Thursday, November 30, 2023

Tennessee Town Stirs Debate Over 'Holiday Tree'

Nothing changes: Christmas hatred lives

Germantown, an affluent community with more churches than coffee houses, recently celebrated the lighting of the city's "holiday tree."

"The City of Germantown presents Holiday Tree Lighting," read an announcement that was sent to citizens.

"Watching the first flicker of the white light on the holiday tree is a long standing tradition in Germantown. On Friday, November 24, gather with your family and neighbors in Municipal Square to sing holiday songs, toast marshmallows and enjoy the beginning of the holiday season as a community. Afterward comes the much anticipated lighting of the tree," read another posting on the city's official Facebook page.

Lots of folks had questions about the holiday songs, the holiday refreshments and the holiday tree, including yours truly. I happen to be a resident of Germantown.

Which holiday, specifically, was the city of Germantown celebrating?

"Why does Germantown have something against Christian holidays and traditions," said conservative activist Justin Johnson.

"Coming on the heels of our GMSD School Board wanting to rename Easter to 'spring holiday,'" said Kristen New, with the Shelby County Moms for Liberty. "Seeing the pattern, yet?"

The city's school district drew national headlines when a committee recommended to rename "Good Friday" and "Easter Monday." A calendar draft showed that both Christian holidays had been designated as “spring holiday.”

Parents and KWAM News Talk listeners rose up in protest and the board ultimately decided to keep Good Friday. They eliminated Easter Monday as a school holiday.

"Have you noticed the liberal mentality of these people in this thread or is it just me? Jesus is the reason for the season and these people are mad about it. It's pretty sad," New said. "Merry CHRISTmas."

"Isn’t it odd that the word “holiday” is derived from the words “holy day,” and these vacuous knuckleheads in local government think they are avoiding the religious issue by using that word," added conservative Bob Hendry.

"They don't want to offend the snowflakes by saying Christmas, so they offend the decent people instead," another resident said.

But many leftists and Christmas-haters defended the city's decision to be tolerant and inclusive. And they posted their objections by the hundreds on KWAM's social media platforms.

"Not everyone who lives in Germantown celebrated Christmas. They are trying to be inclusive not exclusive like some of y'all," one resident said. "You can call it whatever the F you want to but the city is acknowledging ALL ITS RESIDENTS and ALL RELIGIONS! Why does this offend you? Not very Christian of you."

Will Germantown rename Hanukkah the “Holiday of Candles”?

I sincerely doubt the leftists would be so tolerant or inclusive if Germantown had renamed MLK Day or Gay Pride Month.

"How dare you homophobic bigots call it 'Holiday Pride Month,'" I could imagine the Alphabet Activists yelling.

So, let's cut to the chase - the holiday we are commemorating with trees and cookies and songs is called Christmas. Jesus is the reason for the season.


When did populism become a dirty word?

Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., speaks during a campaign event at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts of Miami-Dade County, Thursday, Oct. 12, 2023, in Miami, Fla. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee )

I am fascinated by the opposing connotations some political words have in the United States, on the one hand, and in Europe and Latin America, on the other.

One such word is “liberal” — which in the U.S. is associated with the left and big government, but in Europe and Latin America stands for individual liberty, property rights and small government.

Another is “populism” — which the increasingly visible presidential candidacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought back to the forefront.

American populism champions the little guy against the corrupt “establishment” that rigs the system to make a mockery of equality before the law. In Europe and Latin America, it also has an anti-elitist connotation, but the word evokes primarily a disregard for liberal democracy and the rule of law in order to quickly achieve certain goals.

On the left (as the right sees it), it means destroying the economy through expropriation, taxation and redistribution. On the right (as the left sees it), it almost means fascism, i.e., authoritarianism based on a mystical idea of the nation and “traditional values,” as well as a draconian approach to law and order.

In Spain, the current government (an alliance of socialists, communists and regional parties fighting for Catalonia’s independence) is considered a left-wing epitome of populism, while Hungary’s Viktor Orbán is the consummate right-wing populist. In Latin America, Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro is a perfect example of a dictatorial left-wing populist, while El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele or Brazil’s former president Jair Bolsonaro embodies right-wing populism.

In the U.S., populism is not always used to praise a leader or movement, but the word has a refreshing connotation. Many of the Founding Fathers are considered populists “avant la lettre,” or before the concept existed. A compilation of Thomas Jefferson’s writings edited by Martin Larson came out with the title “Jefferson: Magnificent Populist” in the 1980s.

In Europe and Latin America, Alexander Hamilton, who wanted to aggrandize the federal government, would have been considered a populist because of it, while James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who opposed Hamilton’s centralizing, interventionist instincts, would have been considered the opposite.

In the latter part of the 19th century, with the emergence of the People’s Party, which stood for monetary expansion, government control of the railways and restrictions on land ownership, American populism did have a connotation more like Europe’s and Latin America’s today. Progressives, with their naive belief in the power of the federal government to cure social ills, would also be considered “populist” in the pejorative sense.

Yet the word continues to enjoy a benign aura in America. To make things more interesting, the growth of government in the last few decades has played into the hands of “good” and “bad” populism, with the erosion of the middle class and the enrichment of an elite that owes a lot more to mercantilism — the connection between political and business interests — than to the competitive marketplace and healthy capitalism.

We have been constantly told by Biden and previous administrations that employment has improved at a healthy pace, but the index of hours worked indicates that its rate of growth since 2000 is one-third the rate between the 1960s and the end of the century. As for real median household income, its annual rate of growth since the beginning of the century is barely 0.6 percent, while in the second half of the 20th century, it was three times greater.

By contrast, the net worth of the proverbial top 1 percent has more than quadrupled since 2000 in real terms — while the Fed has printed money like crazy, inflating the price of speculative assets held by rich folks. The federal government has run up so much debt that it is now paying almost $1 trillion a year in interest. In the process, it has stifled wealth creation — to the detriment of the middle class. Instead of addressing this, the Biden administration wants to dish out another $106 billion that it simply does not have to various foreign actors.

That’s the perfect scenario for populism, both of the right kind (anti-elitism in the name of individual rights) and the wrong kind (big-government protectionism and economic nationalism in the name of the little guy). No wonder populism is making itself felt in the run-up to November 2024.


The Feds’ Vehicle ‘Kill Switch’ Mandate Is a Violation of Privacy

In November 2021, former US Representative from Georgia Bob Barr wrote a little-noticed political column claiming that buried inside President Joe Biden’s $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure legislation was a dangerous provision that would go into effect in five years.

“Marketed to Congress as a benign tool to help prevent drunk driving, the measure will mandate that automobile manufacturers build into every car what amounts to a ‘vehicle kill switch,’” wrote Barr, who was the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president in 2008.

Like most Americans, I had never heard of this alleged “kill switch” until a few days ago when Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian-leaning Republican, proposed to strip the mandate’s funding.

“The right to travel is fundamental, but the government has mandated a kill-switch in new vehicles sold after 2026,” said Massie. “The kill-switch will monitor driver performance and disable cars based on the information gathered.”

Nineteen Republicans joined all but one Democrat in opposing Massie’s amendment, which failed.

True or False?

The claim that the feds would mandate that every new motor vehicle include technology that could disable the vehicle seemed ludicrous. So I started Googling.

To my relief, I saw several fact-checkers at legacy institutions had determined the “kill switch” mandate was not true.

“Our rating: False,” said USA Today.

“ASSESSMENT: False,” said the Associated Press.

“We rate it Mostly False,” concluded PolitiFact.

(Snopes, a reliably left-leaning fact check group, was a little less conclusive, saying the claim was a “mixture” of true and false.)

Unfortunately, my relief evaporated once I looked at the bill itself.

Sec. 24220 of the law explicitly states: “[T]o ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles.”

The legislation then goes on to define the technology as a computer system that can “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle” and can “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected” (emphasis added).

How the system will make this determination is unclear, as is the government’s potential role in apprehending suspected drunk drivers (more on that later).

But the law’s language could not be more clear: New motor vehicles must have a computer system to “monitor” drivers, and the system must be able to prevent vehicle operation if it detects impairment.

“No Mention in the Bill of a ‘Kill Switch’”

How fact-checkers determined the “kill switch” narrative to be false is odd, especially since the articles don’t deny Barr’s central claim: The legislation mandates a computer system that will monitor driving performance and be able to disable motor vehicles.

The Associated Press conceded the law would “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation” if the system suspects the driver is impaired, even “disable a vehicle from being operated.” So did USA Today and PolitiFact.

To arrive at their conclusion that this car-killing mechanism is just a fantasy, fact-checkers resorted to sleight of hand. A common tactic was to debunk social media posts that were actually false or unfounded, like the popular claim that the systems would be required to alert law enforcement if the drivers were deemed impaired.

“None of the technologies currently in development would notify law enforcement,” the Associated Press assured readers.

In an odd bit of uniformity, each of the fact-checkers said spokespeople for groups who support the system, such as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), told them they would never support giving law enforcement access to the system.

My personal favorite, however, was PolitiFact.

“[We] found no mention in the bill of a ‘kill switch,’” PolitiFact concluded.

The idea that the absence of the words “kill switch” in the bill is evidence that a disabling mechanism doesn’t actually exist in the legislation is nothing short of gaslighting.

‘Secure in Persons and Effects’?

The unpleasant truth is that lawmakers slipped into a massive spending bill a mandate that stands to require all new vehicles to have AI-driven technology that can disable your vehicle if the technology determines you’ve had one beer too many. And fact-checkers are using headlines to make it sound as if the legislation does no such thing.


Conor McGregor 'Knocks Some Common Sense' Into the Irish Taoiseach Over His Hamas Hostage Tweet

I would hope everyone was scratching their heads over the Irish Taoiseach’s tweet about the release of Emily Hand, the Israeli-Irish 9-year-old girl Hamas kidnapped during the October 7 attacks. Hand was thought to have been killed in the attacks, which makes her release more of a feel-good story. What makes it odd, sadly, was Leo Varadkar describing her disappearance as something akin to losing your kid in a supermarket.

The Taoiseach wrote, “This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family. An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered.”

It was a tweet that got a community note for the obvious: she was kidnapped by terrorists.

Mixed martial artist and boxer Conor McGregor was incensed by Varadkar’s post, with the UFC champion laying haymakers on the Taoiseach for being exceptionally dumb with his remarks:

She was abducted by an evil terrorist organization. What is with you and your government and your paid for media affiliates constantly down playing / attempting to repress horrific acts that happen to children. You are a disgrace. The day after a stabbing of children in Ireland, NOT ONE PAPER HAD IT ON THEIR FRONT COVER. We will not forget.

