All you need to know to reject Black Lives Matter


That is, unless you’re insane.

Anyway, putting aside the rabble rousing, pillaging, burning of the very communities they claim to champion and the chanting, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon!” there’s always this little habit of Black Lives Matters “protesters.”

Ah, I love the smell of irony in the morning. If only the good Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks could see their descendants piss on their inheritance. The brave men and women of the the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s did not suffer indignity and physical harm for spoiled demagogues to exercise their own brand of racist violence and humiliation 50 years later.

Now, maybe this was covered in professional activist camp, but I thought the idea of a protest is to make a public scene to draw attention on your cause. This is sort of counter-intuitive, don’t you think, limiting your exposure? The press, after all, are the public’s eyes and ears.

Secondly, BLM have a right to organize and protest, but it doesn’t have a right to racially segregate the press. Media are there on behalf of the public and are agents representing the public’s right to information for self-governance. If you’re going to make a hullabaloo, it can’t infringe on other people’s and institutions’ First Amendment rights to document it. Same thing happened with the BLM-affiliated protesters at the University of Missouri with Tim Tai and Mark Schierbecker. There’s no legal or moral standing for what these despicable megalomaniacs are doing.

Please tell me how these racists are not driven by hatred and stupidity. Spare me the meaningless distinction about black people can only be prejudiced and not racist because they don’t have institutional power bullshit. Tell that to the six Baltimore cops charged by state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby, who hastily brought the full force of her office down upon them, in the Freddie Gray trial. You have to go to college — which not everyone does — and specialize in black studies — which many college attendees don’t — to know what Critical Race Theory is and how its tenets-as-tentacles skull-jockey the otherwise very hollow noggins of BLM supporters. Captured above is racism as it is colloquially understood. Even resorting to such semantic games, distinguishing between prejudice and racism, is ineffective because technically BLM is an institution and wielding institutional power to segregate on a whim. This is overtly unconstitutional and anti-civil rights.

Speaking of college, notice how many of these self-appointed defenders of blacks tend to be people who are privileged and educated. They never seem to need food, shelter, clothing or other fundamentals of existence. Instead, they apparently have the time and energy to be so idealistic as to put their ideals into practice. You don’t see struggling, impoverished individuals so lucky, yet these self-appointed champions of the downtrodden claim to speak for them. Social justice warriors are bourgeoisie who loathe everything about bourgeoisieness. Philosopher Roger Scruton has their number:

 Activist campaigns, which tend to be conducted in the name of the people as a whole, neither consult the people nor show much interest in noticing them—a point that was noticeable to Burke, in considering the insolence of the French revolutionaries. Such campaigns are affairs of elites who are seeking to triumph over real or imaginary adversaries, and who make an impact on politics because they share, in their hearts, the old socialist view that things must be changed from the top downwards, and that the people themselves are not to be trusted now, but only later, when the revolutionary vanguard has completed its task.

Bingo! The same applies to BLM and all its splinter chapters. It’s a movement doomed to fail. It’s too abrasively racist to win over potential allies, it’s message too unpalatable for normal people across the political spectrum. It’s primary methods of persuasion is guilt-mongering via slander, to which only self-flagellating individuals are susceptible. Most self-respecting people who are white don’t take too kindly to being smeared as a de facto racist. And to those, who out of some perversely false sense of responsibility and accept such unfair condemnation, such epithets don’t inspire loyalty but obedience out of fear. BLM is a band of tyrants who, between the language policing enforced by social stigma and rioting to disrupt the rule of law as an more overt form of intimidation, use both soft and hard methods of totalitarian control. If it wasn’t for that detestable species called journalist providing uncritical coverage as life support, this organized manifestation of wickedness masquerading as justice would be moribund already.

God-willing, it will be soon,

Modus Pownens

Advertisements

God save the queen: Brexit succeeds!


Our cousins across the pond have decided bravely to be citizens solely subjected to their self-deliberation instead of an unelected, bloated and corrupt Euro bureau-superstate. With 97.4% reporting, I think it’s safe to announce the referendum to leave the European Union passed.

