The reactionary impulses is due to the perceived dislike of Trump and little to do with reason and policy.

2017-05-11

The Yelp Of The Unhinged

Lol.

Had the TV on mute during the hockey game last night and the CBC's Peter Mansbridge came on. Without hearing a single word the images revealed to me how the left was going to handle Trump's firing of Comey - yet another non-event the left are irrationally losing their flimsy, delicate minds over. One second you see Trump and the next you see old black and white footage of Richard Milhouse Nixon.

You see, the con game is to somehow link Trump, Nixon and sleaze. Except, you know, Watergate has absolutely fuck all to do with the firing of a Federal employee.

Hillary's corrupted shenanigans were worse but hey. All of a sudden the media demanded 'proof' without ever going to seek it themselves because, well, they tilt progressive.

Whatever.

What a bunch of clowns.

Stop watching and reading the mainstream media for facts and truth. You watch it to see how they spin and what the other side is thinking.

Rid yourself of the poison.