An Algerian did go on a stabbing spree in Dublin last week, which set off massive unrest in the city.




Wednesday, November 29, 2023

It's frankly Orwellian that Britain could face censure by the UN for daring to state that biological sex matters

What awful crimes might it take for a nation to be blacklisted by the UN on human-rights grounds? Detention without trial? Summary executions? Torture, public floggings and the persecution of racial minorities?

Perhaps. But, in Britain's case, the answer may be rather more surprising. Merely to state that biological sex matters could be enough to confer this disgrace.

Yesterday it was reported that Britain might soon be expelled from the UN's 'Human Rights Council' because our own Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has previously recommended that single-sex spaces should be protected according to a person's physical sex rather than their more nebulous 'gender identity'.

In plain terms, that means that a male-bodied individual who wishes to use a female-only changing room could do so simply because they 'identified' as a woman. Anything else could be a breach of their human rights.

Following complaints against the EHRC from trans-rights groups — including Stonewall — a process has begun that could see the EHRC's ranking by the UN slip below that of comparable organisations in such bastions of liberty as Palestine and Zimbabwe, leaving us on a par with Libya and Venezuela. We would be, in short, a pariah.

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions, an independent body that provides accreditation to the UN, will rule on the EHRC's fate next spring.

Now, it goes without saying that Britain, like other Western countries, helped to shape human rights as the world understands them. It's frankly Orwellian that we should face censure on such grounds.

But the truth is that no one should be surprised at this preposterous state of affairs. For this is only the latest in a series of increasingly bizarre tussles involving the UK and the UN.

Earlier this month, the British government received a lecture of inconceivable pomposity, as the UN's 'rapporteur on climate change and human rights', Ian Fry, took us to task over the imprisonment of two Just Stop Oil eco-zealots.

Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland were convicted of halting traffic on the M25 last year by dangling off a bridge on the Dartford Crossing, and in April were jailed for two and three years respectively.

Cue anguished wails from Fry over the 'severity' of these jail terms — which strike me as having been lenient — and limiting the rights of activists to mount 'peaceful protests'.

Fry, an Australian-born environmental lawyer, even asked ministers to explain how the treatment of the pair 'is compatible with international norms and standards', as though Britain were a rogue state rather than the pioneer of parliamentary democracy.

Yet Fry's employer, the UN, has itself an appalling record of support for genuinely oppressive regimes, barbarous terrorist movements and corrupt despots.

Its 'Human Rights Council', so ready to censure Britain over whether trans women should enter female changing rooms, has members from the notably liberal regimes of China, Cuba and Pakistan.

Only a few weeks ago, it appointed Iranian diplomat Ali Bahreini to chair its 'Social Forum' in Geneva.

Bahreini is the representative of a savage theocracy that hangs gay people, executes protesters and deploys its squads of moral guardians to beat up women who refuse to wear the burka.

Fry's absurd bleating about the Just Stop Oil bridge-climbers, coupled with the UN's ugly embrace of Iran, is typical of the body's repellent double-standards.

This bloated bureaucracy trumpets its role as a global peace-keeper, yet stands accused of helping to bankroll Hamas through its mis-directed aid programmes and its collusion with Iran.

It loves to shriek about the iniquities of racism yet is plagued by anti-Semitism. It is ferocious in denunciating oppression, yet its recent record is packed with sex scandals in which its own employees have oppressed women.
Given the UN's obvious failings, it is particularly galling that the West — and the UK in particular — should so consistently prove the targets of its criticisms. Any potential sanctioning of the EHRC would be clearly absurd.

Many in Britain will be wondering how much longer we can endure the UN's pious lectures and hypocrisy.


Here We Go Again: Americans Prepare to Teach Target Another Lesson Over LGBTQ Christmas

There’s a popular meme that originates with an episode of “SpongeBob SquarePants” in which a previously beaten-up individual once again is surrounded by angry townsfolk. As they close in, one attacker shakes his fist and shouts, “How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?”

Target Corp., the popular American department store chain, may be in for another round of lessons in the consequences of annoying its consumers with “Pride” merchandising. With the Christmas season approaching quickly, Target has a special gift for Americans: a woke Christmas.

Shoppers can expect to see “gay Santas and LGBTQ-themed nutcrackers” on Target’s shelves of this season, the Washington Examiner reported.

Erik Thompson, identified as a “Senior LGBTQIA+ Segmentation Strategist & Pride Lead,” announced he would be joining Target in an Instagram post earlier this week. His post appears to have been deleted.

In the post, which decried the devastating consumer boycott over the summer after Target sold creepy LGBTQ-themed merchandise marketed to minors, Thompson promised “Glitter & Hellfire” to “rip that old world to shreds.”

Quite frankly, I’m almost awestruck at the doubling-down amid what has been, unequivocally, the most powerful year for boycotters of absurdly liberal business promotions.

Lest we forget, the conservative backlash against Anheuser-Busch for partnering transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney with its Bud Light brand cost the company at least $15.7 billion. It also resulted in lots of Bud Light sitting unpurchased on thousands of pallets around the country.

Benoit Garbe, Anheuser-Busch’s former U.S. chief marketing officer, was removed Nov. 16 after Bud Light sales refused to bounce back.

Target suffered similarly, with stock losses of nearly $14 billion and sales slumps of 5.4% in stores and 10.5% online in the second quarter. Target’s CFO blamed the losses on the “reaction to our Pride assortment.”

The Walt Disney Co.’s woke strategies met similar reactions, with streaming subscriptions slumping, park attendance abysmal, and movie releases failing box office expectations. Releases of the live-action “The Little Mermaid” and Disney-owned Marvel’s “The Marvels” lost hundreds of millions apiece for the megacorporation.

In September, Disney CEO Bob Iger told investors that he would endeavor to “quiet the noise” of Disney’s previous political posturing, and since has delayed release of the live-action version of “Snow White” by a full year, following leaks that revealed a serious departure from Disney’s original animated movie from 1937.

Despite crystal-clear indicators that this is the perfect time for companies to quit political posturing and pushing liberal propagandistic efforts, it looks like Target will take the same lessons yet again—and stubbornly so.

The reaction to Luke Gentile’s reporting in the Washington Examiner already looks bad for Target.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., calls it an insult to his constituents and warns of legislative consequences.

“When companies like Target that insult conservatives seek Republicans’ help on Capitol Hill,” Cotton said, “our response will be: ‘I’m sorry that’s happening to you. Best of luck.’”

In a market where traditionally brick-and-mortar stores face increasingly threatening competition from online retailers, Target can’t afford to play so loosely during the holiday season. Anheuser-Busch’s decision to double down after the Mulvaney fiasco cost the beermaker far more than profit margins; such arrogance cost many of its employees their jobs because of the brewery company’s unwillingness to appease the market.

The answer to such inflammatory shenanigans is deceptively simple: Apologize and get back to doing what you do best.

Heckler & Koch, a German arms manufacturer I’m quite fond of, previously employed a social media manager who had begun to use her platform at the brand to lecture H&K fans about sexism.

The backlash began to build following a Twitchy article, with boycotts almost certain. But Heckler & Koch then broke the mold. It fired the woke social media manager and issued a statement on X, formerly Twitter: “H&K does not engage in identity politics. A policy was violated. Changes were made.”

Since that post, H&K sales have risen comfortably. No boycotts, no drop in sales, no problem.

If Target wants a merry Christmas and a happy new year, it only has to stop with the identity politics that have fatigued millions of Americans. We don’t need to hear about Santa’s sex life or which gender the nutcracker is pretending to be.

As one consumer posted on X: “This is so annoying, I just want to shop.”

How executives can miss the forest for the trees in such a monumental blunder is truly beyond me. If Target wants to learn the same lesson again, then by all means we will deliver until the corporation’s leaders get the message.


Banning ‘Thin Blue Line’ Flag on Township Property Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules

A Pennsylvania town’s resolution prohibiting the display of the “Thin Blue Line” flag supporting law enforcement was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

According to several reports, U.S. District Judge Karen Marston ruled that the town’s ban on the flag restricts free speech of public employees under the First Amendment.

“The Township repeatedly suggests that the Thin Blue Line American Flag is of limited, if any, public value or concern because it is ‘offensive’ and ‘racist,’” Marston reportedly wrote in the court opinion. “But as this Court previously told the Township, ‘the First Amendment protects speech even when it is considered “offensive.”’"

The township argued that the flag was creating “discontent and distrust” in the community against the police. The dispute initially began in 2021, around the time of the Black Lives Matter riots in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death (via AP):

Tensions began when the township police department’s union voted to incorporate the flag into its logo in 2021. Several of the township’s commissioners opposed the decision, due to the fact the symbol has become associated with Blue Lives Matter, a term which has been used by some police supporters in response to the Black Lives Matter movement.


In October 2022, the matter escalated when the township’s lawyer and manager sent a cease-and-desist letter to the union, saying that the use of the flag in the union’s logo “unnecessarily exacerbates the ongoing conflict between police officers and the communities they serve,” directing the union to stop using the flag or remove Springfield Township from its name.

After the union refused to drop the flag or change its name, the commissioners adopted a policy that barred township employees, agents or consultants from displaying the flag while on duty or representing the township. It prohibited the display of the flag on personal property brought into a township building or from being displayed on township-owned property, including vehicles.

Wally Zimolong, an attorney representing the police officers, said that the court’s ruling was a victory for free speech.

"It was a resounding win for the First Amendment and free speech," he said. "It showed once again that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination based upon a message it disagrees with or finds offensive."


ICC bans transgender women from elite cricket to protect ‘integrity and safety’

Australian-born Canadian trans cricketer Danielle McGahey has expressed disappointment but vowed to continue to fight for equality over the International Cricket Council’s decision to ban transgender women from playing international women’s cricket.

The international career of McGahey appears over after the ICC ruled players who have been through testosterone-fuelled puberty will not be able to compete in international women’s cricket.

The change in regulations appears to have been prompted by the case of McGahey, who became the first transgender cricketer to take part in an official international match when she featured in a Women’s Twenty20 fixture for Canada against Brazil.

The Brisbane-born 29-year-old, who played grade cricket in the men’s competition in Melbourne, moved to Canada in 2020. After her transition, she began playing women’s cricket in Canada and was called into the national team in October 2022.