I have the utmost admiration and only good wishes to express unto the British who chose to be British again — shocking, I know. So bravo! We Americans owe much to them, especially culturally and in regard to our legalism.

Perhaps we can learn from their example here and be in their debt again. Brexit is not only a blow struck for conservatism and smaller, limited government against that prowling leviathan of a cephalopod called Cthulhu. Given the normative multiculturalism riving our societies, it maybe indicates the West is rediscovering that cortical line running down its back and, in emulation of Myllokunmingia, beginning to act like a new sort of creature comfortable with its own body — a primordial, natural instinct that is viewed nowadays as revolutionary. Anyway, historic, paradigm-altering events like this one prod me ever so slightly to peer into that maelstrom known as time and just sort of make out a blurry future within which Western civilization is redeemed and salvaged. Brexit serves me that little indulgence of hope.

But this triumphant day isn’t about me and my saturnine ruminations but the blessed British. So, God save Boris Johnson; God save Nigel Farage; and God save the queen! Most of all, though, God save the British!

Cheerio!

Modus Pownens

Addendum to Trump, Hitler and the rise of fascism


For those who require the long answer (the short answer) to whether that New York real estate mogul and reality TV star is the American reincarnation of Der Fuhrer, it’s hell no.

We’re good, right?

No? You’re going to make me spell it out for you? Well, I guess for the sake of posterity…

…The Donald is admittedly a lot of things, many of which are unflattering. Narcissistic—sure. Misogynistic—check. Will say anything to get elected—most definitely.

But it bears mentioning that it’s cute that the Left abruptly now discovers standards about the character of the president when the Democrats’ front runner is a dishonest, incompetent felon in bed with Wall Street. I’m also compelled to point out that Obama is also an extreme egotist who had an eerie cult of personality when his sunny aura burst onto the presidential election landscape.

obama
Um…

Chris Matthews could barely contain himself either.

 

As for Trump’s sexism, whatever his indiscretions are in this regard, they probably pale in comparison to the exploits of Bill Clinton, who was not shy in the Oval Office, or the extramarital excesses of JFK. Both former leaders of the free world were and are undoubtedly womanizers.

In regard to Trump’s campaign rhetoric promising accomplishments that are constitutionally illegal for his office, it’s sort of adorable that someone would believe this mouthing off is unique to him. How exactly will that angry, socialist Muppet Bernie Sanders going to make student debt go POOF! and implement free college for all? By diktat? His magic redistributive powers that he developed at Eugene V. Deb’s Institute for the Socially Cranky? Or will he perform a snazzy show-tune scored by the Electric Mayhem with family-friendly, social justice-themed lyrics that will make all of his constituent’s inequality problems go away?

Anyway, this notion that American elections are decided by the public objectively picking the qualitatively best candidate based on their policies, if not always, has been a fanciful myth for many, many passed horizons. Our politics is very much now a popularity contest, where the candidates bloody each other to the point that whoever looks the least evil at the end wins. Plus, mainstream journalists these days are too corrupt and intellectually inept to actually scrutinize the feasibility of any proposed policies. They’re, for example, more concerned with catching and construing Jeb! Bush as racially insensitive for uttering the term “anchor baby” in regard to immigration instead of vetting his policy ideas on the matter. Beholden to political correctness and identity politics, news media are a hatchet keen on character assassination, not the investigation of issues and candidates in a sterile, analytical process devoid of innuendo.

Digression aside, what about Trump’s supposed mean, racist comments on Mexicans and Muslims? It’s like Hitler and the Nazi’s scapegoating the Jews!

funny laughing star trek android data

I shouldn’t be laughing, but that moratorium to secure our border is nothing like blaming Jews for everything, forcing them to wear stars for identification, segregating them in ghettos and then shipping them to places called Buchenwald, Dachau or Auschwitz for those once-in-a-lifetime showers. To my knowledge, no one reasonable in this country, not even the hyperbolic Trump, has called for the systematic rounding-up of Mexicans or Muslims for genocide.