The opening batter went on to play all six of Canada’s matches during the Women’s T20 World Cup Americas region qualifiers event in Los Angeles, to add to national team appearances previously in fixtures which did not hold official ICC status.

Canada came second in the four-team event, failing to qualify, with McGahey making 118 runs at 19.67 with a top score of 48 against Brazil.

Transgender athletes have been banned from taking part in elite women’s competitions in other sports such as swimming, cycling, athletics, rugby league and rugby union.

“Following the ICC’s decision this morning, it is with a very heavy heart that I must say that my international cricketing career is over. As quickly as it begun, it must now end,” McGahey wrote on social media.

“Thank you so much to everybody who has supported me in my journey, from my all of my teammates, all of the opposition, the cricketing community and my sponsor …

“While I hold my opinions on the ICC’s decision, they are irrelevant. What matters is the message being sent to millions of trans women today, a messaging say that we don’t belong.

“I promise I will not stop fighting for equality for us in our sport, we deserve the right to play cricket at the highest level, we are not a threat to the integrity or safety of the sport. Never stop fighting!”

Brazil women’s captain Roberta Moretti Avery said on Wednesday the timing of the ICC’s decision had been “unfortunate”.

“It’s a decision that appears to have been made by the ICC in good faith with the benefit of the most recent scientific advice. That said, the timing of the decision is really unfortunate,” Avery told ESPNCricinfo.

“Danielle McGahey was allowed to play in the recent World Cup qualifier on the basis of the rules that applied at the time. As a result, she was subjected to a lot of abuse from people who have never met her and who do not understand the difficult journey she has been on.

“She and her teammates also had a reasonable expectation that she would be allowed to play in future matches. So it’s unfortunate that this decision has been made after the event, once Danielle’s hopes had been raised and after she has already been exposed to a huge amount of scrutiny and abuse. That can’t be good for anyone’s mental health. The ICC lifted the hopes of a whole community and it feels like those hopes have now been dashed.”

Under the ICC’s previous regulations, which were effective from October 2018 and amended in April 2021, McGahey had satisfied all of the eligibility criteria.

However, following an ICC board meeting, new gender regulations have been announced, which follow a nine-month consultation process with the sport’s stakeholders.

“The changes to the gender eligibility regulations resulted from an extensive consultation process and are founded in science, aligning with the core principles developed during the review,” ICC chief executive Geoff Allardice said.

“Inclusivity is incredibly important to us as a sport, but our priority was to protect the integrity of the international women’s game and the safety of players.”

The review, led by the ICC medical advisory committee and chaired by Peter Harcourt, relates solely to gender eligibility for international women’s cricket. Gender eligibility at domestic level is a matter for each individual member board.




Tuesday, November 28, 2023

A woman who does not understand how it works

TikTok has become a breeding ground for women to get candid about the dating landscape and the struggles they’re facing with single men. TikToker @ms_petch posted a video that has gone viral in which she laments over the fact that liberal men aren’t living up to her standards.

TikToker Complains That Liberal Men Are Not Masculine Enough
@ms_petch shares something on TikTok that has made dating very difficult lately. She calls it “one of the saddest realizations” she has had recently. “As a liberal woman, it is really hard to find a man who’s willing to play the more traditional masculine role in the relationship in today’s day and age who is not a conservative,” she admits.

She attributes certain characteristics to a traditional, masculine man: paying for the first date, opening the door for the woman, caring for and providing for the woman. She wants all of this in a man — as long as he’s not conservative.

“Obviously as a liberal woman, I do want to be respected for my independence and I do want to have my own autonomy in the relationship and not be conformed to the traditional female homemaker, childbearing role,” she continues. “And most of the men that I dated who do have that more natural provider masculinity about them are normally conservative.”

She is at a loss because she wants to be with a masculine man but doesn’t want to compromise her morals and values. She asks her followers if she is asking for too much when she requests a man she can be “equal” with while he still provides for her.

The responses on Twitter reveal that nobody feels sympathy for her dilemma. In fact, they find it amusing that she wants such a masculine man who has liberal values.

“Typically liberal ‘doesn’t want to compromise values’ but at the same time wants to reap the benefits ultra right leaning chad men provide,” one user commented.

“No, she can’t have her cake and eat it too. Masculine men want feminine women. Her views don’t align with that,” another said.

“Me married to a conservative man with all of what she wants,” another person wrote.

Others joked about her hitting the wall, so to speak, and realizing that she was looking for the wrong thing in men all along. Regardless of what happens to this particular woman and her romantic future, she has highlighted a universal truth that would make dating so much easier for women if they would just accept it.

Yes, Conservative Men Are Indeed More Masculine
A Pew Research survey found that Republican men are more likely than Democratic men to describe themselves as very masculine (39% compared to 23%). Similarly, 78% of Republicans say masculinity is a good thing for society, compared to 49% of Democrats.

Aside from surveys, you can look around our culture and see pretty clearly that men who are on the right act and look more masculine than their liberal counterparts. Is this a coincidence? Or is there more behind this difference?

When you consider the basic values of the right, it becomes clear why masculinity is more prevalent. Conservatives tend to be more involved in organized religion, which results in their being more likely to acknowledge that God created a specific order of the world that includes the natural relationship between masculinity and femininity, as well as a family that includes a father, mother, and children.

Conservatives also value a strong family unit that maintains its independence from the federal government, a nation that stands strong against foreign powers, and personal responsibility. A country cannot achieve any of this without strong men at the helm who are willing to provide for their families and lead their communities.

Liberals, on the other hand, value diversity and equality above all else, and they also believe that there is no natural order involving men, women, and children. After all, if there were a natural order, then equality and equity would not be possible for them.

People on the left often demand the government intervene in social issues and provide welfare for certain communities, allowing people to shirk personal responsibility on a grand scale. This overall mindset doesn’t require men to be masculine leaders of the home or the country.

Ironically, @ms_petch claims that she doesn’t want a conservative man because she likes her independence, her autonomy, and equality in a relationship — and yet, she is searching for all the qualities of a conservative man. Of course, she wants a man who provides for her, opens the door for her, and pays for the date. This is a natural desire for women because of their natural femininity. They were biologically and spiritually created to be cared for and protected by men.

It shouldn’t mean or indicate that they give up all their independence and ask for permission before they do things in their day-to-day life, but it does mean they are given the gift of having a man look after them. And in return, they nurture his home, give birth to his children, and care for the family.

Sadly, many modern women have been convinced that having independence and being provided for by a man are mutually exclusive. That’s how you end up with single women like @ms_petch who have bought into a lie that prevents them from finding a lifelong relationship that will honor their femininity.


Uncovering the Truth: New Documentary Reveals ‘The Fall of Minneapolis’

A new documentary titled “The Fall of Minneapolis” brings to light the shocking truth behind the riots that swept across the city in the summer of 2020 following the death of George Floyd. The film, produced by former CBS news anchor Liz Collin, uncovers evidence of injustice and corruption that has been swept under the rug by the mainstream media and political leaders.

Collin, who was demoted from her news position due to her husband’s role as the Minneapolis police union chief, sets out to present a dispassionate yet damning account of the events that unfolded in the wake of Floyd’s death. Through interviews with key figures, including Chauvin and his mother, the documentary reveals new evidence that calls into question the narrative that has been pushed by the media and politicians.

One of the most shocking revelations in the film is the existence of police bodycam footage that was withheld from the public for two months. This footage, along with other evidence, shows that the hold used by Chauvin on Floyd was an approved technique taught by the Minneapolis Police Department. Despite this, Chauvin was portrayed as a rogue cop in the media and charged with second-degree murder, along with three other officers who were fresh out of the academy.

The documentary also sheds light on the intense pressure placed on prosecutors to throw the book at Chauvin and the other officers. And while the initial autopsy report found no evidence of asphyxiation or physical injuries to Floyd’s neck, the FBI’s involvement led to a revised report that was used in the trial.

The film also unveils a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy, which claims that Attorney General Keith Ellison and other officials railroaded Chauvin and the other officers in order to appease the “Defund the police” movement. Sweasy and three other prosecutors refused to work on the case, stating that it violated professional and ethical rules.

The documentary calls out the cowardice and incompetence of key figures, including Minneapolis Police Chief Medaria Arradondo, who immediately branded Floyd’s death as murder, and Judge Peter Cahill, who refused to allow exculpatory evidence to be presented in the trial. It also exposes the failings of Mayor Jacob Frey, Governor Tim Walz, and Attorney General Keith Ellison, who all failed to contain the riots and hold the responsible parties accountable.

In the end, “The Fall of Minneapolis” serves as a reminder that the events of the summer of 2020 were not just about seeking justice for George Floyd, but were also driven by political agendas and lies that continue to have a devastating impact on our society. It is a wake-up call to remember the truth and demand accountability from our leaders.


The widespread destruction of American values by the Left

Last week, writers Francesca Block and Suzy Weiss co-authored an article in The Free Press describing the phenomenon of (largely progressive) Western women converting to Islam.

On the same day, Teri Christoph published a piece on RedState in which she remarks on how many of the recent displays of antisemitism (ripping down posters of kidnapped children, calling for the elimination of Jews at protests, denying accounts of the horrific sexual abuse, torture and death inflicted upon Israeli women and girls during Hamas' Oct. 7 attack on Israel) have been perpetrated by women.

To add further salt to a wound that has never fully healed, social media exploded last week with TikTok videos made by young people expressing support for Osama bin Laden, the Saudi terrorist responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks that killed thousands in New York City, Washington D.C. and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Hundreds of TikTokers forwarded links to a letter bin Laden penned in 2002 justifying the mass murder, along with comments like, "Wow, Osama bin Laden had a point," "This will blow your mind," and "I look at everything differently now."

What all these stories and others have in common is a population searching for meaning in lives that have become utterly bereft of it.

We are witnessing the consequences of the West's self-immolation: the dumbing down of American education and resulting ignorance; the demonization of prominent historical figures, destruction of statues and renaming of buildings and monuments; the absurd oversimplification of history into "oppressors" and "the oppressed," and the equally ahistorical beliefs that human beings who trace their lineage to Europe bear disproportionate responsibility for slavery and other human ills throughout history.

Indeed, the currently popular attacks on "whiteness" -- "white privilege," "white fragility," "white supremacy" -- aren't really about skin color (which is why a Black man like Larry Elder who does not hew to the leftist party line can be called, with no trace of irony, "the Black face of white supremacy.")

What the so-called anti-racist race-baiters are really attacking is Western civilization itself.

A perfect example is the display that the National Museum of African American History and Culture put up in 2020 (only to remove it after a firestorm of controversy). The poster attacked as "Aspects of Whiteness" concepts like "independence and autonomy," "the nuclear family," "rational thinking," "hard work," "respect for authority," "planning for the future," "private property," being "on time," problem-solving and "decision-making."

These practices are neither unique to "whites" nor problematic. They form the basis for successful individuals, stable families, and prosperous societies.

While no civilization is perfect (and that is not the standard against which any can be measured), the West was founded upon some of the greatest principles identified or revealed in the history of human civilization: Greek and Roman definitions of good citizenship and ordered liberty, British notions of individual rights, justice and due process dating back to the Magna Carta, and -- above all else -- Judeo-Christianity, with its emphasis upon natural law, the inherent dignity of the individual, personal accountability and public charity.

When we remove those principles that formed the foundation of America, other, more malignant notions will take their place.

As we see in the tumult, people need meaning and transcendent truths. Without direction, they are adrift. In a culture that preaches nonstop self-indulgence, some will fall into destructive behaviors like drug and alcohol abuse or a life of meaningless sexual encounters, with all the attendant chaos and heartache those choices produce. The damage this has already caused to our country is immeasurable.

For others -- particularly on the left, which is abandoning organized religion in droves -- politics has seeped in to fill the void left by the absence of religious faith. Arguments about political, cultural, and social issues take on the fervor of religious zeal, complete with the vocabulary of faith ("Don't you believe in 'climate change'?" "Are you an election denier?") and threats of being shunned. "Correct" viewpoints are morally superior, and those holding "incorrect" ones will find themselves doxxed, "canceled," censored, or estranged from loved ones.

Hypocrisy is not an insurmountable obstacle for those who unshackled themselves from Western notions of philosophical consistency. The same "progressives" who mock -- if not outright condemn -- Judaism for its practice of circumcision seem to have no trouble supporting the mutilation of children's bodies if they claim to have a gender different than their biological sex. And, as Block and Weiss describe in their Free Press article, self-identified feminists critical of Christianity for its "subjugation" of women now find comfort in Islam. This belief system is orders of magnitude more oppressive of women than Judaism or Christianity have ever been.

The lost among us seek reasons for self-sacrifice in a time of self-indulgence, certainty in a climate of moral relativism, truth in a culture that professes nonexistent, and a sense of belonging to heal their sense of alienation.

Why aren't we there for them?

Because we have abandoned our identity, we are losing our young people -- and much more. Americans have spent decades apologizing for our culture, thinking it made us more "enlightened," only to watch the younger generations flock to politics and philosophies that are more violent, more oppressive, and more likely to promote human suffering.

There have always been and will always be those for whom the Western/American way of life holds little appeal. They should be free to seek meaning and purpose in other traditions (as long as those do not entail self-destruction or the destruction of others' lives or property). But their choices should be grounded in truth, not propaganda.

We should not give the next generation a reason to abandon their heritage by allowing it to be continually maligned and misrepresented, thereby disavowing it ourselves.


Make masculinity great again

By Australian libertarian Senator Ralph Babet

image from$zoom_0.525%2C$multiply_2%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_0%2C$y_24/t_crop_custom/c_scale%2Cw_1240%2Cq_52%2Cf_auto/253a740ad9eb29c0f18fb72bbdaa50de986b97e5

Babet is of ultimately Indian heritage

Sunday was International Men’s Day but blink and you would have missed it. International Women’s Day (March 8) is always marked by widespread celebrations of female achievement. LGBTQ people get a whole month in June to promote Pride, as well as half of February and March which is given over to coverage of events related to Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. Men, however, who are, after all, half the human race, get one day.

The International Men’s Day website says the day ‘celebrates worldwide the positive value men bring to the world, their families and communities’, highlights ‘positive role models’, and raises awareness of men’s well-being.

Sunday (November 19) was International Men’s Day but there was precious little positivity. In part, that was because the theme for 2023 was ‘Zero Male Suicide’. There is no doubt that male suicide is an extremely serious problem. Over three-quarters of all Australians who take their lives are male and while the female suicide rate decreased in 2022 by 2 per cent compared with 2021, for men it increased by 3 per cent. Unfortunately, the main media coverage was an interview on the ABC which which didn’t celebrate men’s achievements or the positive contribution they make to humanity. Rather, it put the ‘spotlight on the high rate of male suicide’.

The failure to celebrate male achievement is perhaps one reason why too many men feel down but it’s not the only problem. There is a relentless attack on so-called ‘toxic masculinity’. Yet here’s the thing. While there is no doubt some male behaviour is toxic, so too is some female behaviour, and, for that matter, some LGBTQ behaviour. No sex or gender has a monopoly on behaving badly but it is masculinity that is under constant attack.

Indeed, the Albanese federal Labor government recently announced $3.5 million in funding for what it calls the healthy masculinities project. The goal of the project is supposedly ‘to help combat harmful gender stereotypes perpetuated online’. A government media release claims that 25 per cent of teenage boys in Australia look up to social media stars who perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and condone violence against women.

But you won’t find the government admitting that some cultures have more toxic masculinity than others. Labor, the Greens, and the left-leaning independents refused to have a Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse in Indigenous communities because they can’t bring themselves to face the reality that there is a higher rate of sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. So it’s not surprising that there was no mention in the media release on healthy masculinities that Indigenous communities suffer higher rates of sexual assault and domestic violence.

There’s another problem men face. When it comes to sexual allegations, the #MeToo movement has reversed the onus of proof. Men are assumed to be guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent. In the US, Brett Kavanaugh, who is now serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court, was dragged through the mud in the court of public opinion about uncorroborated, decades-old sexual allegations.

In reality, the government’s healthy masculinities program is unlikely to address real instances of toxic behaviour and instead, waste taxpayer money emasculating and gaslighting healthy young men and promoting the idea that you have to be a woke left soy boy and apologise if you happen to be white or straight.

Teenage boys should be mentored by their parents and the government should do everything they can to support the family including tax arrangements that permit income-splitting to allow mums to stay home when children are small and to work part-time as children grow up.

If Labor is serious about helping families it has to address the cost-of-living crisis that is putting far too many of them under financial stress. One way to do that is to abandon its crazy climate change policies that are pointlessly driving up the cost of energy and driving Australian jobs offshore to places like China that are building new coal-fired power plants every week.

If the Labor Party is genuinely worried about teenage boys following poor gender stereotypes online then it should seriously address the elephant in the room which is the number of teenage boys that grow up without a father in their home. There is a mountain of evidence showing that too many of these boys are more likely to commit crimes.

This is not so surprising. It’s only in recent times that we have been crazy enough to imagine that we can raise a fatherless generation and outsource parenting to the nanny state with teenage boys mentored by far-left activists.

There are no easy answers for single parents, just a role for extended families, and church and youth groups to provide healthy male role models and create opportunities for teenage boys to meet together for face-to-face sport and recreation rather than spending their lives glued to screens playing video games.

Unfortunately, Labor’s healthy masculinities project is unlikely to help. It is more likely to create gender confused, non-binary they/thems than happy, healthy, strong, confident young men.

It is undeniable that weak men create hard times and we are seeing this play out in Canberra as the Albanese government flounders its way through its first term. It is too weak to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It is too weak to address the crisis created by criminals gaming the refugee system. It is too weak to set a sensible immigration level that won’t put homeownership out of the reach of young Australians.

Perhaps that’s why Labor has funded a project that will make young men weak. Perhaps it wants men who won’t stand up for themselves when the state overreaches as it did during the pandemic, men who won’t fight for their rights and push back against authoritarianism, men who won’t defend their families, their faith, their culture, their nation.

We need boys to be proud of their masculinity just like we need Australians to be proud of their country. The good news is that while weak men like Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese create hard times, it is just as true that hard times create strong men, and strong men create good times. That’s what we aim to do at the United Australia party. So, sound the starting gun because with your help at the next election, we’re going to make masculinity – and Australia – great again.




Monday, November 27, 2023

Aussie living in London reveals British things she thought were weird after making the move

She is absolutely right about British customer service. Wnen I would walk into a London shop for any reason, all the staff would pretend I did not exist. But I never tolerated that for more than a minute. I would simply say in a loud voice "I hate being invisible". That would be an electric shock to the staff concerned. They would literally run to serve me. Why? I had done that most abhorred British thing; I had "made a scene". I can be something of a stentor at times so that would have helped too

She mentions her shock of British customer service and that when she first arrived, she thought 'everyone was so rude'.

She said 'No one says hi to you when you first walk into a shop, people will literally just ignore you customer service wise.

'When I went and got my phone plan down, I sat down and was like "hey I want a phone plan' and they're like 'yep no worries".

'The girl turned around tapped in her computer for no joke 20 minutes, did not say a word to me and didn't even look at me.

'I was like is this normal? This is the most awkward thing I've ever done.'


Hamas Atrocities Against Israeli Women Met With Deafening Silence

Showing that all the moral claims of the Left are a sham

Misogyny and cultural “norms” subjugating women are widespread in much of the Islamic world. These include female genital mutilation, forced marriages, persecuting women for not dressing according to strict Islamic standards, “honor killings,” and much more.

It’s no surprise then, but shocking and horrific nonetheless, that one “weapon” in Hamas’ inhuman massacre of over 1200 people in Israel on October 7, brutalizing thousands, and kidnapping more than 240, including young children and elderly women held hostage in Gaza, was the raping of Israeli women in the process. Underscoring that these are not individual criminal acts but part of something widespread and deliberate, it’s been described as a sexual pogrom.

Adding insult to injury, groups and people that should be advocating for women’s rights and under any other circumstance would be calling out such criminal behavior, have turned a blind eye to the forensic evidence, eyewitness accounts, and confessions of Hamas terrorists as if the victims and sexual crimes didn’t matter just because they are Jews. The evidence is clear. Medical examiners have reported that some of the rapes were so violent that the women’s pelvises were crushed.

A growing chorus has condemned ignoring these crimes or even denying that they happened using the hashtag, "#Metoo_unless_UR_A_Jew."

If the crimes happened to anyone else in the world, women’s groups, human rights organizations, the UN, and others would be decrying it. But the silence to these crimes that depict a depraved pattern of sexual violence used by the terrorists against their victims, is criminal in of itself.