But isn’t he spreading “hate”? Well, according to the latest available FBI statistics (2014) reported hate crimes are down from the year before, and for religious-motivated bias, Jews are vastly targeted more than Muslims. Surely, these bigoted feelings Trump allegedly has been coaxing out into the open have been festering long before 2014. Yet, there doesn’t appear to be a noticeable uptick in anti-Muslim or anti-Latino hate crimes to correspond with this supposed rising white supremacist miasma threatening minorities that Trump’s allegedly personifies.

What about the violence at his rallies? Of course, his supporters who engage in it are reprehensible. And Trump is morally obligated not to be flippant within his oratories to encourage it. Once again, however, political disagreement meted out in fisticuffs isn’t anything new to American politics. Additionally, at what point do we grant the lion’s share of moral responsibility to the individual goons, who for whatever reason, belligerently react to anti-Trump protesters?

Moreover, the violence that does occur seems to be contained at his rallies. It’s not like there are roving bands of Trumpite stormtroopers harassing and intimidating ideological dissidents to ensure Trump’s election to office like the Nazi’s SA. What is happening are pugnacious troops of social justice warriors marauding and rioting to disrupt their political opposition’s right to assembly.

If anyone is guilty of anything that looks like Nazi political violence, it’s those who support Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Perhaps they should be held accountable for their sycophants. Perhaps media need to acknowledge their own hateful and slanderous rhetoric obtusely comparing Trump to some of the most vile men in history, which now is likely inspiring actual acts of organized terror and thuggery.

It’s true Trump’s sudden rise is in response to American political Leftism rooted in Marxism just as fascism arose to combat European and Soviet communism. I also concede that our country’s cultural rot has parallels to Weimar Germany. Yet, the similarities stop there.

Of course, we should be vigilant for ultra-populist strongmen coming to power. And certainly, the gradual erosion of our constitutional republic—the deterioration of which jerked forward under Obama—lays the foundation for men like Hitler and Mussolini to seduce the desperate masses. But Trump, despite his numerous flaws, is just not one of them. The braggadocio in The Art of the Deal is not the anti-semitic angst of Mein Kampf. More seriously, there aren’t the sort of atrocities like Kristallnacht emanating from his campaign. His rallies resemble nothing like Leni Riefenstahl’s footage of Hitler and the Nazis: For instance, there’s no saber rattling that consists of divisions of men marching to frighten the rest of Europe nor the neo-Roman iconography hinting at the Third Reich’s imperial ambitions.

To suggest Trump is the political embodiment of burgeoning American fascism probably indicates despicable defamatory intent and or gross historical ignorance. For those who are committed to such shibboleths, I only have these four words:

Sieg heil, scheiße köpfe!

Modus Pownens

The curious case of the Christian abortion cake


Consider the following: A woman walks into a Christian bakery called Immaculate Risings, named in double entendre to Jesus’ resurrection and the nature of dough rising when in an oven. The woman proceeds to the counter to make her order. After the baker comes out to greet and serve the potential customer, the woman requests a cake made to commemorate her college-aged daughter’s first abortion. The baker apologizes and says he cannot bake such a cake because it violates his sincerely held religious convictions to consciously help celebrate what he feels is murder, citing the Sixth Commandment and the implications about the unborn found in Jeremiah 1:5. Furious, the woman threatens legal action for what she deems as sexist prejudice and storms out of the bakery.

Is this scenario unjust discrimination? Did this baker plausibly deny service to this woman solely because of the sex of her daughter and presumably the animus he holds against women? Can it be reasonably inferred this baker has a problem serving women simply because they’re female?

I hope it’s obvious that the answers to all these questions are no, and any other charge of sexism can be swiftly dismissed as absurd. To stay in business, the baker must clearly serve women all the time. The refusal to bake the hypothetical abortion cake is such a specialized order in a highly particular case, it can’t be concluded that the baker’s customer service, both singularly or comprehensively, is inclined to not cater to women on the basis of their sex. In the word of its loudest advocates, an abortion is a choice after all — a choice distinct from the chooser’s personhood regardless if the act is only biologically possible for one sex. Logically speaking, I don’t find femininity, in every sense of the word, as purely identical to the decisions made involving feminine reproductive biology in a similar way playing football isn’t purely identical to throwing the pigskin. Though, I do concede that both seeking procedures for feminine reproductive organs and throwing a football are strongly associated with being a woman and playing football.