If Hamas’ goal was to murder as many as possible, how did the terrorists allow themselves to stop for a gang rape? How is rape in any way part of any “resistance” that Hamas claims and the Islamic world celebrates? How did those fighting for the “resistance” ever think this was acceptable? How could any one of the Islamic terrorists be aroused when inflicting such horrors, much less multiple gangs of them? The answer is simple. It was premeditated. It is inhuman evil Islam at its worst. It’s the marrying of worship of massacring Jews with the overall repression of women. It’s a marriage made in hell.

This inhuman behavior does not stop at the borders of Gaza. It is at the core of how the Iranian Islamic regime treats women, and which trickles down to other adherents of the “religion of peace.” This is documented widely, including in the book “A Love Journey With God” by my friend Marziyeh Amirizadeh. If not for public outcry after her arrest and death sentence for converting to Christianity in Iran, she’d likely have experienced much more of the suffering that many Iranian women who she knew in prison did, including the raping of virgins before they are executed as executing virgins goes against “Islamic values.”

The threat of raping Jewish women in support of Hamas’ inhuman behaviors also made it to the celebrated halls of Ivy League colleges. Last month, Patrick Dai, a junior at Cornell, was arrested on federal charges of posting threats to “kill or injure another using interstate communications.”

In public online posts, Dai threatened to "shoot up" a campus building targeting Jews, said he would "stab" or "slit the throat" of Jewish men, and rape or throw off a cliff Jewish women on campus.

Other than the threatening remarks being horrific enough, it’s impossible to imagine how anyone could allegedly advocate for the Palestinians in upstate New York by threatening to rape Jewish women. It’s obscene.

The raping of truth also comes from women who are charged with protecting women from sexual violence. The University of Alberta fired Samantha Pearson the head of the campus sexual assault center who signed an open letter denying Hamas terrorists raped women during the October 7 massacre. The letter censured Israel for repeating “the unverified accusation that Palestinians were guilty of sexual violence.”

“Naturally,” antisemites around the world, including women who would never question the allegations of rape by anyone else, are challenging the facts specifically because Israel is sharing these. Fortunately, non-Israelis have witnessed and reported on this reality. After witnessing the gruesome evidence of rape, filmed and broadcast by the terrorists themselves, journalist Jotam Confino wrote he saw, “Two dead women lying on the grass at musical festival – both with no pants on. One has her panties taken half off. The other doesn’t appear to have any on at all.

He saw an “eyewitness describing how she saw a woman being raped by several Hamas terrorists, pulling her hair as they raped her and took turns. One of them cut her breasts off – the others played with them like a toy. The last terrorist to rape her shot her in the head and continued to rape her until he finished.”

Most of the most horrific documentation has not been widely released out of respect for the victims, and because this is part of ongoing investigations and likely additional criminal charges. But the terrorists’ confessions alone are abundant.

One terrorist was asked during his interrogation: “And why take the kids and babies?” He replied, “To rape them.” Another terrorist also confirmed that babies were abducted and raped.

These captured terrorists were not acting as “freelancers.” There’s documented evidence of Hamas commanders issuing specific orders to the terrorists who perpetrated the massacres not only to kill and kidnap as many Jews as possible but to rape and sexually mutilate Israeli women.

In any other circumstances, where women ranging from babies to the elderly had been the victim of such ferocious, repeated sexual attacks, the #MeToo masses would have swung into full action. Yet that’s not happening. UN Women which published numerous articles decrying the situation of women in Gaza, has ignored crimes against Israeli women. There has not been any recognition of Israeli women who were burned alive, beheaded, raped, had their breasts cut off, had their babies cut out of their stomachs, or been violently kidnapped.

The silence of those who purport to fight sexual violence on behalf of all women everywhere has been deafening. It’s especially problematic in light of November 25 being the United Nations-designated International Day for the Prevention of Violence against Women.

Rape and sexual assault as a tactic in the context of terrorism and war is a war crime. The Geneva Convention requires “women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape or any form of indecent assault.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court states that “rape, sexual slavery, forced pregnancy, or any other form of sexual violence” is a crime against humanity.

In numerous previous wars, crimes against women were a cornerstone of international criminal indictments and prosecution of men responsible for orchestrating and participating in rape. Based on the silence of the world about these heinous Hamas crimes against women and girls, it is unimaginable that any special prosecutor will be enlisted to protect Israeli and Jewish women. The International Criminal Court has historically been so biased against Israel, as happens in many rape cases, it’s not impossible to see the ICC even blaming the victims. Maybe for dressing too provocatively.


Rita Panahi: Right moves show voters reject far-Left idealism

Argentina: Elections have consequences and after years of far-Left, Peronist rule Argentina is a country in crisis with the inflation rate hitting 143 per cent earlier this month. Argentina has gone from a wealthy nation with an enviable standard of living to one plunged into poverty and economic chaos.

This week, firebrand Javier Milei, a conservative, libertarian, vehemently anti-socialist, anti-woke anarcho-capitalist won the presidential election in a landslide.

The world’s media went into a predictable meltdown – similar to when Italy elected centre-Right Giorgia Meloni as prime minister last year – but Argentinians have finally woken up to the lunacy of watching close to half of the population living in poverty despite being blessed with abundant natural resources.

Milei is no milquetoast politician, he is an outsider who has been clear in his desire to tackle the bloated bureaucracy that has so poorly served the country. He understands the ideological battle in Argentina, and the broader West, is not limited to economic policy.

“You can’t give leftards an inch,” he said before the election. “If you give them an inch, they will use it to destroy you. You can’t negotiate with leftards … Since they can’t beat us with real arguments, they use the repressive apparatus of the state (to destroy us)”. And like Trump before him, despite being falsely labelled a fascist and Nazi, Milei is ardently pro-Israel and plans to move Argentina’s embassy to Jerusalem.

Time will tell if he delivers on the comprehensive reforms he has promised or whether the “apparatus of the state” frustrates his agenda.

Anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has won the most seats in the Dutch general election. Picture: AFP
Anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has won the most seats in the Dutch general election. Picture: AFP
The Netherlands: In the space of three days we’ve seen the triumph of the Argentinian Trump and the Dutch Trump. On Thursday anti-EU, right-wing populist Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party won the most seats in the Dutch general election.

Wilders, who wants a more restrictive immigration policy and an end to what he calls “the Islamisation” of the Netherlands is set to become the country’s first hard-Right prime minister.

“The people must get their nation back,” Wilders said.

He is likely to end the emissions war against Dutch farmers and walk away from many of the Netherlands’ destructive climate change policies.

From Italy to Sweden and Finland to stalwart Hungary and now the Netherlands, hard-line conservatives are winning elections across much of Europe. Meanwhile in the UK, the lily-livered, Malcolm Turnbull-esque Tories are trailing Labour in the polls.


Anarcho-Capitalism And Dr. Javier Milei

First Giorgia Meloni was elected prime minister of Italy. This despite the objections and smears of the self-important and seemingly all-powerful US Deep State and its Mockingbird press, which in the run up to the Italian general election had painted her as the second coming of Benito Mussolini

Never mind that the politics of the corporatist Deep State are a lot closer to Mussolini’s fascist vision than those of Meloni, who in the “real world” pragmatically governs from center-right – to the great disappointment of many on both sides of the spectrum.

In the current US corporate media-approved version of the political spectrum, the go-to political character assassination terms “Trump-like”, “alt right”, “far right”, fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi, and radical are all bundled up as synonyms, interchangeably and reflexively applied to anyone whose political beliefs are to the right of the modern embodiments of Marx and Engels’ version of socialism collectively referred to as “Woke” culture.

Each interchangeable term being repeatedly weaponized and launched in harmonized Qassam rocket barrages against non-sycophant independent thinkers, writers, politicians, scientists or physicians who refuse to contort their speech to fit the approved narratives, gender identifiers and pretzel logic of the Globalist oligarchy.

Unfortunately for those who maintain the thesaurus of approved “advocacy journalism” euphemisms, “anti-Semitic” has recently become both too inconvenient and too complicated, necessitating that it be struck from currently approved character assassination lexicon.

After decades of alternating corrupt mismanagement by the two entrenched traditional Argentine parties (Peronists vs Radicals), an academic economist of the Austrian school named Javier Milei has been elected President of Argentina, adding salt to the self-inflicted wounds of approved narrative defenders.

And once again, we are predictably being gifted with the usual stream of character assassination and hate speech from Deep State corporatist media lapdogs. My, how the Mockingbird does love to sing.

As with Meloni’s election, we have been treated to yet another peek at the Wizard behind the curtain playing his Mighty Wurlitzer. Labeling Javier Milei as a television personality, a common trope in both domestic and international corporate media, is a gross distortion of reality.

Why is Milei’s training in the Austrian School of economics relevant?

Because the economic logic of the Austrian School is based on strict adherence to the idea that social phenomena result exclusively from the motivations and actions of individuals. Austrian school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.

In other words, growth in the “wealth of nations” is the consequence of actions of the individuals which create value and wealth. The Austrian School emphasizes the importance of free markets, individualism, and minimal government intervention.

It should come as no surprise that Ayn Rand highly recommended the economic writings of the Austrian school, particularly those of Ludwig von Mises. Is this starting to make sense now?

In Ayn Rand’s literary metaphor of Galt’s Gulch, the productive have fled and formed their own community, where free-market principles prevail and those who are enterprising succeed without the need for government regulation.

“We are not a state here, not a society of any kind – we’re just a voluntary association of men held together by nothing but every man’s self-interest.

I own the valley and I sell the land to the others, when they want it. Judge Narragansett is to act as our arbiter, in case of disagreements.

He hasn’t had to be called upon, as yet. They say that it’s hard for men to agree.

You’d be surprised how easy it is – when both parties hold as their moral absolute that neither exists for the sake of the other and that reason is their only means of trade.” (Rand, 2007, p. 748)

Dr. Milei is basically an intellectual academic who became a truth warrior in response to the damage he saw being done to his country by a parasitic administrative state. In other words, he is yet another intellectual critic who is mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

He graduated with a degree in economics from the University of Belgrano, and continued on to obtain a masters degree and doctorate in economics from the Instituto de Desarrollo Economico y Social and Torcuato di Tella University.

For over twenty years he taught University-level courses in macroeconomics, economic growth, microeconomics, and mathematics for economists, and authored several books in economics and politics.

His signature presidential campaign rallying cry has been “Long live freedom, damn it!”, coupled with criticism of the “thieving and corrupt political class” of Argentina. Austrian school logic formulated as populism for the masses. Labeling Dr. Milei as Trump-like is clearly a gross oversimplification.