Metaphysics and or logical relationships aside, I think it’s safe to claim that there is nothing we could consider here as discriminatory with the case of the abortion cake. Permitting the baker to refuse the order for his religious reasons is not giving a carte blanche for further discrimination. It’s actually an apt example of “tolerance” in a culturally diverse society. I therefore submit the much publicized instances of bakers, florists, photographers or innkeepers not providing service to a same-sex wedding for a gay couple is very much the same thing.

There is no meaningful difference between them. Both pertain to declining to support a decision freely acted upon that is separate from personhood. It’s the act the Christian objects to endorse and not the people themselves, whether they be gay or female. Choosing to have an abortion is not equivalent to being a woman, and deciding to marry is not equivalent to being gay. Therefore, the alleged slippery slope of allowing a foothold for future discrimination is greatly unlikely. Apart from making the critical distinction between a person and a choice a person makes, they’re cases so particular that they cannot be applied as representative of every commercial interaction a Christian baker, florist and the like knowingly has with a gay individual. There too is scriptural basis, like Genesis 2:18-24, among many other passages, as to why a Christian would feel like he or she would violate his religious and ethical conscious if he or she was asked to provide a cake, bouquet, pictures or venue for a same-sex marriage.

So I earnestly ask: If the Christian is not guilty of discrimination in the case of the abortion cake, why does the scenarios with same-sex marriages, cakes, bouquets, etc., are instances of bigotry like Jim Crow laws? I’m sure there are those who will become cross at the notion that a same-sex wedding is comparable to a murder, but the moral severity of the acts isn’t what’s at issue. In the Christian’s mind, they both are conscious decisions to defy God’s will, and to celebrate sin is, in its own right, a grave sin. Also, to suppose the LGBTQ community is more susceptible to discrimination because women make up about generally half of a business owner’s customer base is a political dead end and a bit of a stretch. According to the Left’s own narrative of victimhood, both are woefully oppressed classes of people with large swaths of America predisposed against them for being what and who they are. For the Left to claim one group of victims is less discriminated than another, especially when women roughly account for 50.8 percent of the population and the LGBTQ approximately is less than 3 percent, is political capital it won’t waste. Plus, the effort required to actually nuance its arguments and rhetoric for the national conversation just seems so out of character when defamation and oversimplification has worked wonders for its agenda. I don’t see the average progressive social justice crusader changing his or her tune here to be that the supposed irrational, prejudicial Christian conservative business owner rationally selects not to discriminate against women while figuring that Adam and Steve is fair game because of some shrewd economic calculus. It just seems even a little too farfetched even by Leftist fairytale standards.

Anywho, I’m merely arguing for the ideal of religious liberty the first Americans had in mind when they came to these shores. You know, the negative liberty to live one’s faith without having the state forcing one to violate the ‘ole religiously influenced, moral conscious. What good is religious freedom if it’s relegated to a place of worship for one hour a week and to the privacy of one’s own domicile? Reasonably speaking, if a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and whoever else can’t apply their faith-based tenets to every aspect of their existence like their personal business, it hardly seems like they’re dwelling in the land of the free.

Isn’t what I’m describing the sacred “tolerance” of the Left? Or is “tolerance” affirming one worldview to dominate at the expense of others? According to the dictionary and I, it’s the former; for many of today’s liberals, it’s unfortunately the latter. It makes one wonder where did all the good, classical liberals go, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and company?

They’ve been dead for a very long time,

Modus Pownens

Bill Whittle on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict


The Left repeatedly condemns the Right for essentially being the scum of the Earth, resorting to epithets for conservatives such as “racist,” “bigot,” “homophobe,” “sexist,” “mysogynist,” “Islamophobe,” “hates the poor,” “hates children,” etc. for merely disagreeing on how best to conduct public policy. Certainly, a case can be made against the Left’s moral character for its heavy reliance on this rhetoric in all things political. Those who serially slander, libel and defame are simply morally repugnant people.

Another despicable hallmark of the Left is its penchant to make excuses for the inexcusable, defend the unconscionable and rationalize acts of unbridled, blatant barbarism and those who commit them as “understandable” or even as “justified.” Ferguson comes to mind. Or take this Georgetown University student’s editorial arguing for empathy for those like the person who mugged him at gunpoint. Not only do these examples of progressive thinking demean all of the law-abiding Americans who presumably face the same “income inequality” that allegedly and inexorably forced the mugger or rioters to pilfer and loot, it strips them of both any moral duty and moral agency. A bit of a digression, but a fundamental assumption of the Left is that we basically have no free will and truly can’t accomplish anything for ourselves. That’s why we need Big Brother’s to do it all for us. It’s these dubious axioms like this one that buttress Leftist thought and lead to these sort of morally obtuse conclusions drawing false equivalences and obfuscating who is really responsible for what.

Perhaps the issue that showcases the premier look into the delusions and perverse workings of today’s Leftist hive mind is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here, the typical Palestinian sympathizer fixates on the minutiae of the occasional Israeli soldier killing a non-combatant and other incidents of collateral damage, decrying relatively unintentional events as unspeakable evil, while glossing over Hamas’ tactic of using its own people as shields and the whole context of the modern conflict’s belligerents, Islamic extremist Hamas-run Palestine and Western democratic Israel. While conservative commentator Bill Whittle sometimes simplifies history and sprays from the hip, he really can’t and doesn’t miss the broadside of the truth barn here as obviously big as the glaring double standard that the the mainstream Left applies to the ordeal, siding with the clearly malevolent who would joyously extinguish them for their affronts to Allah and Islam over the only bastion of liberalism in the Middle East.

Now, I’m sure there are some readers who will undoubtedly bring up Israelis originally muscling out the Palestinians resulting in refugees or the alleged “Israeli Nazi apartheid state” or the “disproportionality of casualties” in this summer’s Hamas-Israel conflict. Frankly, the use of these allegedly damning indictments is disturbing. It demonstrates a baffling inability to critically think and morally discern good from evil that is as distinct as the United States and Great Britain were from the Axis Powers during World War II. Most of these indictments are lies that are laughable distortions of not long-removed history.

Palestinian-Hamas apologists cling on to the Palestinian refugees from the 1947-1948 war — though true, the direct cause for the exodus is controversial — has very little bearing on who is right in the contemporary issue even though it has explanatory worth about the inception of the conflict itself. They selectively hold onto these allegedly damning “facts” when they’re of little strategic value. Wow, you discovered that war is ugly and combatants do some terrible things in extreme circumstances that frankly are no worse than the Allies in World War II. Get off your puny moral high horse and get over your selective emphasis of insignificant truths that polite liberal Western society likes to pretend don’t exist. They don’t impugn the worth of the Zionist cause. History has moved on. Israel has shown itself to be magnanimously humanitarian given the circumstances that it is surrounded by those who want to wipe it off the face of the planet.

Contrary to the lies of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement and Students for Justice in Palestine, Israel isn’t an apartheid state intent on genocide against Arab Palestinians. Arab Israelis are enfranchised citizens who can vote and worship how they please. Arabs serve in the Israeli parliament, The Knesset. The Palestinian refugees in places like Egypt have none of these fundamental rights. Simply, Israel is not like apartheid South Africa, or Nazi Germany for that matter.

If Israel wanted to systematically execute its own Holocaust against the Palestinians, it already would have done it. Plus, the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza makes no sense if Israel has designs to ethnically cleanse. Unequivocally, to forcibly relocate the remaining Palestinians would be a cinch. Israel doesn’t even have to stage an event to fabricate a reason for an invasion of Palestinian territories like the Nazis did with Poland to start World War II. The next suicide bomber that kills dozens, the Israeli Defense Force retaliatorily bombs the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Golan Heights into the stone age and trailing armor and ground troops mop up whatever Palestinians remain in less than 24 hours — blitzkrieg right out of the Third Reich’s playbook. Contrast this scenario with this summer’s conflict when the IDF dropped leaflets and sent alerts on cell phones warning civilians in Gaza of an airstrike. This removes the element of surprise and reveals the impending target of the IDF, which is unprecedented in the history of warfare. If Israel unleashed its fury, it could blot the Palestinians out of existence with little effort but instead fights terrorist aggression with self-imposed handicaps. Again, if the Israelis are the new Nazis, why does their country look nothing like the mass murdering, evil empires of the 20th century? Where are the Auschwitzes and Kristallnachts, Lubyankas and gulags? Perhaps, it’s because Israel isn’t the monster BDS and SJP claim it to be, and such comparisons are patently absurd.