Don’t cry for Argentina, a once and future jewel and the second largest South American country, which is endowed with an embarrassment of natural resource wealth.

Which assets have been mismanaged for decades by a parasitic and dysfunctional government, resulting in widespread economic devastation. During the 19th century the country enjoyed an almost-unparalleled increase in prosperity, resulting in early 20th century Argentina becoming the seventh-wealthiest nation in the world.

In 1896, Argentina’s GDP per capita surpassed that of the United States, and the country was consistently in the global economic top ten until at least 1920.

Argentina remained among the fifteen richest countries until the meteoric mid-century rise to the Presidency of a previously unknown minor military leader named Juan Perón.

This political earthquake was followed by a cascade of bad management, political, social, and economic upheaval, USG meddling, and a notorious “dirty war” of the State against dissident citizens.

Now, after decades of high government spending and economic stagnation, despite abundant natural resources, Argentina has become one of the poorest countries in the world. A case study in how a prosperous modern economy can be strangled by an overbearing and corrupt administrative state bureaucracy. Sound familiar?

Dr. Javier Milei leads the “La Libertad Avanza” (Liberty Advances) coalition, and has vowed to “put an end to the parasitic and useless political caste that is destroying this country”.

His parties’ campaign has broken the mold of traditional Argentine politics by focusing heavily on social media, particularly TikTok and YouTube, where he developed a strong following among younger supporters. “Today, the reconstruction of Argentina begins” he confidently asserted, as historic election results poured in.

“Argentina’s situation is critical. The changes our country needs are drastic. There is no room for gradualism, no room for lukewarm measures.” “Argentina will return to the place in the world which it should never have lost.”

No wonder the US Deep State and it’s Mockingbird media are out to draw blood from this charismatic populist economist. One who dares to combine alternative social media presence with attacks on a parasitic and useless political caste.

The elite members of the Atlantic Council and the Council on Foreign Relations must be wetting themselves. Time to let slip the dogs of the censorship-industrial complex, and to watch the Wikipedia and Google ranking manipulation begin. Don’t forget the popcorn.

The truth is that they should be running for their stockpile of Depends. For Austrian school economist Milei self-identifies as an anarcho-capitalist. Not as a “Trump-like”, “alt right”, “far right”, fascist, libertarian, neo-Nazi radical.

As such, Milei happens to be at the leading edge of a growing contrarian intellectual movement which directly challenges the legitimacy of the administrative state.

One which has now grown to the point where it can no longer be dismissed as “a small minority opinion”, and has been catapulted onto the world stage by an independent Latin American nation with nothing to lose and everything to gain.


How on earth can the Black Death prove Britain was racist in the 14th century? That's the incendiary claim from the Museum of London

More pseudo-science in the service of Leftist racial hate

In a sick attempt to legitimise their Final Solution, Nazi 'doctors' in the 1930s and 40s would measure human skulls to try to prove the biological difference between Jews and non-Jews.

There was no scientific foundation for this revolting behaviour. How strange then that, almost a century on, self-professed 'anti-racist' academics are using methods that appear so similar.

This week, bizarre new research by the Museum of London sparked mockery and confusion after it concluded that black women were the group worst affected by the Black Death in 14th-century London.

It stated that their apparently inflated chances of death from plague were the result of the 'devastating effects' of 'pre-modern structural racism'.

Historians were outraged. One prominent academic described the findings as 'preposterous', while Minister for Women and Equalities Kemi Badenoch went as far as writing an open letter to the museum accusing it of 'whipping up tensions around history and racism'.

The research — which has not yet been made public — took remains from 145 people buried at three known plague cemeteries in London.

Of these, 49 died from plague and 96 from 'other causes'. It drew its conclusions seemingly from finding that nine of the people who died of plague 'appeared' to be of African heritage, while 40 seemed to be white, making 18 per cent of plague victims black.

Among those who died from other causes, eight were deemed to be black and 88 white, making only eight per cent black.

It thus concluded there were significantly higher proportions of 'people of colour and those of Black African descent' in plague burials compared to regular graveyards, leading the researchers to conclude that black people were more likely to die of the plague.

So what is the truth? Is it really possible to deduce from a tiny sample that black people were more susceptible to the disease?

Let us look first at the immigrant population of 14th-century London. Dr Joseph Hefner, one of the authors of the report, claims in a convoluted metaphor: 'This research takes a deep dive into previous thinking about population diversity in medieval England.'

The obvious trouble here is that Hefner has not yet publicly elaborated on how 'diverse' England was back then.

Records contain the names of 65,000 immigrants resident in England between 1330 and 1550. In the year 1440, the names of 14,500 foreigners were recorded, among a general population of approximately two million.

The overwhelming majority of these immigrants, however, were simply from other parts of the British Isles, including Scotland, Ireland and the Channel Islands. Others hailed from European nations such as Portugal, Sweden, Greece and Iceland.

There were certainly people of African descent living here — often referred to in historic records under the catch-all terms of 'blackamoor' or 'Ethiopian'.

One black man, known as Bartholomew, lived in Nottingham in the 13th century, and is mentioned in the 'Pipe Roll' of 1259, a financial record kept by the Exchequer. But it's challenging, if not impossible, to pinpoint an exact number of black people living in London, as such records barely exist.

One author of the Museum of London research has even admitted: 'We have no primary written sources from people of colour and those of black African descent during the Great Pestilence of the 14th century.'

Indeed, one record for the tiny parish of St Botolph without Aldgate, located within the City of London, shows there were just 25 black people living there. They were servants, traders and free or enslaved people from Spanish warships.

But that record is for the 16th century, some 200 years after the Black Death, and there is little other evidence available.

Given such tiny numbers and insignificant records, the burden of proof that these researchers must show to justify what appears to be their theory of racism is extremely high. The truth is that the actual numbers of black people living in London during the 14th century was likely to be vanishingly small.

Yet, here we come to the second issue with the report — its deeply questionable methods of research. It's worth noting that the authors of the study stressed that their methods were significantly more advanced than controversial 'cranial measuring' methods — such as those employed by the Nazis on Jews.

Whatever the truth, claims about the ancestry of the plague victims were made by examining the skull features and bones that made up the faces and by comparing them to modern populations.

But as David Abulafia, Professor of Mediterranean History at the University of Cambridge, explains, 'all sorts of factors' impact bone development, including diet and puberty. Ethnic origin is thereby difficult to determine. What's more, previous research into plague victims has shown that comparing bone structures of our medieval forebears to our own is redundant, as modern faces are significantly different.

Dr Peter Rock, who led research into the way the shape of the human skull has changed over the centuries, has described the differences between modern and medieval features as 'striking'.

Only this year, there was embarrasment when the BBC had to remove a plaque in East Sussex that claimed an ancient skeleton known as 'Beachy Head Lady', dating from the Roman period, was the first known person of sub-Saharan origin in Britain. This conclusion was reached by scientists who — you guessed it — had measured her skull.

DNA analysis would soon establish that the woman was far more likely to be of Southern European origin, possibly Cyprus.

This did not stop the Museum of London researchers from using comparable methods, concluding that the apparently inflated death rate among black people during the plague was the result of 'devastating structural racism'.

Given that England in the medieval period was a feudal society, hardship was widespread, regardless of ethnic background. But the researchers have not indicated how they distinguished between the impact of poverty and nutrition on facial structures and the impact of race.

Richard Landes, an expert in medieval history and former professor of history at Boston University, described the Museum of London findings as 'theory over data' and 'a weaponised combination of post-colonial and critical race theory' developed in the States.

'Applying [these theories] to medieval Britain and using tiny, questionable numbers to somehow imply that the Brits in the 14th century were racist is silly,' he said.

Professor Abulafia echoed these sentiments, dismissing the claims as an attempt to 'rewrite the past', asserting that 'nowadays, the idea that we have to reinterpret the past in light of our concerns about equality, diversity and inclusion risks rewriting the past to fit in with contemporary ideologies'.

Rather than examining the facts, he warned, we're creating a case of 'my history versus your history'.

One absurd example of how contemporary comparisons were drawn by researchers came from Dr Rebecca Redfern, who worked on the report. 'As with the recent Covid-19 pandemic,' she told the BBC, 'social and economic environment played a significant role in people's health and this is most likely why we find more people of colour and those of black African descent in plague burials.'

This tenuous connection with the most recent pandemic incensed Kemi Badenoch.

She pointed out in her letter to the museum that government research into disparities in Covid infections among ethnic minority groups found that 'socio-economic factors, such as occupation, household composition and location were the real drivers behind higher rates of infection, and not racism'.

She added: 'In fact, the latest ONS data showed that females in the black African group had lower Covid rates than their white British counterparts — as did black African and black Caribbean men — during the Omicron period of the pandemic.'

Dr John Reeks, a lecturer in Early Modern History at Bristol University, also cautioned against making such direct links with present challenges. He said: 'The small sample size makes it very difficult to extract general lessons about things like social and economic status or health, or to draw comparisons to modern pandemics, such as Covid-19'.

The sad fact is, it seems Museum of London researchers have been desperately trying to push their narrative for some time, but until now had failed to find 'evidence' of discrimination. In 2019, when researching medieval remains recovered from plague burials, once again they took various skull measurements and compared these to modern-day human data to determine ethnicity.

However, they were then forced to admit that 'when [they] looked at how the skeletons were buried at East Smithfield, [they] found that none of the plague victims with Black African or mixed heritage had been maltreated as you might expect to see in a population group that might have suffered from discrimination.'

Perhaps this lack of evidence for racism in earlier research spurred the researchers to dig deeper in the hope of finding some.

Whatever the case, so excited was the BBC by the new findings that it shared details of the report on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Its post has been viewed nearly eight million times and received almost 6,000 comments — yet, predictably, the Corporation has so far failed to acknowledge the backlash and concern voiced about it by academics and the public.

The post, which includes a link to an article on the study, received a Community Note (context or clarifications provided by other X users) around 24 hours after it was first published. The note read: 'A previous study 'failed to identify any health disparities'. The current unpublished research found 9/49 of plague burials and 8/96 non-plague burials had African cranial measurements.This is not a statistically significant difference, even without cluster effects.'

The Community Note system only allows a note to be published on a post if people from varied political sides and opinions concur that the note adds something worthwhile to the post, or misses other serious context.

It is a sad testament to the state of academic research and to the BBC when ordinary Twitter users are better able to decipher the facts than our institutions.