If anyone has genocide on its mind, it’s Hamas, who’s not bashful about it either. Its charter anticipates the day when rocks and trees call out for Muslims to kill the Jews hiding behind them. Plus, Palestinians and other Arabs have been known to deny the Holocaust. Let’s be lucid about this level of antisemitism: Israel’s enemies not only don’t believe the Holocaust ever happened; they relish the thought of actualizing it on their own. Not to mention, “moderate” Yasser Arafat made outrageous allegations that Solomon’s temple mount was never in Jerusalem. These are your plucky, morally superior underdogs, idiot Leftist media.

Oh, and those who foolishly believe our corrupt journalists who wail about the “disproportionality of casualties” and that there’s no confirmation that Hamas uses human shields in this summer’s conflict, consider this aphorism: If might doesn’t make right, neither does relative weakness. If some thug draws a knife and tries to stab me, and in self-defense, I pull a sig sauer pistol and put two in his chest, his impotence in relation to my greater lethal force, i.e. my handgun, does not confer the moral high ground to my attacker. Likewise, Hamas’ failure to kill Israeli citizens in spite of its hundreds of rocket barrages that initiated the IDF campaign to destroy the launch sites and the tunnel network below that results in collateral damage does not make Hamas the victim here. Hamas intended to kill civilians but proved ineffective; the IDF intended to kill terrorists but the subsequent military action inadvertently resulted in collateral damage despite attempts to curb such losses. Big difference.

What about those alleged human shields? In military theory, there’s a principle that basically states that only ground troops can defeat ground troops. This means even if a military bombs the snot out of a target with either artillery or airstrikes, boots in the dirt are required to finish off any surviving opposition to gain the ground. Taking into account Hamas’ combat in the summer, ballistic missile strikes with no following large-scale ground incursion, it never intended to defeat the IDF in a traditional sense. Although Islamic terrorists are pathologically insane, they’re not stupid. They are well aware of the aforementioned adage about ground troops, otherwise they wouldn’t hide in caves or urban settings. After all, they’re guerrillas who fight asymmetrically because they can’t achieve victory through sheer force of arms. If they fought symmetrically — deploying all their forces in the open — they would be slaughtered by nations’ professional militaries. Hamas knows these facts all too well in its jihad against Israel. Remember, its charter is explicit that it desires to be able to overrun Israel and massacre Jews with impunity, but for the above reasons, it can’t accomplish its nefarious end. If Hamas could, it would already have bathed in Israeli blood. Short of a nuke, the only way it knows it can is if Israel internally collapses from international economic sanctions or some other intervention by a foreign power that renders the country defenseless.

Hence, all of Gaza was meant to be a human shield. Hamas’ assault this summer sensibly could only have two objectives. Of course, kill as many Jews as possible but primarily it was to provoke reprisals from the IDF that would inevitably result in vastly more deaths of Palestinian civilians and draw ire from across the globe against Israel. It’s one thing to voluntarily fight a war with a feasible chance of success with the expectation of some civilian losses, but it’s another to knowingly incite a strategically unwinnable conflict for the purpose of killing your own people. This explanation should decisively speak volumes about the conflict. Sure, the Palestinians are tragic victims, but their blood is on Hamas’ hands, not Israel’s, who did more to preserve Palestinian lives in spite of their own government’s scheme to butcher them. Hamas is the bad guy here. Those who actively support it are equally villainous.

Consider that into your calculations about Middle Eastern politics,

Modus Pownens

P.S. Here is a list debunking other anti-Israel myths.