Sunday, November 26, 2023

‘I could have gone blind if I hadn’t been able to go private’

image from

This is very common with governent heathcare but this instance from Britain is particularly disturbing. It's a bit better in Australia. Once you get into a government hospital the treatment is very good. But the waiting list to get in can be very long, several weeks at least. No good for anything urgent.

When her sight started to blur in one eye, Marianne Jones wasn’t too worried – but what happened next was terrifying and exposes the broken state of an NHS system failing millions of patients every day

Marianne Jones had always been short-sighted but, when her eyesight began to fail, she was facing a terrifying choice – pay now or pay with her sight later

It was three days before my silver wedding anniversary holiday that I booked an optician’s appointment to check out my suddenly blurry right eye.

For days previously, all I could see were wavy lines, distorted faces and floating blobs. I’ve been extremely short-sighted since I was a teenager (my nickname is Mr Magoo) and have check-ups more regularly than most. So, I was concerned but not overly so, putting my eye problems down to the strain of staring at the computer for too long. Still, I wanted to put my mind at rest before heading off for a 12-hour flight to Mauritius, for a celebration we’d saved long and hard for.

I hadn’t planned for the potential dire consequences of my symptoms, or the very British drama that came next. One hour later, on a Friday afternoon, the optician studied a scan of my problematic eye and declared I needed emergency treatment for what appeared to be fluid leaking into my retina.

I was told to head to the A&E department at Moorfields NHS Eye Hospital in London, as soon as possible. “You never know, they might treat you straight away,” my optician offered, not very convincingly.

I fear he knew what was coming. I arrived at Moorfields bright and early the next day as an emergency out-patient. A kind security guard pointed out the reception area, where I fumbled with the paperwork and tried to return it through the wrong gap. By now I could only make out dark shapes through my bad eye and even putting one foot in front of the other was disconcerting. I was nauseous, disorientated and alone, my husband having driven to the Midlands the previous morning to drop off our dog with relatives.

There was already a queue, but not a huge one. After handing in my “cheese counter” numbered ticket, I joined a row of other patients on plastic chairs. One woman was sobbing, her husband with his arms around her, another couldn’t open her eyes and had to be led around by the professional but harried staff who looked like they hadn’t sat down in a long time.

Two sets of tests and three hours later, I was ushered into a tiny, blue-curtained booth, where a registrar told me that I had a condition called Myopic CNV, brought on by my short-sightedness and resulting in blood vessels growing where they shouldn’t and leaking into my retina. It’s not common and it is very serious. The treatment – an injection into the eye – took seconds, was easy to administer and had a high success rate. But speed was of the essence and I was already approaching the danger zone.

I kept hearing the words “urgent” and “emergency” and it suddenly occurred to me that I was in real danger of losing my sight.

I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye

A member of staff was dispatched to find the next available slot for treatment. Naively, I presumed it would happen that same day, but she returned to report that the next emergency NHS appointment at Moorfields was in three weeks’ time.

The registrar said what I was thinking: “That’s too late”, and picked up the phone to call hospitals nearer to my home in Kent (I’d chosen Moorfields that day because it was the easiest hospital to get to on public transport). Eventually, she reached a registrar at the ophthalmology department of Queen Mary’s Hospital in Sidcup. More “urgents” were used and I was put into their system. I asked how soon the hospital might contact me, the registrar hoped it would be soon but gave me the phone number to write down. I must call them first thing Monday morning, she told me. I thought it was odd to be asked to chase up my own emergency referral, but sensed that she had been here before.

My worried husband and delighted dog arrived back home that night to find me in a state of panic, the sight in my eye having become progressively worse. I wasn’t in pain but could see almost nothing but dark shapes. After two sleepless nights and the day I should have been jetting off to the sun, I shakily called the hospital phone number. Over the next two hours, I repeated this dozens of times, but the line simply rang out before cutting me off.

The craziness of being unable to contact the hospital I’d been told to chase so that I didn’t go blind, led to us quickly making the decision to go private. I simply wasn’t prepared to play Russian roulette with my eyesight.

I called Moorfields – this time its private wing. They answered straight away. The price of the consultation, scan and one injection came to £2,799. I could be seen immediately. So, that lunchtime I had the surreal experience of walking past the A&E department where I’d been 48 hours earlier and round the corner to its private hospital, with shiny sofas, vases of hydrangeas and serene staff who had time to chat about their weekend.

Within the hour I’d been talked to, examined and scanned by a consultant who also worked over the road at the NHS hospital. He told me he needed to treat me immediately. I was too shocked to feel squeamish as he led me to a surgery room and injected medication into my eye to help restore my vision (you’re awake but anaesthetic drops mean it isn’t painful).

For a perverse crumb of comfort, I asked him what would have happened had I gone on holiday and taken my chances with the NHS appointment. He informed me that, in his opinion, my eye condition was so severe that had I left it another week there was a 30 per cent chance of me losing the sight altogether, a statistic that increased with every passing day. I’m almost certain that, had I waited the full three weeks, I would now be blind in one eye.

I have now become just another statistic, with four in five high street optometrists saying their patients have paid for private procedures in the past six months. There are about 640,000 people waiting for an NHS ophthalmology appointment, more than any other speciality – accounting for roughly one in 11 people on a waiting list of a record-high 7.8 million people. Being told an easy treatment was effectively out of my reach unless I paid for it, brought home that our NHS is not only broken, but shattered and in tiny pieces on the floor.

Two days before my sudden visit to Moorfields, prime minister Rishi Sunak walked through its doors to learn about the research being carried out in the world of artificial intelligence. I couldn’t help but wonder whether the real-world problem of humans not receiving urgent treatment in time was discussed.

I walked out of there almost £3,000 lighter, but not blind. Three weeks on I have still heard nothing from the hospital in Sidcup and wonder if I ever will. I’m now back in the NHS system and have been referred to a different hospital for a follow-up appointment. My condition is one that will need regular monitoring, quite possibly for the rest of my life and I couldn’t possibly fund this privately even if I wanted to. I frequently think about those other distressed souls that I shared the emergency waiting room with a few weekends ago. How many of them had savings to raid or a supportive family to offer help? I wonder which of them needed emergency treatment that day to save their sight and who was offered the appointment that I turned down. The one that quite possibly came too late.


Why are young people pro-Palestine?

One of the most alarming developments of recent months is the realisation that not only is antisemitism on the rise, but that young people in the West think that it’s somehow or other justified.

Unfortunately, one doesn’t have to look far to understand why this is happening. For the Western Education system is increasingly being highjacked by political activists. For example, James Morrow, writing in The Daily Telegraph recently reported:

Parents have described themselves as ‘disheartened’ by an attempt by a group of activist teachers to promote a one sided view of the Israel-Hamas conflict in classroom.
The group, calling itself Teachers 4 Palestine, has through its social media accounts accused Israel of ‘genocide’ online while encouraging teachers to ‘light up our schools for Palestine’.

The group not only encourages students to skip school for a planned unauthorised protest on Friday, but also tells teachers to ‘wear Khaffiyehs’, ‘Palestine badges’, and ‘make Palestine visible in our schools’ by, for example, taking group photos with pro-Palestine signs.

Consistent with the tactics of Hamas, pro-Palestinian protestors are using children as human shields to defend their actions. Note how children were present at the recent unauthorised rally in Port Botany, while at the same time then blaming the police for their ‘thuggery’ at upholding the law.

In a far-reaching interview with John Anderson – the former Deputy Prime Minister of Australia – distinguished historian and author, Niall Ferguson, makes the following cogent observation:

I think the strange thing about all of this is the generational divide that’s opened up. It’s very remarkable if you look at polling in the United States, Britain, or Continental Europe, that older people strongly sympathise with Israel and younger people strongly sympathise with the Palestinians. In fact, the youngest group surveyed – 18 to 24 in the US and in the UK – is strongly anti-Israel, and pro-Palestinian.

And that’s why when you look at the protests that you see in support of the Palestinians, they are very youthful when you look closely. And I think there’s a very good reason for this, and it’s an extremely important point which some of us have been making for years. It’s that the universities – and to an extent the schools too – have been systematically infiltrated by propagandists in favour of Islamism and anti-Zionism.

And we are now reaping the harvest of allowing the infiltration of higher education by radical leftists and Islamists. That’s the best explanation I think for this generational divide. It’s not just that the passage of time has dampened public sympathy for Israel. I think it’s something much more sinister than that.

Ferguson argues that the new current generation of leftists are different to their classic liberal forebears, and that there is even a ‘strange unholy alliance’ between Islamists and radical leftists who are both completely obsessed with identity politics. As Ferguson explains:

I think what has happened is there has been an unwitting, leftwards lurch. Liberals of the 1968 era, the anti-Vietnam types, thought when they saw the radicals of the next generation that they were seeing of themselves. Ah yes, to be young and radical again. And they appointed people who were far to the left of those anti-Vietnam liberals.

And one obvious distinction is, those anti-Vietnam liberals were at least in favour of free speech. But the new generation of leftists are not liberal at all. They’re totally against free speech. Nor are they secular. They’re highly susceptible to the Islamist arguments, which is remarkable when you consider some of the other things that they believe.

They passionately believe in LGBTIQ+ rights. They passionately believe that there are fifty-five genders … this is what is so bizarre about this coalition which has formed. It’s a strange unholy alliance between Islamists and radical leftists, completely obsessed with identity politics.

So obsessed with identity politics that they don’t recognise that the Palestinians are not just another minority like the transgender rights activists, but are really part of a globalist movement which is profoundly hostile to all the things that they care about, particularly when it comes to gender.

It’s a very strange – and I think unintended – consequence of the penchant liberal professors have to hire people further to the left of themselves.

This also goes a long way to explaining why so many young people are questioning whether Osama Bin Laden’s actions on September 11, 2001 were in fact, justified. It’s because their whole lens for viewing the world is that of oppressors and victims. Of those who have power and those who do not.

This powerful – but also poisonous – philosophical paradigm is why the younger generation today is coming to a profoundly different position regarding Palestine. What should be condemned is now celebrated. What should be denounced is now defended. And the reason why that is so is because that is how they’ve been taught to think.


Why Radicals Want to Sully Thanksgiving

Gratitude is peculiarly conservative. Leftism is anger, which is the opposite of gratitude

If you ask many people what Thanksgiving is about, they will provide an honest and accurate response: family and gratitude. And here we see why some radicals want to sully a unifying and wholesome holiday like Thanksgiving. Doing so taints a family occasion and promotes ingratitude, which helps undermine the American character.

So it’s easy to see why they’re targeting a holiday centered around the family. As Pope St. John Paul II wrote, “The future of humanity passes by way of the family.” Through the sacrament of marriage, men and women learn from one another, and the character of children is formed within the family. These are the bonds that root the individual and offer purpose.

Families are built around the small moments and the deliberate protection of those moments: of making time to read to children at bedtime and having a standing tradition of sharing a meal together amid the busyness of everyday life. Thanksgiving is naturally a precious occasion and is often a connecting point enveloping multiple generations.

The attack on gratitude is just as serious. Like forgiveness, gratitude is a choice, not grounded in naiveite or ignorance. Both forgiveness and gratitude require a confronting of wrongdoing, followed by a decision to dwell in the good rather than the bad.

Sometimes, like forgiveness, gratitude is difficult. Sadness and negativity have a way of lingering like unwanted guests. Those who, through habituation and resolve, have inculcated gratitude in their character, even amid the most devastating of life’s circumstances, arrest our attention the way virtue and fortitude tend to do.

Fostering gratitude is beneficial for the individual as well as for the nation. This republic we now seek to repair and maintain has always depended on a virtuous citizenry. That requires strength—and a gracious people is a strong people.

What is the intention of those who would deprive the American people of the spirit of thanksgiving, by sowing discord and inserting partisan politics into every aspect of the American way of life, by claiming that reflections on the American heritage should inspire nothing but shame and resentment? Are we to expect such assaults on the dignity of the individual to have no effect on the dignity of the nation?

While habituating gratitude on the individual level is an act of will and practice, doing so as Americans is aided through the study of history. We see in primary documents evidence that the founding generation strove to establish a wonderful continuity of gratitude and obligation that would form a single people. In the 1774 Suffolk Resolves, they declared,

That it is an indispensable Duty which we owe to GOD, our Country, Ourselves and Posterity, by all lawful Ways and Means in our Power, to maintain, defend and preserve those civil and religious Rights and Liberties for which many of our Fathers fought—bled—and died; and to hand them down entire to future Generations.

The debt of honor began with the men and women of the Revolution who, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, laid “so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.” And it extends forward to posterity, as an invitation to join in the great project of preserving the experiment in self-government.

The most appropriate response to such a debt is not a material offering, as it itself is not a material gift. It is a gift of character, and we respond with the dedication of our very person.

Like others, Lincoln knew that the memories of the deeds of the Revolution would fade as new Americans were born and journeyed to become possessed by the land. Along with that fading could come the fraying of Americans’ binding gratitude. Fortunately, common history is not all that ties us together. For,

when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, and so they are.

What a wonderful thought to linger on this Thanksgiving.


The Christophobic ‘Wall of Separation’

Leftists only care about the Constitution when they’re defending what’s not in it.

That’s our takeaway from the latest flap over House Speaker Mike Johnson. We wrote a couple of weeks ago about Johnson and leftist Christophobia — the affliction that renders sufferers incapable of tolerating anyone who espouses patriotism and Biblical faithfulness. This was again on full display after Johnson made comments that left journalists in triggered hysterics.

Appearing on CNBC yesterday, Johnson was asked about praying on the House floor the day he was elected speaker, which his interlocutor said provoked a “question about the separation of church and state” and public perception about the whole episode. (Translation: I don’t like what you did, so explain yourself.)

Johnson’s reply, in which he even accurately quoted our Founders from memory, was a brief and incredible history lesson that every American should hear, so we’ll quote him in full:

Listen, faith, our deep religious heritage and tradition, is a big part of what it means to be an American. When the Founders set this system up, they wanted a vibrant expression of faith in the public square because they believed that a general moral consensus and virtue was necessary to maintain this grand experiment in self-governance that we created — a government of, by, and for the people. We don’t have a king in charge, we don’t have a middle man, so we’ve got to keep morality amongst us, so that we have accountability. And so they wanted faith to be a big part of that.

The separation of church and state is a misnomer. People misunderstand it. Of course, it comes from a phrase that was in a letter that [Thomas] Jefferson wrote [to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802]. It’s not in the Constitution. And what he was explaining is, they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn’t want principles of faith to have influence on our public life. It was exactly the opposite.

[George] Washington said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.” And John Adams came next and he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

They knew that it would be important to maintain our system, and that’s why I think we need more of that — not an establishment of any national religion, but we need everybody’s vibrant expression of faith because it’s such an important part of who we are as a nation.

If members of Congress understood history and faith half as well as Johnson just articulated, we wouldn’t be facing most of the issues we do as a nation. If children in our public schools learned that instead of divisive critical race theory or family-destroying gender-confusion, our culture wouldn’t be falling apart at the seams.

Unfortunately, there was predictable outrage among ignorant journalists over Johnson’s comments.

Media outlets didn’t, of course, explain that Johnson is right about the “wall of separation.” Though NBC News did concede that “it is technically true that the words ‘separation of church and state’ are not written in the Constitution,” its story went on to insist that unnamed “legal scholars” believe the doctrine is key to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Our Mark Alexander debunked that myth way back in 2005.

Instead of the truth, other headlines across the board treated separation as if it’s a constitutionally settled doctrine, which, again, it’s not. They decried that Johnson called it “a misnomer.”

For good measure, the UK’s Guardian added a subtitle with what the paper obviously considers a smear: “Christian nationalist House speaker bemoans ‘misunderstanding’ of one of US’s founding principles.”

Correction: Johnson was articulating one of America’s founding principles.

Taxpayer-funded NPR might take the cake, however. In a related hit piece, it headlined about “Speaker Johnson’s close ties to Christian right — both mainstream and fringe.” The story delves immediately into a pastor who a quoted “expert” claims helped “organize Christians for January 6th.”

Indeed, NPR proceeds to warn, Johnson and this “network of religious leaders who have advocated to end or weaken the separation of church and state” are a threat to democracy. “Taken to its extreme — as it was by some adherents on Jan. 6 — it embraces anti-democratic means to achieve their end.”

Your tax dollars at work.

This hyperventilating about Johnson is really quite something to behold. This “mastermind of the January 6 plot” is also a “theocrat” who poses a “threat to democracy.” Why, you’d almost think that authoritarian abortion zealots like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are the real Christians.

Time will certainly tell what kind of leader Johnson will be, but it speaks volumes that the Christophobic media is waging a shock and awe campaign to utterly discredit him. When it aids their cause, they’ll espouse and exploit historical ignorance about “separation of church and state” to scare people about a fundamentally decent man. ?


'Dutch Trump' Geert Wilders shocks Netherlands with huge election win

The Netherlands has a lot of poor immigrants who live permanently on welfare payments. That jars on the hard-working Dutch. And the sheer numbers of "asylum-seekers" arriving is very disruptive

Far-right firebrand politician Geert Wilders has won a 'monster victory' in yesterday's Dutch general election that has shaken the Netherlands and Europe.

The 60-year-old - who is anti-Islam, known as the 'Dutch Trump' and was once turned away from Britain's Heathrow airport for being too extreme, now faces an uphill struggle today to woo rivals to form a coalition government in parliament.

His populist PVV (Freedom Party) won 37 seats, more than doubling his share from the last election and outstripping opponents, according to near complete results.

A left-wing bloc trailed far behind on 25 seats, with the centre-right VVD on 24 - a catastrophic result for the party of outgoing Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

The result puts Wilders in line to lead talks to form a new ruling coalition in the country's 150-seat parliament, and possibly become the country's first hard-right prime minister at a time of political upheaval through much of the continent.

'I had to pinch my arm,' a jubilant Wilders said. Addressing cheering supporters in The Hague after exit polls, he doubled down on his anti-immigrant rhetoric, saying the Dutch had voted to stem the 'tsunami' of asylum-seekers.

'The PVV can no longer be ignored,' he cried, urging other parties to do a deal.

The unexpected landslide win prompted immediate congratulations from fellow far-right leaders in France and Hungary but will likely raise fears in Brussels - Wilders is anti-EU and wants a vote on a 'Nexit' to leave the bloc.

Hungary's nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban hailed 'winds of change' after the exit poll, while France's Marine Le Pen cheered his 'spectacular performance.'

Although he softened his anti-Islam rhetoric during the campaign, the PVV programme pledges a ban on the Koran, mosques and Islamic headscarves and Muslim community leaders in the Netherlands were quick to voice concern.

In his first reaction, posted in a video on social media, Wilders spread his arms wide, put his face in his hands and said simply '35!' - the number of seats an exit poll forecast his Party for Freedom, or PVV, won. The number has since risen to 37.

But as of Thursday morning, it is not clear how he can scrape together the 76 seats he needs for a majority in the 150-seat parliament.

Former European Commissioner Frans Timmermans, whose Green/Labour bloc came in second, immediately ruled out cooperation, saying it was now their job to 'defend democracy' in the country.

Anti-corruption champion Pieter Omtzigt, whose New Social Contract party scored 20 seats, seems certain to play a role and indicated he was 'available' for talks, but admitted they wouldn't be easy.

Dilan Yesilgoz, who led the centre-right VVD to a disappointing 24 seats, was coy on election night, saying Wilders would have to see if he can forge a coalition.

She first opened the door to Wilders joining a VVD-led government but has stressed she would not serve under him.

Diederick van Wijk from the Clingendael Institute told AFP news agency the Netherlands was now in 'uncharted territory' after the 'landslide victory' of Wilders.

'A Prime Minister Wilders could be within reach,' he said.

Dutch media were left agog by the margin of Wilders' victory.

'No one expected this, not even the winner himself,' said the Trouw daily.

Even the usually unexcitable NOS public broadcaster called it a 'monster victory', a phrase that featured in several media.

The Financieele Dagblad said the result 'turns politics in The Hague on its head' while the NRC daily describes it as a 'right-wing populist revolt that will shake the Binnenhof to its foundations', referring to the government quarter in The Hague.

Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the west, but during his campaign sought to tone down his message, saying he could put some of his more strident views on Islam 'in the freezer'.

He stressed he would be prime minister for everyone 'regardless of their religion, background, sex or whatever', and insisted the ongoing cost-of-living crisis was a bigger priority. But his opponents allege his PVV manifesto tells a different story.

Wilders is known as the 'Dutch Trump', partly for his swept-back dyed hairstyle that resembles the former US president, but also for his rants against immigrants and Muslims.

From calling Moroccans 'scum' to holding competitions for cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, Wilders has built a career from his self-appointed mission to stop an 'Islamic invasion' of the West.